Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 01:02:27 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 99 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 820677 times)
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: December 28, 2003, 04:33:56 pm »

Yes, explode at Realpolitik.  I already asked him for a link.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,567


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: December 28, 2003, 04:36:22 pm »


Ah. I get it.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: December 28, 2003, 04:37:24 pm »

Lets' see if agcat gets it.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: December 28, 2003, 04:39:18 pm »

I just reread my thread in search of the "explosion" and still couldn't find what the hell you are talking about.

However, I'll be anxiously awaiting that link.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: December 28, 2003, 04:41:16 pm »

No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,567


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: December 28, 2003, 04:43:29 pm »

No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: December 28, 2003, 04:44:49 pm »

I don't understand what you are trying to say, Gustaf.  
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: December 28, 2003, 04:45:18 pm »

No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: December 28, 2003, 04:47:31 pm »

No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: December 28, 2003, 04:47:51 pm »

Move on.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: December 28, 2003, 04:53:33 pm »
« Edited: December 28, 2003, 04:53:55 pm by Miamiu1027 »

Agreed.  We will move on.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,567


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: December 28, 2003, 04:53:56 pm »

No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.

I got confused. I didn't recognise the word explode when Agcat introduced it. Then I found it in your post. So I thought that was what you were trying to show and...whatever, never mind...
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: December 28, 2003, 04:57:41 pm »

HUH???
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,567


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: December 28, 2003, 05:05:18 pm »


You used explode. Agcat posted "explode?". I didn't get where he had gotten explode from. Then I saw that you had written it down. Then I mixed up his misunderstanding with mine, so I thought you were going to show him when explode was posted first but you didn't. OK? I am tired and thick. Let's move on...
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: December 28, 2003, 05:05:36 pm »
« Edited: December 28, 2003, 05:06:46 pm by Demrepdan »

No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.

I got confused. I didn't recognise the word explode when Agcat introduced it. Then I found it in your post. So I thought that was what you were trying to show and...whatever, never mind...

lol...oh boy...lets just...pretend like it never happend. Nothing was ever said about exploding...back to where we were before all this confusion. Where were we anyway?
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: December 28, 2003, 05:07:06 pm »

We were....
Realpolitik is supposed to be posting a link to a poll that shows Bush at a 49% re-elect # in the deep south.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,787
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: December 28, 2003, 05:16:07 pm »


Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?

Accurate polls must gauge the probability that a person will actually vote, and discount the opinions of those unlikely to vote.  People can be asked if they plan to vote, but they may not answer truthfully.  They can also be asked if they voted in the last election, or if they are even registered.  Statistically, adjustments can be made to determine voting likelihood, and discounting the opinions of those unlikely to vote.

As far as the undecideds go, they are also a problem, so certain assumptions have to be made there too, depending upon how far away the election is.  Generally speaking, voters who are undecided close to the election will probably break in favor of the challenger rather than the incumbent, since being undecided that late implies reservations about the incumbent.  In addition, other questions can be asked to determine the direction in which the voter is likely to lean.

It's true that Republicans generally have a better turnout than Democrats because their voters are generally more motivated.  But it may not be as true as it used to be.

I think I get your point about needing 35-40% of the electorate to win.  The actual number is lower, given our low voter turnout.  But I don't think it can be looked at that way for the reason you mentioned -- the people you count on to vote for your candidate must turn out.  So I think the only way to look at it is in terms of likely voters.

All these complications point out why it's so difficult to accurately predict winners in elections.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,567


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: December 28, 2003, 05:22:31 pm »


Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?

Accurate polls must gauge the probability that a person will actually vote, and discount the opinions of those unlikely to vote.  People can be asked if they plan to vote, but they may not answer truthfully.  They can also be asked if they voted in the last election, or if they are even registered.  Statistically, adjustments can be made to determine voting likelihood, and discounting the opinions of those unlikely to vote.

As far as the undecideds go, they are also a problem, so certain assumptions have to be made there too, depending upon how far away the election is.  Generally speaking, voters who are undecided close to the election will probably break in favor of the challenger rather than the incumbent, since being undecided that late implies reservations about the incumbent.  In addition, other questions can be asked to determine the direction in which the voter is likely to lean.

It's true that Republicans generally have a better turnout than Democrats because their voters are generally more motivated.  But it may not be as true as it used to be.

I think I get your point about needing 35-40% of the electorate to win.  The actual number is lower, given our low voter turnout.  But I don't think it can be looked at that way for the reason you mentioned -- the people you count on to vote for your candidate must turn out.  So I think the only way to look at it is in terms of likely voters.

All these complications point out why it's so difficult to accurately predict winners in elections.

I know that in Sweden attempts to predict elections based on likeliness of people voting failed miserably. They actually gave worse results than those ignoring turn-out. This happened both before our last election when the right was boosted in the polls due to higher turn-out, which didn't materailze on election day, and in our referendum, where everyone thought the yes-side would do better than the polls b/c they were showned to ave higher turn-out, but they actually did worse.  

I'm not an expert but these things are really hard to predict.
Logged
DarthKosh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: December 28, 2003, 06:25:44 pm »

Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: December 28, 2003, 06:38:38 pm »

Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Riiight.....
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: December 28, 2003, 06:50:46 pm »

I don't know about hate, but it sure is not a responsible position for the President of the United States to take.

Pretty academic though.  Dean is never going to make it to the White House -  unless he takes the tour.  I hear it's pretty good.
Logged
DarthKosh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: December 28, 2003, 06:51:04 pm »

Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Riiight.....

What i understand from listening to him that he would rather negotiate why the city is burning then fight.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: December 28, 2003, 06:55:22 pm »

I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.
Logged
DarthKosh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: December 28, 2003, 06:56:26 pm »

I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.

That is a leftist position.  I said it before it may work in the primaries but not in the general.
Logged
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,742


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: December 28, 2003, 06:57:13 pm »

That's why he needs to sign up for the White House tour.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 99 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC