The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DaNewAgeViking -> The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 12:49:57 PM)

It seems Romney's convention speech didn't help much after all.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/03/13638602-poll-romneys-convention-speech-gets-low-marks?lite

[sm=dunno.gif]




FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 1:15:20 PM)

You know you will hear that this is a meaningless statistic, right?
Though it's really just reflective of the fact that his speech "was neither excellent nor good".




slvemike4u -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 1:29:00 PM)

Well golly gee,he was upstaged by an old man talking to an empty chair.
Sort of screwed before he started,add to that thai this is Mitt we are talking about,the man is as warm as an iceberg....he is incapable of soaring oratory.




mirror88 -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 1:37:43 PM)

the big test is two weeks after the conventions, when 'bounces' are over, and in theory, the least disinterested have become informed consumers. IRL half the people wont vote. 70% register, and of those, 70% vote.





FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 1:40:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Well golly gee,he was upstaged by an old man talking to an empty chair.
Sort of screwed before he started,add to that thai this is Mitt we are talking about,the man is as warm as an iceberg....he is incapable of soaring oratory.


I have my doubts Mitt will ever resonate with the middle class in time for it to mean much. Your iceberg imagery is very adept.




mnottertail -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 1:42:52 PM)

In a presidential election its been running about 56 percent, so  more like 75% of 75%, or 80% of 70%.

The number that represents is significant.     




FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 1:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mirror88

the big test is two weeks after the conventions, when 'bounces' are over, and in theory, the least disinterested have become informed consumers. IRL half the people wont vote. 70% register, and of those, 70% vote.




In that case, mty question about Mitt's two week honeymoon would be:
"What Bounce"?




Winterapple -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 7:15:32 PM)

Both parties usually get some degree of bounce
after their conventions because the
conventions are basically week long
commercials.

Mitt gave a good speech not a great or
powerful one but good. The film that
they showed to personalize him could
be effective with some undecideds.

But Mitt was upstaged by Rubio and
Clint. The effective parts of his speech
aren't what people are talking about.
No one is really taking about his speech
or Mitt at all.




Musicmystery -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 7:24:52 PM)

He did get a bounce, from 46 - 43 in favor of Obama to 45 all. Not a great bounce, up to even, but a bounce.

People on both sides gloating over leads of a few points are fooling themselves. This is a close election, and we won't know who won until Election Night.




Winterapple -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 7:36:10 PM)

The debates might have some influence.
I agree it's close and turn out on both
sides is going to factor heavily.




PeonForHer -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 7:42:05 PM)

You know, I can't help feeling that he could raise the GOP's showing in the polls a percentile just by sorting out whatever is wrong with his damned collars. I don't know what it is - maybe he needs to go up a collar size with his shirts. Or wear shirts whose collars are designed to be done up somewhere *below* eyebrow level. Whatever: the man just looks strange around the neck area.




TheHeretic -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 8:07:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This is a close election, and we won't know who won until Election Night.



If we are lucky, Muse.  It hasn't been all that long since we didn't know for weeks.

You may be exactly right, but I hope for the sake of the country for the next four years that we get a clear victory, either way.

If voters make their choice on the economy, then all Mitt Romney needs to be is bland and acceptable.  He knows business, Ryan knows budgets, and the plan is millions of jobs.

There is another kind of undecided voter in this election.  Those are the people who believed in Barack Obama, but are disillusioned, and now know it all means stopping at the market on the way home, and hoping you can find some change under the seat.  If they decide it isn't worth their energy to come out on election day, they can still swing the decision.

Obama needs Mitt to be scary.  Boring won't get him reelected.





Musicmystery -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 8:17:57 PM)

Well then, point Obama.




DarkSteven -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 8:36:49 PM)

The entire concept here is wrong. If the RNC was all about what a great guy Romney was, then a bounce would mean something. But the RNC was more about tearing down Obama than promoting Romney. As such, the metric of interest is NOT the change in Romney's standing, but instead the change in their relative standings. And the DNC will have some promotion of Obama, but plenty of ripping Romney as well.

Right now, I give the advantage to Obama. Romney's trailing, even if slightly, after he got the benefits of the RNC and Ryan's selection. Obama's got the benefit of the DNC coming up. And also, Romney is running an inept campaign while Obama is running a more effective one.




TheHeretic -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 10:01:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
Right now, I give the advantage to Obama. Romney's trailing, even if slightly, after he got the benefits of the RNC and Ryan's selection. Obama's got the benefit of the DNC coming up.


Plus all the advantages of incumbency.  On paper, I think you are dead right, but we went off to one of California's premiere hippy street fairs today, and didn't see a single Obama shirt, worn, or for sale.  (We did score a couple really f'd up pieces of art for cheap.  Nice day, too.)  The passion isn't there. 







DaddySatyr -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 10:09:10 PM)

I heard a guy on the radio, today that breaks down numbers on a state-by-state basis and has been doing this since the 1980 election.

His model has an 89.something percent accuracy rating and they've only got one election wrong (I think). He's a professor out in Colorado. I remembered that.

He says that his data are incomplete until he gets September numbers but, as of right now, he calls the electoral college:

Romney = 320 Obama = 218

Supposedly, the new indicators look like they're not going to help the incumbent much (and his model allows for incumbency).



Peace and comfort,



Michael




tazzygirl -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 10:34:41 PM)

Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.

To predict the race's outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, according to The Associated Press. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado.

The professors' model shows a very different picture than what current data suggests. Currently, The Huffington Post's Election Dashboard shows Obama with 257 electoral votes to Romney's 191 with only six "tossup" states including: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

Berry cautions that just because the model has worked in the past, doesn't mean it will work this time. "As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict," Berry said in a statement. Some of those factors include the timeframe of the current economic data used in the study (the data used was taken five months before the November election, but Berry and Bickers plan to update it with more current data come September) as well as tight races. States that are very close to a 50-50 split, the authors warn, can fall in an unexpected direction.

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21373080

“Based on variables of relative employment across the 50 states and rising or falling real income across the 50 states we’re able to go back and analyze how the states have come out over the last 8 election cycles,” Bickers said. “In this election cycle what that model shows is that the Obama-Biden ticket is likely to lose the election.”

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” Berry added in a press release. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”

According to their forecast, Obama would lose almost all of the major swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Obama’s re-election chances are hampered, according to the model, because of the high unemployment rate. Despite an increase in job growth, the national unemployment rate was at 8.3 percent in July, according to the Labor Department.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/22/election-model-with-100-success-rate-predicts-romney-victory/





Winterapple -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 10:59:35 PM)

FR
The perfect storm that elected Obama
in 2008, disgust with Bush, the Wall
Street crisis, Palin and the freshness
of the candidate isn't what's going on
in 2012. Second honeymoons are never
like first honeymoons. But that doesn't
translate into passion for Mitt or for
anyone as long as they aren't Obama.

Obama isn't Carter and Romney isn't
Reagan.

I believe the electoral college favors
Obama. I don't believe he will lose
Ohio, Colorado, Minnesota or doubtfully
Pennsylvania. Florida is up for grabs.
Rubio was more intent on delivering
it to himself in 2016 than to Mitt in 2012.




TheHeretic -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/3/2012 11:57:54 PM)

Winterapple, Romney doesn't need to inspire passion in the Republican base.  President Obama, and the administration and record do that for him.  A bland and boring, "Milquetoast Mitt," doesn't return the favor.




Winterapple -> RE: The Numbers Are In For Mittens... (9/4/2012 1:07:36 AM)

Maybe not but he still has an R by his name.
If the Republicans are going to vote for whoever
has an R doesn't it make sense the Democrats
will do likewise? Even if Romney doesn't
inspire a great deal of revulsion as a man
in say the way Gingrich does that doesn't
mean the party and other Republicans aren't
enough to inspire Democrats to get out and
support the president.





Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125