2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

But the CNN/ORC International poll of 910 registered voters conducted April 13 to 15 tells a different story. It finds Obama leading by nine points (52 to 43 percent), a margin nearly identical to the eight-point Obama lead (51 to 43 percent) found in last week's ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Well remember how pathetically weighted that ABC Poll was in favor of the Democrats.

Apparently after some digging, it appears that CNN shifted the numbers around, and in reality it is a much much more tighter race.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/1...that-cnn-poll/

[Dark Sage]

Roy, your link calls the poll a "complete fantasy"...

However, per the suggestion you made a week ago, I have been browsing that Hot Air site, and I have yet to find a single article on it that does not support the GOP and/or speak badly of Democrat leaders and their programs.

You are referencing a GOP website, Roy. Clearly, they are going to try to find a way to disprove anything that favors Mr. Obama.

Edit: By the way, when I try to debate my case on said website, like you suggested, I am called a "troll" a "knee-jerker" and many other names that I don't want to repeat. In any case, I will not accept any information from Hot Air as accurate fact any more than information from Fox News.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, your link calls the poll a "complete fantasy"...

However, per the suggestion you made a week ago, I have been browsing that Hot Air site, and I have yet to find a single article on it that does not support the GOP and/or speak badly of Democrat leaders and their programs.

You are referencing a GOP website, Roy. Clearly, they are going to try to find a way to disprove anything that favors Mr. Obama.

Edit: By the way, when I try to debate my case on said website, like you suggested, I am called a "troll" a "knee-jerker" and many other names that I don't want to repeat.

I would suggest reading the actual article, basically the raw data has the two of them tied, but then CNN decided to twist the poll and got a massive lead for Obama. Now in polling there is some realistic use for weighting, you usually get alot of old people, and alot of young people, and to smooth out demographic problems you weight it accordingly. However that produces what many pollsters call a "Whack a Mole" problem, in which you fix one demographic, and another screws up, you fix that one, and another screws up, and on and on and on.

As one website put it: CNN's poll might not have been engineered to produce a partisan result but when a tie becomes a nine-point blow-out via demographic weighting, well, the numbers have been teased an awful lot, and the results are suspect. Virtually all of Obama's advantage in the CNN poll is not actual respondants giving him their support, but the result of mathematical manipulations. As they say, if you torture the data enough it'll confess to anything.

[Dark Sage]

I did read the actual article, Roy. I don't buy it.

[Roy Karrde]

I did read the actual article, Roy. I don't buy it.

The math is there for you to read, the raw data shows a tie, the only excuse for it is mathematical manipulation. If you wish to bury your head in the sand then please be my guest. But facts are facts.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, you claim that CNN is manipulating the results...

Do you ever stop to think that this GOP-favoring website might be doing the same thing to get their desired result? What works for the goose can work for the gander.

Edit: Show me proof that an equal number said in that poll that they would vote for Romney.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you claim that CNN is manipulating the results...

Do you ever stop to think that this GOP-favoring website might be doing the same thing to get their desired result? What works for the goose can work for the gander.

And how are they manipulating the results, they provide exact proof in the CNN poll of the raw data showing a Obama/Romney tie. They provided a detail breakdown as to how they got that number, and how CNN changed it. Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that the CNN poll has turned up flawed?

Edit: Show me proof that an equal number said in that poll that they would vote for Romney.

I will quote from the article.

Reader Raymond O did some math and asked a rather interesting set of questions in an e-mail last night about how CNN did theirs. First, let’s start with the topline results, as reported by CNN: Obama 52%, Romney 43% among registered voters, 53/41 among all respondents. If that’s the case, then the number of respondents in the latter case voting for Obama should be 538, and the number supporting Romney 416.

However, when reading the questions on page 3 of the poll report, that’s not at all what we see:

BASED ON 484 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR OBAMA — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
3. (Asked of Obama voters) Is that more a vote FOR Barack Obama or more a vote AGAINST Mitt
Romney? …

BASED ON 476 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
4. (Asked of Romney voters) Is that more a vote FOR Mitt Romney or more a vote AGAINST Barack
Obama?

Since the combined total of the two exceeds their count of registered voters in the survey (910), we have to assume this refers to the general-population response. That’s wildly different than the 53/41 split that CNN reports from the poll. In fact, it’s only a 48/47 split for Obama. And given that the poll shows a slightly better result for Romney among registered voters, it’s not difficult to conclude that Romney probably led in that category before CNN’s pollster shifted the results around to this extent.

In essence there is a 1% split between the two of them based on the raw data.

[Dark Sage]

It's hard for me to accept because of the nature of the source of this article, Roy.

If the same poll showed Romney in the lead by eight percentage points, but with the same "trick" to achieve that result, I'm sure that both Hot Air and you would claim it was legit.

Edit: In fact, didn't Fox News release a poll that used a similar "trick" that shows Romney in the lead?

[Roy Karrde]

It's hard for me to accept because of the nature of the source of this article, Roy.

If the same poll showed Romney in the lead by eight percentage points, but with the same "trick" to achieve that result, I'm sure that both Hot Air and you would claim it was legit.

I very much doubt it, as they tend to not post polls.

Edit: In fact, didn't Fox News release a poll that used a similar "trick" that shows Romney in the lead?

I wouldn't know, would you mind posting where you found it? I will answer it when I get back from class in 1 hour.

[Dark Sage]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...esident-drops/

I rest my case... Clearly, far more Republicans were polled in this one than Democrats.

Edit: The irony is, this poll is a lot more complete than a lot of the ones I've seen.

[Roy Karrde]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...esident-drops/

I rest my case... Clearly, far more Republicans were polled in this one than Democrats.

Edit: The irony is, this poll is a lot more complete than a lot of the ones I've seen.

You... rest your case

On a poll that shows a + 2 Romney lead.

Despite the fact that both Gallup, and Rasmussen ALSO showed a + 2 Romney lead yesterday when they started their daily tracking poll, one of which YOU even posted about. To borrow a quote from one of my favorite movies.

"Do you want to change you bullshit story, sir?"

[Dark Sage]

No sir, I do not. It will be a cold day in Hell before I believe anything that Fox News tells me.

[Roy Karrde]

No sir, I do not. It will be a cold day in Hell before I believe anything that Fox News tells me.

But you have no problem with what Gallup tells you, even though it is the exact same thing?

[kurai]

i'm not sure why it seems so outrageous that national polling is actually close to a tie

but let's see what we find through the power of arithmetic

overall claim:
obama 52%, romney 43%

key data:
1015 surveys
910 registered voters

484 plan to vote obama
476 plan to vote romney
= 960 total: 50.42% obama, 49.58% romney

so the overall topline claim is based on the registered voters (as detailed in the cross-tabs)

1015 * 0.52 = 527.80
1015 * 0.43 = 436.45

obviously impossible since we know that 476 of those polled lean romney

we can see that there are (maximally) 50 people who have a partisan preference but are not registered voters

let's take (for example) a weighting of zero for unregistered voters and subtract them from the 'lean' totals

A)
484-50 plan to vote obama
476 plan to vote romney
= 47.69% obama, 52.31% romney

hey look it is the same data but romney wins this time

B)
484 plan to vote obama
476-50 plan to vote romney
= 53.19% obama, 46.81% romney

so we can find a 6.38% differential just from this weighting

this is not what they did, though

the omitted second question was probably about either the degree of confidence in their preferential leaning, or the likelihood of voting in the election

this question was probably tied to the weighting along with an unknown demographic split, which makes it unclear how balanced or unbalanced it really was (as we do not have such data)

we can't do this correctly because of the lack of data, but we can guess at how such weighting might have happened

let's take the decisiveness sample as an example:

democrat solid: 79%
democrat weak: 19%
republican solid: 68%
republican weak: 28%
independent solid: 58%
independent weak: 38%

for simplicity let's work this up as a weighting of the total sample on the basis of 1.0 solid, 0.0 weak

1015 * 0.52 = 527.80
1015 * 0.43 = 436.45

C)
527.80 * 0.79 = 416.96
436.45 * 0.68 = 296.79
= 713.75 total: 58% obama, 38% romney

what a stunning defeat (this is just an example)

however! why might republicans be less solid about their preference for the republican party in november?

romney's nomination was only just solidified - for a lot of republicans, this is still a new concept. obama was uncontested. we can plainly see that fewer republicans lean romney (85%) than democrats leaning obama (91%), and fewer contrary inversions (11% versus 6%) are also present

conclusion:

- cnn is still weighting polls using a primary season model
- republican confidence in romney is undoubtedly still being influenced by the republican primaries
- unregistered voters likely still swing obama as a consequence of the same primary effect

therefore we are able to approximate a weighting model which closes the gap between the 4% swing to romney in model A and the 20% swing to obama in model C

this comes up to a 12% differential just using these two estimated factors - the topline result being 9 +/- 3%

similar weighting was done in these poll results which ultimately makes them a weak predictor of november results. but national polling has very little to do with the presidential election anyway - it is only the basis for media talking points

thus, cnn failed to adjust their weighting for the post-primary season, and they benefit from failing to do so

[Dark Sage]

Oh, and Roy, since you love statistics so much, here's the truth about Romney's claim that the Obama Administration has hurt women's employment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...7BT_story.html

Interesting, huh?

[Roy Karrde]

Oh, and Roy, since you love statistics so much, here's the truth about Romney's claim that the Obama Administration has hurt women's employment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...7BT_story.html

Interesting, huh?

Dude we already went over this, both Kurai and I told you a while back what the truth was.

[Dark Sage]

Well, the Washington Post has officially debunked it.

Here's something else I want to bring up... Romney has been asked twice now whether he will release his past twelve tax returns as his father did, and both times, he avoided the issue.

I have to ask why? What's so secretive about them?

Maybe he just doesn't want anyone to know just how he managed a 15% tax rate. I mean really, if everyone found out how to get a 15% rate on their taxes legally, we wouldn't care about the Buffet Rule or the GOP's equally-doomed bill.

Still, it's rather strange that a guy who wants to be the most powerful man in the world is spooked by his own tax returns.

Of course, I'm not really sure if the President even is the most powerful man in the world these days. I think it may be Ryan Seacrest.

(Okay, that one was a little joke...)

[Roy Karrde]

Well, the Washington Post has officially debunked it.

Did they? They said it was true, except it leaves out the massive loss of male unemployment before Obama took office, yet Romney was quite clear in talking about from Obama taking office onward. What Romney said was true, Democrats just do not like it because he started from when Obama took office, which I might add he has every right to do so.

Here's something else I want to bring up... Romney has been asked twice now whether he will release his past twelve tax returns as his father did, and both times, he avoided the issue.

I have to ask why? What's so secretive about them?

Because seriously what do tax returns from 12 years ago tell us?

Maybe he just doesn't want anyone to know just how he managed a 15% tax rate. I mean really, if everyone found out how to get a 15% rate on their taxes legally, we wouldn't care about the Buffet Rule or the GOP's equally-doomed bill.

Yeah seeing how the Buffet Rule has gone down in flames, maybe the President will quit this little diversion that people really do not care about and focus on things like Jobs and the economy.

Still, it's rather strange that a guy who wants to be the most powerful man in the world is spooked by his own tax returns.

He has released his 2010 tax returns, and has said he will release his 2011, what is spooky about that?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, it's been debunked. Get over it.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, it's been debunked. Get over it.

Dude read the article again, saying "Romney’s math is solid as far as it goes" is not it being debunked.

Nor is it saying: Romney’s claim is based on statistics showing the number of unemployed women grew by 858,000 since January 2009, Obama’s inauguration month. But it ignores the disproportionate hit on men the year before Obama became president — and their greater job losses overall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...7BT_story.html

Again in the larger context, Romney is wrong if he includes the entire recession. But if he starts at the beginning of Obama's Presidency onward, which he has every right to do. He is right.

[Dark Sage]

Even when you admit that he was wrong you still insist that he was right.

Roy, he made an inaccurate statement, and he can't go back on it now and say, "Well, it's true if you only count this."

Oh, and by the way Roy... In response to your statement about the Buffet Rule "going down in flames"... The GOP's plan will never get to the Presdent's desk either.

[Roy Karrde]

Even when you admit that he was wrong you still insist that he was right.

Roy, he made an inaccurate statement, and he can't go back on it now and say, "Well, it's true if you only count this."

Inaccurate statement? Lets see what he said.

“The other day there’s been some talk about a war on women. The real war on women has been waged by the Obama administration’s failure on the economy. Do you know what percent of the job losses in the Obama years have been casualties of women losing jobs as opposed to men?” Romney said during a campaign stop in Wilmington, Del.

“Do you know how many women – what percent of the job losses were women? 92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years has been women who’ve lost those jobs. The real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the Obama economy,” he said.

Now read very, very closely, OBAMA YEARS. Obama's Presidency did not start until January 2009, at which point the Washington Post concedes and I quote.

"Romney’s claim is based on statistics showing the number of unemployed women grew by 858,000 since January 2009, Obama’s inauguration month. But it ignores the disproportionate hit on men the year before Obama became president — and their greater job losses overall."

Oh, and by the way Roy... In response to your statement about the Buffet Rule "going down in flames"... The GOP's plan will never get to the Presdent's desk either.

Oh no doubt, which means that we move closer to the date in which our entitlement system and our nation's economy goes down in flames.

[Dark Sage]

Believe what you want about Romney's statement, Roy.

Romney opposes abortion, and opposes contraception. He is trying to counter that with a set of statistics that sort of proves that more unemployment has occurred among women during Obama's watch.

If he's going to sway the majority of women to his side, he needs more than that.

Edit: And Roy... Romney was right... Technically. He used some statistics and left out others to make a misleading statement.

I guess I can't blame him... He's a politician.

[Roy Karrde]

Believe what you want about Romney's statement, Roy.

Romney opposed abortion, and opposes contraception. He is trying to counter that with a set of statistics that sort of proves that more unemployment has occurred among women during Obama's watch.

If he's going to sway the majority of women to his side, he needs more than that.

Oh no doubt, which is why Hilary Rosen's stupidity and Ann Romney's likeability has played a big factor this last week.

Edit: And Roy... Romney was right... Technically. He used some statistics and left out others to make a misleading statement.

I guess I can't blame him... He's a politician.

Welcome to election year politics.

[Dark Sage]

I see you're quick to jump on how stupid Rosen was, but you were quick to brush aside Limbaugh's equally stupid comment a while back as if it were unimportant.

So are stupid things only important when Democrats do them?

[Roy Karrde]

I see you're quick to jump on how stupid Rosen was, but you were quick to brush aside Limbaugh's equally stupid comment a while back as if it were unimportant.

So are stupid things only important when Democrats do them?

I am quick to jump on what Rosen said because while the Limbaugh thing has ran it's course, Rosen's comments are going to play a rather significant event for helping the Republican's rally around Romney, and to dent the gains Obama made in women as we go into the election year. In essence Rosen gave Romney a fantastic start to the National election.

[Dark Sage]

I dunno, Roy... Limbaugh has been awfully quiet since that mess, and you don't see any other ultra-conservative radio commenter taking him place.

[Roy Karrde]

I dunno, Roy... Limbaugh has been awfully quiet since that mess, and you don't see any other ultra-conservative radio commenter taking him place.

Because he still has his sponsors ( they came flocking back when things quieted down ) and he still has massive ratings.

[Dark Sage]

He never lost most of them Roy. Only the ones who could live without him left.

And don't post the Washing Post story, I already read it.

[Dark Sage]

Come to think of it Roy, that's a good example. As the Washington Post admitted, "outrage is hard to maintain", and the comments that Rush made aren't much of an issue now...

How can you be sure that this whole thing with Rosen won't be forgotten about in a month when people just lose the outrage they had over it? If Mrs. Romney wants to present herself as a potential First Lady, she has to do more than respond to this.

[Roy Karrde]

Come to think of it Roy, that's a good example. As the Washington Post admitted, "outrageis hard to maintain", and the comments that Rush made aren't much of an issue now...

How can you be sure that this whole thing with Rosen won't be forgotten about in a month when people just lose the outrage they had over it? If Mrs. Romney wants to present herself as a potential First Lady, she has to do more than respond to this.

Oh I bet it will, but here is the thing.

A: It potentially chips away at Obama's lead with women.

B: It unites Republicans around Romney after a hard primary.

C: It gives a wonderful starting point to introduce Ann Romney.

D: It takes away the opening week in which Obama could define Romney as he became the nominee.

The Romney campaign could not ask for such a wonderful gift from the Democrats.

[Dark Sage]

This isn't Obama's fault, I hope you realize. He publically expressed disapproval of the statement.

[Roy Karrde]

This isn't Obama's fault, I hope you realize. He publically expressed disapproval of the statement.

Nor is Limbaugh, Romney's fault. However it still effected both of them negatively.

[Dark Sage]

I didn't hear Romney saying he disapproved of what Limbaugh said. Or Santorum for that matter.

Boehnir did, but his job is pretty secure.

[Roy Karrde]

I didn't hear Romney saying he disapproved of what Limbaugh said. Or Santorum for that matter.

Boehnir did, but his job is pretty secure.

Limbaugh is also further removed from Romney than Hilary Rosen is.

[Dark Sage]

Of course. Limbaugh isn't even a real politician. In fact, here's one thing Fluke has that he doesn't: a degree.

But on the other hand, Roy, he is part of the media, and some would say that the media is far more powerful than politicians. And that one is NOT a joke.

[Roy Karrde]

Of course. Limbaugh isn't even a real politician. In fact, here's one thing Blunt has that he doesn't: a degree.

But on the other hand, Roy, he is part of the media, and some would say that the media is far more powerful than politicians. And that one is NOT a joke.

In which case I would say that Limbaugh is more on par with Bill Maher, some one who continues to degrade women up to even last week. And some one who Obama has not attacked and some one his Super Pac is comfortable doing business with.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, as I've said several times, Maher is a comedian, and he admits it. He's no different than Andrew Dice Clay.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, as I've said several times, Maher is a comedian, and he admits it. He's no different than Andrew Dice Clay.

They are both political shock jocks meant to say outlandish things to rally up the base. Something the two have in common. But being a comedian or a radio host means very little, why won't Obama say he disapproves of what Maher continually says about women? Why does Obama allow members of his administration participate in a Super Pac funded by Maher's money?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, the GOP has a Super PAC that's funded by a guy who believes homosexuality is in the same class as bestiality. I forget his name, but he always hung around Santorum during the primaries. He's supporting Romney now.

Romney seems all to willing to work with this bigot's Super PAC, so please don't complain about the ones Obama is using.