logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Election predictions
akaCG
post Oct 7 2012, 08:00 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



One month is a long time. There are still 3 debates left, one more unemployment number due, the geopolitical situation is quite fluid, and there's always the customary "October Surprise" (or will there be more than one?) to consider.

But that's what makes this more fun. So, ...

1. What will be the Obama/Romney popular vote split?

2. What will be the Obama/Romney Electoral College vote split?

3. What will be the Democratic/Republican U.S. Senate composition?

4. What will be the Democratic/Republican U.S. House composition?

Bonus question:

At what time (Eastern) will the Presidential Election be called?



My predictions:

1. Obama 47%, Romney 52%

2. Obama 236, Romney 302

3. Dems 50, Reps 50

4. Dems 199, Reps 236

Bonus: 11:45 PM Eastern

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
AuthorMusician
post Oct 30 2012, 02:27 AM
Post #21


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 29 2012, 05:36 PM) *
QUOTE
Hurricane Sandy could play a major role on the East Coast


It appears that the low pressure soon to be passing over New Jersey is sucking up all available campaign oxygen from the rest of the country. That only benefits whoever is in the lead today. However, if FEMA fails to do their job quickly and properly in the days after the storm, it'll reflect poorly on Obama and likely sway the election.

Yes, and President Obama went back to DC to monitor this stuff, perhaps kick FEMA in the tail, get a bunch ready for hero photo ops.

That ought to gain the undecided, if only they knew what FEMA is and President Obama.

Pills! Need Pills! Ah, ah, Rosanne! No, Rosie! No, Roxanne! Ah, the walrus?

Rust, it never sleeps. Out of the blue and into the black. Lewis! Lewis Niles!

No, really, this is seriously f***ed up $hit. Anything could happen. We could end up with a porn star POTUS. Maybe not this time, but next time?

I mean, wasn't it insane to go with a B-list movie star?

Well, I'm just kidding. Love those crazy Republicans, every one of them. Obama by 300. That's my bet, and I'm sticking with it.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Oct 30 2012, 12:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 30 2012, 12:03 PM
Post #22


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Yes, and President Obama went back to DC to monitor this stuff, perhaps kick FEMA in the tail, get a bunch ready for hero photo ops.


Romney surrogate:

QUOTE
At a press conference in Trenton on Monday, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, thanked Obama for approving a state of emergency in New Jersey even before the storm had arrived, which enables the state government to access federal funds and help from FEMA. “We appreciate the president’s efforts in that regard,” Christie said. “He and his staff worked tremendously hard.” Confirming that Obama had promised to be there for New Jersey over the coming days, the governor added: “The President assured me on the phone that we’d get his immediate personal attention.”


And just to show we can debate both sides at the same time, from Politico:

QUOTE
"Anyone who thinks they currently know who it helps/hurts is just making [stuff] up. This gives Chris Christie an opportunity to show leadership, and thereby help his reelect and [helps him] for 2016; unless it curtails Obama's [get-out-the-vote] operation in Virginia, in which case it helps Romney; unless it enables Obama to lead an effective federal government response, in which case it helps Obama; unless it takes Obama off the trail in Ohio, in which case it helps Romney."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 30 2012, 01:00 PM
Post #23


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2012, 08:03 AM) *
QUOTE
Yes, and President Obama went back to DC to monitor this stuff, perhaps kick FEMA in the tail, get a bunch ready for hero photo ops.


Romney surrogate:

QUOTE
At a press conference in Trenton on Monday, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, thanked Obama for approving a state of emergency in New Jersey even before the storm had arrived, which enables the state government to access federal funds and help from FEMA. “We appreciate the president’s efforts in that regard,” Christie said. “He and his staff worked tremendously hard.” Confirming that Obama had promised to be there for New Jersey over the coming days, the governor added: “The President assured me on the phone that we’d get his immediate personal attention.”


And just to show we can debate both sides at the same time, from Politico:

QUOTE
"Anyone who thinks they currently know who it helps/hurts is just making [stuff] up. This gives Chris Christie an opportunity to show leadership, and thereby help his reelect and [helps him] for 2016; unless it curtails Obama's [get-out-the-vote] operation in Virginia, in which case it helps Romney; unless it enables Obama to lead an effective federal government response, in which case it helps Obama; unless it takes Obama off the trail in Ohio, in which case it helps Romney."



I saw Christie thanking President Obama profusely for 1) having called him personally and 2) given the White House direct line to the POTUS if anything is needed. Christie even used the words proactive leadership. I suppose that Obama had no real choice here. He has to put the country first in times of peril, sort of like when he got in the loop with the financial meltdown before he took office. This may even out because Romney has to appear to be doing something similar, at least by suspending his personal appearances.

Maybe Obama's performance during this time of crisis will sway votes his way. I'll allow for that in my inability to predict this thing. It isn't a national trauma like 9/11 but might come close with heavy news coverage during and after the storms. This may come down to actions speaking louder than words or money, and by an act of God he gets a second term.

Which should cause a few self-proclaimed God talkers' heads to go boom. And if the freak storms can be attributed convincingly to global warming? Wow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 30 2012, 08:34 PM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Here are some interesting state-level stats. The first figure is Obama's vote margin in '08. The second is Obama's average poll margin based on all October '12 polls for that state, courtesy of HuffPo/Pollster. The third is Obama's outperformance/underperformance vs. '08.

Arizona: - 9, - 7, + 2
California: + 24, + 16, - 8
Colorado: + 9, + 1, - 8
Connecticut: + 22, + 11, - 11
Florida: + 3, -1, -4
Georgia: - 5, - 8, - 3
Illinois: + 25, + 20, - 5
Iowa: + 10, + 2, - 8
Maine: + 17, + 4, -13
Massachusetts: + 26, + 19, - 7
Michigan: + 16, + 5, - 11
Minnesota: + 10, + 7, - 3
Missouri: + 0, - 9, - 9
Montana: - 2, - 9, - 7
Nebraska: - 15, - 14, + 1
Nevada: + 12, + 3, - 9
New Hampshire: + 10, + 1, - 9
New Jersey: + 16, + 11, - 5
New Mexico: + 15, + 11, - 4
New York: + 27, + 26, - 1
North Carolina: + 0, - 2, - 2
North Dakota: - 9, - 16, - 7
Ohio: + 5, + 2, - 3
Oregon: + 16, + 6, - 10
Pennsylvania: + 10, + 4, - 6
Texas: - 12, - 15, - 3
Virginia: + 6, + 0, - 6
Wisconsin: + 14, + 3, - 11

IOW, in the 28 states listed, Obama's poll numbers are falling short of his '08 performance by an average of 6 points at the moment. Not a good sign (for him, that is).

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...on,_2008#Result
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...romney-vs-obama

This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 30 2012, 08:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 30 2012, 08:45 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 30 2012, 04:34 PM) *
IOW, in the 28 states listed, Obama's poll numbers are falling short of his '08 performance by an average of 6 points at the moment. Not a good sign (for him, that is).

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...on,_2008#Result
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...romney-vs-obama

Why these particular 28 states? I'm always cautious when working with an incomplete data set.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 30 2012, 08:50 PM
Post #26


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 30 2012, 04:45 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 30 2012, 04:34 PM) *
IOW, in the 28 states listed, Obama's poll numbers are falling short of his '08 performance by an average of 6 points at the moment. Not a good sign (for him, that is).

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...on,_2008#Result
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollst...romney-vs-obama

Why these particular 28 states? I'm always cautious when working with an incomplete data set.

Those are the only ones that the HuffPo/Pollster page features, unfortunately. I'm looking around for other sources (perhaps RCP) of data for the remaining 22 states.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 30 2012, 10:04 PM
Post #27


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



The reason you won't find many numbers for the other states is because... there aren't many numbers for the other states. For example, Alabama hasn't been polled much at all since the primaries. Some of the numbers you're seeing for polls -- e.g., Texas -- are going to be really old numbers, so comparing them to 2008 numbers is not valid anyway. Only the states where we're getting frequent and diverse polling can you make any clear comparison. Lately, that's been the top 10 swing states.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 30 2012, 10:29 PM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2012, 06:04 PM) *
... Some of the numbers you're seeing for polls -- e.g., Texas -- are going to be really old numbers, so comparing them to 2008 numbers is not valid anyway. ...
...

As clearly noted, the state-level comparisons in my post were against averages of polls that were conducted during the past 30 days (e.g. Texas), which renders them perfectly valid.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 30 2012, 10:49 PM
Post #29


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2012, 06:04 PM) *
The reason you won't find many numbers for the other states is because... there aren't many numbers for the other states. For example, Alabama hasn't been polled much at all since the primaries. Some of the numbers you're seeing for polls -- e.g., Texas -- are going to be really old numbers, so comparing them to 2008 numbers is not valid anyway. Only the states where we're getting frequent and diverse polling can you make any clear comparison. Lately, that's been the top 10 swing states.


Now there's an argument for a direct popular vote for POTUS. Get rid of the EC, and the polling numbers will improve for accuracy and comparability.

I have to agree with some pundits that a minority POTUS in his second term would be delightfully ironic. Will we be seeing a reversal in attitudes toward the EC as a result? Could this be the beginning of the end for this archaic system? Eh, probably not. It seems entrenched in the electorate's psyche, and since it would take an amendment to do it, it's too much work.

However, some states have moved toward allocating their ECs based on percentages of popular votes rather than winner take all.

And then there's the possibility of rogue EC delegates going for some super star like Ron Paul. Maybe the EC has too much potential for entertainment?

Well, whatever. It's working to the incumbent's advantage this time. Lets say I'm not overly pleased with this situation, but nothing can be done about it without blowing the election. I expect if the popular vote is really close, there won't be any sense of mandate, and that could favor the Republicans if they manage to keep the House and not lose the Senate to a super majority.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 31 2012, 12:16 AM
Post #30


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 30 2012, 06:29 PM) *
the state-level comparisons in my post were against averages of polls that were conducted during the past 30 days (e.g. Texas), which renders them perfectly valid.

Actually, less valid than meets the eye. The two Texas polls taken in the previous 30 days were internet polls, which are high-margin low-quality polls. Comparing them to actual election results results in a poor quality comparison. Sometimes you have to dumpster-dive the details on these polls to see if you're being snookered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 31 2012, 02:11 AM
Post #31


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I'm going to put in a prediction on the EC divide. Ive found out that Rasmussen Reports is right up their with Pew Research on poll accuracy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

QUOTE
An initial Nov.5, 2008 Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls, assuming a 6.15% margin of victory by Obama. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.


Rasmussen Reports has Romney up by 2 in a Ohio, while most other polls have him down and that state is a big concern for Romney because it wont be as easy to get as Florida where he has a safer lead in most polls.

If nothing changes and Rasmussen is as accurate as it was in 2004 and 2008 then this is what the layout will be....

Romney will win....

Colorado,
New Hampshire,
North Carolina,
Ohio,
Virginia,
Florida

He's tied in..

Iowa (with Romney gaining)
Wisconsin (with little recent change)

And he'll lose...

Nevada,
Michigan,
Pennsylvania.



Of the two ties I'm giving Wisconsin to Obama and Iowa to Romney since he's seeing some gains in Iowa. After selecting my state layout I came out with...

Obama/Biden 253____Romney/Ryan 285

So I'm going with that as a EC prediction. Again this is dependent on RR being accurate again, and assuming little changes but I have all the info I need to at least make guess. I'm thinking I'll be accurate within 30 electoral votes, but that 30 can make or break it for either candidate.


One last quote from Wikipedia on Rasmussen Reports.....

QUOTE
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen wrote that Rasmussen has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy. The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics." Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.

In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussens polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election. According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".


This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 31 2012, 02:17 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 31 2012, 02:42 AM
Post #32


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2012, 08:16 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 30 2012, 06:29 PM) *
the state-level comparisons in my post were against averages of polls that were conducted during the past 30 days (e.g. Texas), which renders them perfectly valid.

Actually, less valid than meets the eye. The two Texas polls taken in the previous 30 days were internet polls, which are high-margin low-quality polls. ...
...

One of those was conducted by YouGov, which Nate Silver ranked #3 in terms of its 2010 accuracy (just behind Quinnipiac, tied with SurveyUSA and ahead of PPP). Kinda puts a dent in your "high-margin low-quality" objection.

Speaking of Nate Silver, ...

His state-level projections also point to an overall 6 point underperformance on Obama's part.

Broken down into 5 10-state groups in descending order of population, things look like this:

Top 10 states by population (accounting for about 53% of U.S. population):

California: + 24, + 17, -7
Texas: - 12, - 17, - 5
New York: + 27, + 25, -2
Florida: + 3, - 1, -4
Illinois: + 25, + 20, -5
Pennsylvania: + 10, + 5, - 5
Ohio: + 5, + 2, - 3
Michigan: + 16, + 7, - 9
Georgia: -5, - 11, -6
North Carolina: + 0, - 3, - 3

Average underperformance: - 5

Next 10 states (accounting for about 24% of U.S. population):

New Jersey: + 16, + 11, - 5
Virginia: + 6, + 1, - 5
Washington: + 17, + 12, - 5
Massachusetts: + 26, + 17, - 7
Indiana: +1, - 11, - 12
Arizona: -9, - 8, + 1
Tennessee: - 15, - 20, - 5
Missouri: + 0, - 9, - 9
Maryland: + 25, + 22, - 3
Wisconsin: + 14, + 4, - 10

Average underperformance: - 6

Next 10 states (accounting for about 14% of U.S. population):

Minnesota: + 10, + 7, - 3
Colorado: + 9, + 1, -8
Alabama: - 22, - 27, - 5
South Carolina: - 9, - 14, - 5
Louisiana: - 19, - 22, - 3
Kentucky: - 16, - 20, - 4
Oregon: + 16, + 10, - 6
Oklahoma: - 31, - 33, - 2
Connecticut: + 22, + 12, -10
Iowa: + 10, + 2, - 8

Average underperformance: - 5

Next 10 states (accounting for about 7.5% of U.S. population):

Mississippi: - 13, - 22, - 9
Arkansas: - 20, - 23, -3
Kansas: - 15, - 25, - 10
Utah: - 28, - 46, - 18
Nevada: + 12, + 3, - 9
New Mexico: + 15, + 9, - 6
West Virginia: - 13, - 18, - 5
Nebraska: - 15, - 22, - 7
Idaho: - 25, - 36, - 11
Hawaii: + 45, + 35, -10

Average underperformance: - 9

Last 10 states (accounting for about 3% of U.S. population):

Maine: + 17, + 13, - 4
New Hampshire: + 10, + 2, - 8
Rhode Island: + 28, + 25, - 3
Montana: - 2, - 10, - 8
Delaware: + 25, + 19, -6
South Dakota: -8, - 17, - 9
Alaska: - 22, - 22, 0
North Dakota: - 9, - 17, - 8
Vermont: + 37, + 32, - 5
D.C.: + 86, + 86, 0
Wyoming: - 32, - 38, - 6

Average underperformance: - 6

In '08, Obama beat McCain by 7%. If he underperforms by 6% this year, that would mean that he'd lose by 5%. If he underperforms by 5%, he'd lose by 3%. If he underperforms by 4%, he'd lose by 1%.

As I mentioned before, the last time a Presidential candidate lost the popular vote by 1% or more but won in the Electoral College was ... 136 years and 26 elections ago.

Sources:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...on,_2008#Result

ps:

Curiously, some nincompoop at Wikipedia changed the 1876 Presidential Election page a few hours ago. It now shows Tilden with 191 ECVs and Hayes with only 178.

Here's the page before the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=519655435

And here's the page after the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_election

Hmmmm ...

This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 31 2012, 03:10 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 31 2012, 03:21 AM
Post #33


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



You keep (intentionally?) misreading things, aka.

For example:

QUOTE
Ive found out that Rasmussen Reports is right up their with Pew Research on poll accuracy....


Except they're not. Only on the LAST poll which they did differently than their tracking polls -- look it up -- are they high on accuracy. Their last poll involves phone interviews, not just internet surveys or robo-polling.

QUOTE
One of those was conducted by YouGov, which Nate Silver ranked #3 in terms of its 2010 accuracy


This time you're mistaking an organization with a specific poll. Actually, maybe that needs to be "again". I also noticed that you cited Nate Silver for YouGov, but not for Rasmussen. Wonder why that is...? Could it be because Nate has already identified a Republican bias to their landline-only tracking poll that you're claiming is so accurate?

But, hey, if it makes you feel good to think that Romney is going to be your savior for the next four years, that's cool. I'm not here to burst your bubble.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 31 2012, 04:25 AM
Post #34


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



amf

QUOTE(amf @ Oct 30 2012, 11:21 PM) *
You keep (intentionally?) misreading things, aka.

For example:

QUOTE
Ive found out that Rasmussen Reports is right up their with Pew Research on poll accuracy....


Except they're not. Only on the LAST poll which they did differently than their tracking polls -- look it up -- are they high on accuracy. Their last poll involves phone interviews, not just internet surveys or robo-polling.

QUOTE
One of those was conducted by YouGov, which Nate Silver ranked #3 in terms of its 2010 accuracy


This time you're mistaking an organization with a specific poll. Actually, maybe that needs to be "again". I also noticed that you cited Nate Silver for YouGov, but not for Rasmussen. Wonder why that is...? Could it be because Nate has already identified a Republican bias to their landline-only tracking poll that you're claiming is so accurate?

But, hey, if it makes you feel good to think that Romney is going to be your savior for the next four years, that's cool. I'm not here to burst your bubble.


Do you keep intentionally misreading things? I think I did ok personally but maybe I have some self directed bias huh? lol innocent.gif

FYI, This was also on the Wiki I provided...

QUOTE
At the end of the 2008 presidential election, there were eight national tracking polls and many other polls conducted on a regular basis. Polling analyst Nate Silver reviewed the tracking polls and said that while none were perfect, and Rasmussen was "frequently reputed to have a Republican lean", the "house effect" in their tracking poll was small and "with its large sample size and high pollster rating [it] would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."


Nate Silver usually votes Democrat by the way, and voted for Obama.

Im getting a little thrown off since both akaCG and I had references to Nate Silver though. For my sake please quote aka's name fully, I just got so confused and about snapped at you pretty bad. Just plain aka comes off to me as Also Known As and kinda bleeds into the rest of the convo.

I know why I got confused, you quoted something I said and then addressed akaCG saying he misreads things. That's not too good if your argument is that someone is misreading things, Just sayin.

Also who's going to be so happy if Romney gets elected, me or akaCG? I'm so confused right now I want to grab a fishing poll and run for a lake. Personally I guess I'm mildly enthused, but not much beyond that.

This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 31 2012, 05:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Oct 31 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #35


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



And all this teaches me that I shouldn't write a post late into the evening.... But I think I already knew that. blush.gif

This post has been edited by amf: Oct 31 2012, 10:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 31 2012, 02:02 PM
Post #36


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(amf @ Oct 31 2012, 06:39 AM) *
And all this teaches me that I shouldn't write a post late into the evening.... But I think I already knew that. blush.gif


lol, no worries
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 31 2012, 03:54 PM
Post #37


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(net2007)
Nate Silver usually votes Democrat by the way, and voted for Obama.

Nate Silver might vote Democratic, but that should not influence his predictions, considering that if he skews them in Obama's favor and is wrong, he loses his reputation for being a reliable source.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 31 2012, 03:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 31 2012, 06:51 PM
Post #38


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 31 2012, 11:54 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007)
Nate Silver usually votes Democrat by the way, and voted for Obama.

Nate Silver might vote Democratic, but that should not influence his predictions, considering that if he skews them in Obama's favor and is wrong, he loses his reputation for being a reliable source.


True
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 1 2012, 02:20 PM
Post #39


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 31 2012, 11:54 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007)
Nate Silver usually votes Democrat by the way, and voted for Obama.

Nate Silver might vote Democratic, but that should not influence his predictions, considering that if he skews them in Obama's favor and is wrong, he loses his reputation for being a reliable source.

Looks like my 300 mark could be on the money, if only I'd put some down on it.

Superstorm Sandy seems to be having an impact too, in regards to who is looking like an effective leader now, and not just in the states impacted by disaster. Also, Ohio is paying attention to Romney's lie about US Jeep production moving to China. Well, Chrysler is paying attention and the newspapers, so maybe there'll be a backlash.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Nov 2 2012, 03:04 AM
Post #40


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,194
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



At what time (Eastern) will the Presidential Election be called?

QUOTE
Legal experts say that if the race is very close and hangs on the result in Ohio, it may have to wait until provisional ballots are counted. Under state law, they may not be counted until at least Nov. 17. ( link )

In Ohio, there were 1.32 million absentee ballots sent out, all but 64,000 of them returned to date, but both sides are still trying to win "undecided voters." My personal feeling is that, at this point, undecided voters will assume that one vote won't make a difference. But if it will, it could be at st Nov. 17 before the election is called...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 21st, 2018 - 02:26 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.