Reply With Quote
And when does one apply for an absentee ballot?
The numbers from Zogby's Electoral College Map appear to support Manny's analysis:
http://www.zogby.com/50state/
And when does one apply for an absentee ballot?
I don't have any problem with Zogby, but you posted a old poll. Do you have a recent poll? A September poll?
It's really not that hard to find.
https://texas.overseasvotefoundation...rseas/home.htm
Not true. Obama can easily lose both of those and win this election.
You disappoint me Whottt. Thats a single national poll. Its pretty useless in determining what states McCain will win and what states he won't. Not to mention, you yourself pointed out how horrible Zogby's track record is.
Edit: My bad. You're right. It is a couple of weeks old.
Pollster accuracy ratings from fivethirtyeight.com
As you pointed out and bartleby confirmed, it's an old poll, with most of the data dating back 3 months.
If you click on each state you'll see that they were last updated either July 8th (32 states), July 23rd (3 states) or August 22 (11 states), <several of the New England States did not provide a date when clicked on>.
Obviously this does not take the Palin/RNC bounce into consideration.
Bounces are a temporary effect of increased media exposure. They are not lasting effects on the polls.
Bounces do not win elections.
Also, states that are not in play will not be the focus of many polls. You won't see nearly as many polls conducted in California as you will in Ohio, for example.
FiveThirtyEight.com. That site, run by Nate Silver, a sabermetrician, is a good compendium of information and commentary. However, both our goals and methods differ on several key points. The biggest difference is that this site provides a current snapshot of where polls are today, while he attempts a prediction using many assumptions, including an enormous uncertainty about what will happen between now and November. This is a fundamental difference in what we provide. His approach does have some structural problems… The first step in estimating Electoral College outcomes is to estimate the state-by-state win probabilities. Silver’s approach is to use current polling information as well as a slew of other factors, including past reliability of individual pollsters and informed guesses about how much future change may occur. My approach is to take the last three polls only, giving a current snapshot. Therefore his site is future-oriented, while mine is focused on the here and now. To some extent this is a matter of taste (though what I provide is far more easily interpreted).Pollster accuracy ratings from fivethirtyeight.com
The second step is to combine these probabilities into an estimate of the likely overall outcome, measured in electoral votes (EV). Silver’s approach is to carry out thousands of simulations, then tally the simulations. That method reflects the fantasy baseball tradition, in which individual outcomes are often of great interest. However, such an approach is intrinsically imprecise because it draws a finite number of times from the distribution of possible outcomes. The Meta-Analysis on this site calculates the probability distribution of all 2.3 quadrillion possible outcomes. This can be done rapidly by calculating the polynomial probability distribution, known to students as Pascal’s Triangle.
http://election.princeton.edu/2008/0...hirtyeightcom/
Do you understand what that is saying or did you just copy and paste it because you think its saying something bad about fivethirtyeight.com?
Also, you should take a look at the information drawn by the site you linked. Who does he have winning?
He's probably inclusing all those Euro votes.
I'll predict a 5% swing by the next New York Poll. Obama got his ass kicked by Hillary in New York...come to think of it, she kicked his ass in California and Texas too. Over 50% of the vote in each.
But anyway...
George Bush did better against Kerry in New York in 2004 than Obama did in 2008 against Hillary, as in New York Senator Hillary Clinton, as in female Senator Hillary Clinton ....and they have 1 million or so more registered women in New York than men. That's why it's the state to produce the only other two women who have ever come close to being the President or VP...that's why Ferraro, as in former New York Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, as in female Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro was put on the ticket in 1984...to beat Reagan in New York.
You got Rudy.
You got the most influential Jewish politician ever endorsing McCain. You know...the guy who was on the Democratic ticket who won New York a mere 8 years ago.
You got the women.
New York is basically a Republican state or split state except for two boroughs, Queens and Manhattan...the two biggest boroughs, and Queens swings completely without rhyme or reason...and when they do stuff like Ptaki getting elected govenor or Guilianni becoming mayor happens.
If just 650k voters swing, out of their 3 million jews, their 5 million women, out of their millions of Hillary supporters, or basically if Queens and Mahattan don't both go about 90% Democrat again, New York will go Republican.
And Palin? She's a lot more like Evis than she is any politician ever seen before in American politics.
It's going to be in play by November.
You know what? This actually pretty amazing when I think about it...how does someone who takes over 50% of the vote in New York, Texas and California, getting more votes than the Republican winner in each state...not get the nomination for President?
Hmmmm.....
By not having winning the delegate count dumbass.
"His approach does have some structural problems…"
UH what does that mean?
since it's such a toss up, you want to make a bet on it?
Elvis hid from talk shows and read everything from a teleprompter?
Hillary pulled 2 million votes in Texas, comparded to 600k for McCaine and she didn't get the nomination? That's the Democratic Win right there. that's taking Texas blue, and every woman I know voted for Hillary by the way...the Democrats are insane for giving Obama the nomination when she pulled Texas like that.
The didn't give the nomination to Obama he won it be winning primaries and the delegate vote. How stupid are you?
But he's not running against her- he is running against McCain.
Surely, you know that she will be campaigning for Obama in New York. Women voters are smarter than you think. Women who voted for Hillary for "legitimate" reasons are not drawn to Palin and will not vote for McCain.
Your figures, much like your logic, are off.
Hillary had 1.46m
Obama had 1.36m
McCain had 701k.
Whottt of course Hillary pulled more votes than McCain did in Texas. The Republican nomination wasn't up for grabs unlike the Democratic nomination.
Thats not the only way you're looking at things in a very incorrect manner. Yeah, Hillar pulled a ton of votes in Texas and won the state primary (while losing the cacus - don't forget) but the state shouldn't even have been contested. She had a HUGE lead just 1 month prior to the election. On Super Tuesday Clinton had a huge lead and Texas was a given for her. One month later she somehow managed to pull a comeback win?
She did her best to lose the state and had Obama been given one more week he would have carried not only the cacus but the primary. For all the flak Obama got about not being able to close the deal people seem to forget this is a deal he never should have been in a position to close to begin with.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
