Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 123
  1. #26
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    And I don't know the Ellises personally but I think timvp gives me a wide berth because he might be slightly afraid of me. That or he's already outed me to the FBI.

  2. #27
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    where do you get those splits? just curious about your insight into future voting patterns.
    2008 was 73-14-9-4. White turnout was slightly depressed while other groups were up. Blacks were up like 30%, for obvious reasons.

    2010 was 78-10-8-4. Lower turnout across all groups obviously for a midterm election, but high motivation among tea party whites.

    2012 may have less of that rah-rah enthusiasm among Obama voters, but he's done a good job stirring up hate, so in place of enthusiasm they have seething determination.

    Tea party whites are every bit as motivated as 2010, but they turned out in 2008 too and it did little good. Working class whites are checking out of the political process and nothing this cycle is going to change that. Mitt Romney doesn't get anyone excited, and anti-Obama sentiment only motivates the people who were going to vote anyway.

    Giving you 74-14-8-4 means I acknowledge a slight rollback from the 2008 Democrat peak. I even bump white GOP support from McCain's 55% to 60% for Romney. But it's not enough to turn 2008's 7-point deficit into a GOP win. It just makes it close.

    Going forward to future elections, the country isn't getting any whiter, white voters aren't going to get any more motivated than they are now, and if Democrats nominate a Hispanic, there's a mother lode of new voters out there for them. Hispanics turn out something like 30% less than Anglos right now because they aren't politically engaged. The opportunity to vote for a Hispanic will deliver a large number of new, low-information voters.

    The GOP could try to nominate somebody like Rubio, and probably would win a significant chunk of the Latino vote that way, maybe even a majority, but that would be offset by extremely low turnout from the nativist white base so at best it would be a wash.

  3. #28
    俺はまんこが大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    97,881
    People that think the MSM doesn't treat Obama with kid gloves are delusional.
    Clear Channel and Fox baby him?

  4. #29
    hasta la victoria, siempre cheguevara's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    9,763
    thb they already lost the game and looking forward to 2016 by riling up their diminishing base.

    thankfully for them their voter suppresion laws will make it a close election and their plans to suppress more voters and get billions from corps by 2016 will keep them compe ive in the game.

    plus it'll be their turn at the presidency. LMAO thinking this is a real democracy

  5. #30
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    thb they already lost the game and looking forward to 2016 by riling up their diminishing base.

    thankfully for them their voter suppresion laws will make it a close election and their plans to suppress more voters and get billions from corps by 2016 will keep them compe ive in the game.

    plus it'll be their turn at the presidency. LMAO thinking this is a real democracy
    I don't think the voter-ID laws are going to suppress a significant number of voters by 2016. That's four years for community organizers to reach out and help people get ID cards if they don't already have them.

    The corps hedge their bets against who they think is going to win. Structurally, that is set up for the Dems for the foreseeable future. The GOP will do well in congressional elections, especially midterm ones, for a while, because their diminishing base will continue to turn out. However, in a high-turnout Presidential election, as long as the Dems nominate someone who motivates nonwhites to turn out it will be tough for them to lose.

    But that's OK, because the financial meltdown is inevitable no matter who gets elected, so if it comes after a solid 16-20 years of Democrats holding the White House, the narrative post-collapse just writes itself.

  6. #31
    Esse quam videri ploto's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    10,994
    Romney just makes it easy.

  7. #32
    i hunt fenced animals clambake's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    25,321
    is "jihadist fist bump" a form of media bias?

  8. #33
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    12,058
    It is going to be a good election night watching Obama win in a landslide.

  9. #34
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    12,058
    I don't see how conservatives can complain about the media when Fox news and Conservative talk radio is media.

  10. #35
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    2004: Democrats complain about "skewed" polls seemingly showing massive unprecedented Republican base turnout propelling Bush narrowly to re-election. That can't be true! It doesn't make sense! Independents prefer Kerry!

    Yeah, turned out the polls had the pulse of the electorate.

  11. #36
    Board Man Comes Home Clipper Nation's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Post Count
    54,257
    But Ron Paul fans are especially unbiased when it comes to Dr. Paul.

    More like cult followers.
    I'd say the real cult followers are the ones who vote straight-ticket Dem or Repug based off bull rationales like "strategy," "lesser of two evils," "My parents always voted for this party," etc....

  12. #37
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    People that think the MSM doesn't treat Obama with kid gloves are delusional.
    Yeah, in great contrast to how MSM ripped dubya shreds for 8 years by MSM, including stopping him from lying USA into Iraq-for-oil.

  13. #38
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473

  14. #39
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Does anyone think the majority of the media isn't liberal bias?

    Why didn't the media make a stink about the Russian Fleet backdrop when honoring veterans at the DNC.

    If the RNC did the same thing, the media would never let them live it down.

    Anyone disagree?

  15. #40
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,886
    ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, et al all carried it when it happened two weeks ago.

    Thing was no one cared.

    Maybe the reason why the GOP is getting such bad press is because the party of Mitt Romney and Grover Norquist just sucks nowadays.

  16. #41
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...-does-it-mean/

    Excerpt


    If the president were a conservative Republican rather than a liberal Democrat, I have little doubt that much of the legacy press would be focused more on what is wrong with America. There would be more negative reporting about the economy, more criticism of policy failures and many more withering comparisons between promise and performance. The contrast between a rising stock market and poor jobs performance that the press now doesn’t think of blaming on President Obama would be reported as demonstrating a systemic bias in favor of the rich and the powerful if George W. Bush were in the White House. The catastrophic decline in African-American net worth during the last four years would, if we had a Republican president, be presented in the press as illustrating the racial indifference or even the racism of the administration. As it is, it is just an unfortunate reality, not worth much publicity and telling us nothing about the intentions or competence of the people in charge.

    The current state of the Middle East would be reported as illustrating the complete collapse of American foreign policy—if Bush were in the White House. The criticism of drone strikes and Guantanamo that is now mostly confined to the far left would be mainstream conventional wisdom, and the current unrest in the Middle East would be depicted as a response to American militarism. The in and out surge in Afghanistan would be mercilessly exposed as a strategic flop, reflecting the naive incompetence of an inexperienced president out of his depth. The SEALS rather than the White House would be getting the credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, and there would be more questions about whether killing him and then bragging endlessly and tastelessly about it was a contributing factor to the current unrest. Political cartoons of Cheney ing the football would be everywhere. It’s also likely we would have heard much more about how killing Osama was strategically unimportant as he had become an increasingly symbolic figure and there would have been a lot of detailed and focused analysis of how the foolish concentration on bin Laden led the clueless Bush administration to neglect the rise of new and potentially much more dangerous Islamist groups in places like Mali. The Libyan war would be widely denounced as an uncons utional act of neocon militarism, with much more attention paid to the civilian casualties during the war, the chaos that followed, and the destabilizing effects on the neighborhood. The White House fumbling around the Benghazi murders would be treated like a major scandal and dominate the news for at least a couple of weeks.

    If Bush were in the White House, the Middle East would be a horrible disaster, and it would all be America’s fault.

  17. #42
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    26,358
    Defintion of liberal media bias:


    "Anything bad said about any conservative cause or person, no matter how cogent, truthful, or factual it is."

    By that definition, a ty candidate like Romney will see a lot of "bias".

    "Boo-hoo, not everybody is mindlessly parroting our preferred narrative"

    GMAFB.
    I agree with this statement ^ after all wasn't it back in the Bush era when the Left complain about the Bias media they were called out as a bunch of butthurt whiners?

  18. #43
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    26,358
    Does anyone think the majority of the media isn't liberal bias?

    Why didn't the media make a stink about the Russian Fleet backdrop when honoring veterans at the DNC.

    If the RNC did the same thing, the media would never let them live it down.

    Anyone disagree?
    That is a good point. I can't stand double standards no matter what party is involved.

  19. #44
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, et al all carried it when it happened two weeks ago.

    Thing was no one cared.

    Maybe the reason why the GOP is getting such bad press is because the party of Mitt Romney and Grover Norquist just sucks nowadays.
    I agree nobody cares.

    It wasn't a republican.

    Liberals/Democrats are heartless heads who would have cared if it was the RNC, but ignore it since it was the DNC.

    Conservatives/Republicans have better things to do, and aren't as much the bullying type.

  20. #45
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    maybe the boy cried wolf one too many times and now no one will listen..

  21. #46
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    maybe the boy cried wolf one too many times and now no one will listen..
    We see things quite a bit different. Don't we.

  22. #47
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    I went back and looked at the numbers last night... there is something to these allegations of poll-rigging.

    The national partisan ID differential is going to be D+2 or +3 this cycle as opposed to D+7 in 2008. These polls that have D+9, D+13 or whatever can't justify those differentials. The Obama "surge" over the past couple of weeks has been entirely the result of changes in the polls' modeled voter demographics. Poll responses have changed very little.

    Right now I have the projected popular vote Obama 50.5%, Romney 48.7%. Obama is up 0.2% in the past two weeks. Based upon the margin of error, that change is not statistically significant.

    D+9 etc. skews can't be explained by what's happening on the ground. If those numbers were real, we'd see absentee application numbers like what we saw in 2008. That isn't happening. The Obama campaign's internals show D+2 or +3 like what I'm showing. The media folks who are reporting these partisan skews are familiar with what the Obama internals are showing.

    As best I can figure, this is probably what the GOP is saying it is -- an attempt to discourage marginal Romney voters by setting the narrative that his loss is inevitable and there's no point in turning out. The race is close enough that a few thousand votes here or there in a close state could make the difference. However, I'm not seeing any evidence that it's working -- very little has changed in the past two weeks.

    But to be clear -- the skews are NOT hiding a Romney lead. He really is behind.

  23. #48
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what I think ought to be done to members of media organizations that intentionally tamper with poll results to impact the outcome of a race.

  24. #49
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    113,846
    you know that pollsters have changed their voter demographic modeling, how?

    not doubting, just, I have no information on this.

    also, how do you know what "Obama internals" show and where can I get that info in real time?

  25. #50
    Not Koolaid_Man Homeland Security's Avatar
    My Team
    Washington Wizards
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    1,233
    you know that pollsters have changed their voter demographic modeling, how?

    not doubting, just, I have no information on this.

    also, how do you know what "Obama internals" show and where can I get that info in real time?
    You can read the crosstabs. The polling outfits take the raw responses and weight them based upon a predicted likely voter demographic by partisan ID, gender, race, age, income level, etc. So if your actual results have the same number of R's and D's but your likely voter model says 30% more D's will turn out than R's, then you take your raw results and turn every 1 vote for Obama into 1.3 votes.

    Democrats vote ~90% for Obama, Republicans vote ~90% for Romney, and Romney leads by ~5 points among independents. That has changed very little over the past several months; all the shifts in the polls come from how the polling outfits change the demographic map into which they fit the raw data.

    So take my projection of 37D-34R-29I.
    Obama gets 37%*91% + 34%*9% + 29%*47% = 50.5%
    Romney gets 37%*8% + 34%*90% + 29%*52% = 48.7%

    Take one of these media polls with 41D-32R-27I with the same percentages.
    Obama gets 41%*91% + 32%*9% + 27%*47% = 53.0%
    Romney gets 41%*8% + 32%*90% + 27%*52% = 46.1%

    The responses can be exactly the same; the only difference is the adjustment the polling outfit makes based upon the projected demographic they assume. That's a 5-point swing based on nothing more than the chosen model.

    The point is that in 2008 the turnout was 39D-32R-29I. That was a Democratic wave election, and it's very unlikely that turnout is going to be even more favorable to the Democrats this time. 41D-32R-27I is not realistic, and nobody on the up-and-up would use that model. There's even one showing 52D-37R-11I. It's ridiculous. Anyone using these kinds of partisan ID breakdowns is not releasing a serious poll but rather is skewing the poll to yield the result they want to report. These are Soviet Union tactics.

    There's another trick to keep the partisan-ID gap down but skew the results, and that's to run the independent number very low. when you do that, the partisan-ID gap basically is identical to the margin. There's one that used a 46D-41R-13I model.

    I have a very reasonable model that matches the facts on the ground. None of these media polls match the facts on the ground. Obama has a slight but steady lead, and nothing Romney is doing is cutting into it.

    The Obama internal info obviously isn't published but in my world I have access to some of it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •