Originally Posted by pbrower2a

KIA told someone to do something lethal to himself. He got reported for that and he is gone.

I don't really know how you managed to turn an open sarcastic reponse to liberal's playing the victim card into a direct threat/order which resulted in a direct accusations and questioning of a higher up relating to his reasoning, his management skills and a liberal bias which seemed to exist at the time, which resulted in the ban of KIA, which resulted in more attempts at petty chump charge banning, which resulted in more challenges and questioning of the higher up, his reasoning and fairness which resulted in the resignation/removal of the higher up, but you did and I'm sure KIA would like to thank you for it based on the result.

No snark, just reality.

Elections for Sale

Few understand how money moves in and out of our political system better than campaign finance legal expert Trevor Potter. The former FEC commissioner joins Bill this week to discuss how American elections are bought and sold, who covers the cost, and how the rest of us pay the price.

Also on the show, a Bill Moyers Essay on how candidates are campaigning for cash more than votes, and how that money -- pouring into TV ads and the pockets of high-paid political consultants -- is creating “a racket, plain and simple.”
WATCH NOW

Originally Posted by Chas'88

What no love for this?

~Chas'88

Um, No. I mean, Yeah.
[Note: IMO, Rita Hayworth just doesn't fit the part(ie: Incestuous Desire and Revenge); Brigid Bazlen's portrayal from King of Kings is much more believable). Funny, I just posted this vid on another thread(it's riffing off of the Oscar Wilde Adaptation).

It somewhat reminds me of the implicit/explicit relationship between Ming the Merciless and his "daughter" Princess Aura from Flash Gordon(one of my favorite all-time movies, FWIW). Great scene here.

Prince

PS:Queen-Flash's Theme!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think we're channeling each other or something.

!

Originally Posted by Rags

The Snarkity-Snark Sneetch. My brain has been stuck on Sneetches due to this thread. I can get it out of my head.

I believe the Snarkity-Snark Sneetches already "get it", but unfortunately, when it comes to "regular" Sneetches: "They never will learn. No. You can't teach a Sneetch!" Or, better-put, they'll eventually learn, but I suppose:
"You've got to go to Hell before you get to Heaven!"

Here's someone who I believe "gets it":

Originally Posted by Deb C aka The Watchdog!

No snark, just reality.
Elections for Sale

Oh well. Everyone will come around sooner or later. All, in good time.


Prince

PS:Until then, Here's a little something for your head, my Brother!
("This IS the news!")

Edit: I see You and Aramea are already on top of this(Music of the 3T Thread).
Channeling. Yes. Got it.

We all know that this was a bad week for Romney, turning into a bad month.

Going in, he had "the chair" convention and then his McCain-like hysteria moment over the Libya situation. Then, of course, the video capturing his writing off half the country as moochers (including about 1/2 of the GOP base). And the laughable bookend to the week of releasing his taxes to change the subject back to not only the question of did he pay no taxes in recent years but can this guy understand anyone's problems who is not in the top 0.1%.

Given all the damage of those gaffs, the news media and most people may have missed the real electoral map killer for the week. That would be Paul Ryan's reception at the AARP convention -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9c-j...eature=related


- where he was repeatedly booed until it actually looked like he got booed off the stage.

Apparently, this is going viral on Facebook with the over 55 cohort.

Apparently, 1000s of seniors are on Facebook calling Paul Ryan a dick rather than spending time exchanging pics of the grandkids.

Losing Florida makes the other swing states a non-issue.

And remember, Romney not only picked Ryan for the ticket, but sent him to an AARP convention to discuss SS and Medicare. You really want this guy to be dealing with Putin???

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why don't you flush yourself while you're at it:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A simple hint: I would rather swear fealty to the King of Norway than loyalty to Norwegian-American political thugs Karl Rogue or Grover Norquist.

Whoa! That's a bit too much anger. There was just a nice little Snarkity Snark Contest going on and then bam! Perhaps it needs to be clarified that people over there are in love with a fairytale? Does that calm the blood pressure a bit?

Stay cool.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why don't you flush yourself while you're at it:

Originally Posted by me

If I had to leave the United States as a political dissident on the run and picked a country to go to based on its institutions without concern for linguistic difficulties or climate, then the Scandinavian countries would be at the top of the list. A simple hint: I would rather swear fealty to the King of Norway than loyalty to Norwegian-American political thugs Karl Rogue or Grover Norquist.

The solution to the crisis of overproduction is not more work; it is instead more leisure. Such was the effective solution in the 1930s -- cutting unemployment by cutting the workweek.

Choosing leisure over work necessary to creating sustenance or at least the improvement of human life is laziness. Work for its own sake or entirely to indulge extant elites is pointless.

That was the post. Karl Rove really is a rogue, and that smear came as a Freudian slip. I thought of a cute perversion of the name of Grover Norquist, but it was even more over-the-top (it is a reference to the #1 villain of Norwegian history, and I doubt that Norquist could ever be that bad) Heck, I called Enron "Enrob" after I went one letter too far to the left while typing "Enron" when the fraud that was that giant entity became obvious. If it didn't fit the reality I would have never kept using it.

It is only coincidence that Rove and Norquist are Norwegian-Americans. Norway, except for a harsh climate, is a nice place to live.

Political thugs deserve no loyalty. Maybe the July 20 Plot in Germany was too little and too late, but the near-miss heroes of reality would have been unqualified heroes to the rest of the world had they succeeded. We can stop a slide into dictatorship by a Party Boss with lobbyists to that Boss's favored crony capitalists as enforcers of undemocratic rule -- now. This is the best time to do so. Ten years from now may be far too late. The Devil Incarnate could have been stopped some time between 1930 and 1932, and the world would be far better for such. No World War II, no Holocaust, no bolshevization of central and Balkan Europe... and in the case of Norway, one of the least-populous countries in Europe, no Quisling puppet state.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Whoa! That's a bit too much anger. There was just a nice little Snarkity Snark Contest going on and then bam! Perhaps it needs to be clarified that people over there are in love with a fairytale? Does that calm the blood pressure a bit?

Stay cool.

~Chas'88

First there's denial, then comes anger, then....

The pivot to "the House issue" continues -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...&tid=pp_widget

Can national polls predict House elections?

Democrats are currently leading in national “generic ballot” polls that ask people which party they prefer for House races (without naming candidates). That fact has led some forecasters, such as Princeton’s Sam Wang, to conclude based on past elections that Democrats are favored to retake the House. Wang puts the odds of that at 74 percent.

But Kevin Drum isn’t convinced. He argues that the generic ballot congressional polls tend to overstate Democratic support in the national popular vote by about 4 to 5 percentage points. And, since the national popular vote does a much better job of predicting House elections, this suggests that Wang is far too optimistic about the Democrats’ chances.

So is this true? Does the generic ballot overstate Democratic support? It’s a key question in trying to figure out which party will control the House.

In the past, the generic ballot has overstated Democratic support, as polls from 1992, 1988 and 1980 demonstrate. But the polls’ predictive power has increased in recent years. The best work on this has been done by Dartmouth’s Joseph Bafumi, Columbia’s Robert Erikson and Temple’s Christopher Wlezien. Their model uses national generic ballot polls, as well as which party holds the presidency, to estimate how many seats each party will pick up.

And this model performs quite well. The researchers predicted that Democrats would gain 32 seats in 2006 — the actual number was 30. The model predicted Democrats would lose 50 seats in 2010 (Democrats actually lost 61). It’s not perfect, but it fits past elections, even if you use polls from a year before the election:

Source: Bafumi, Erikson and Wlezien 2006.

What does this mean for 2012? Using Bafumi, Erikson and Wlezien’s model, and the last month’s average result of a 2.2 percent Democratic victory margin, you get a Democratic victory margin of 0.688 this year. That translates to a razor-thin one-seat margin, if you only look at how vote margins have translated into seat margins in elections from 1996 onward, or a 22-seat margin if you look from at all elections from 1946 to 2010 (thanks to Sam Wang to passing along this data).

And with a typical error of 18 seats in either direction, that means Democrats have hardly got it in the bag. Moreover, Bafumi, Erikson and Wlezien’s regression was for October data, and may be less reliable with data this far out. But this does suggest the Democrats have a good shot at retaking the House.

Let's just hope in their desperation to keep Team Romney alive, the GOP continues to be rope-a-doped into staying with their "whatdayamean you can't change Washington from the inside?"

Originally Posted by playwrite

And remember, Romney not only picked Ryan for the ticket, but sent him to an AARP convention to discuss SS and Medicare. You really want this guy to be dealing with Putin???

Maybe he should have gone with Palin after all?

But it's still early for victory parties.

This new poll is really a killer to Team Romney -

Obama Leads Romney 52-45 In New Reason-Rupe Poll; In Three-Way Race Obama Leads Romney 49-42, Johnson Gets 6 Percent

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/21/484...#storylink=cpy

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 21, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new national Reason-Rupe poll of likely voters finds President Barack Obama leading Republican Mitt Romney 48 percent to 43 percent in the presidential race. When undecided voters are asked which way they are leaning Obama's lead over Romney grows to 52-45.

President Obama holds large advantages among women (53-37), African-Americans (92-2) and Hispanics (71-18). Fifty-two percent of likely voters view Obama favorably, while 45 view him unfavorably. In contrast, 49 percent of likely voters have an unfavorable view of Mitt Romney and 41 percent have a favorable view of him.

In a three-way presidential race, 49 percent of likely voters back Obama and Romney falls to 42 percent as the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson gets six percent of support. Johnson is already on the presidential ballot in 47 states.

The Reason-Rupe poll conducted live interviews with 1,006 adults, including 787 likely voters, via landlines (602) and cell phones (404) from September 13-17, 2012. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.8 percent, 4.3 percent for the likely voters sample. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the Reason-Rupe poll.

That the majority of the few un-decideds left in the Nation lean to Obama is devastating.

Also, I didn't realize that Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 states!!! Gives the magic pony folks an opportunity for a MAJOR protest vote. Very little attention was given in the press of how badly the Ron Paul people were treated at the GOP convention (if it wasn't for that damn chair getting all the attention! ). They have a chance to hammer Romney and really send a message to the GOP now. Please, magic pony people, please do it!!!

I wonder if these guys are part of Romney's 47%

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/wo...oc.semityn.www

Angry Libyans Target Militias, Forcing Flight

BENGHAZI, Libya — Galvanized by anger over the killing of the popular American ambassador here last week, thousands of Libyans marched through this city on Friday, demanding the disarming of the militias that helped topple the dictatorship but have troubled the country with their refusal to disband.


In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.

As members of Ansar al-Sharia fled their headquarters, protesters set at least one vehicle on fire, and Reuters reported that one person was killed. There were unconfirmed reports that several had been wounded by the departing gunmen.

At the seized headquarters of another militia, protesters burned and pillaged a large number of weapons, and hundreds of looters could be seen walking away with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

The killing of the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, a well-liked figure in Benghazi because he had worked closely with the rebels who toppled Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi last year, appeared to be the catalyst for the protests on Friday, though hardly its only cause.

The militias, which started forming soon after the February 2011 uprising against Colonel Qaddafi began in this eastern Libyan city, emerged as a parallel and often menacing presence after his downfall in October 2011, seizing territory for themselves and asserting their authority over the fledgling government.

In western Libya, turf wars between militias resulted in regular street fights with heavy weapons. Months ago, members of Ansar al-Sharia brandishing weapons paraded through Benghazi and called for an Islamic state.

It was unclear whether the backlash against Ansar al-Sharia and the other militias on Friday represented an opportunity for the government to consolidate its power in the post-Qaddafi era or would lead to new violent confrontations.

But no weapons were left behind in most of the seizures, protesters and officials said, suggesting the militias had been anticipating such an event because of a buildup of resentment against them.

In a further sign that tensions had been stoked, some militia members accused Qaddafi loyalists of instigating the backlash. Mohamed Bazina, a spokesman for the Rafallah al-Sehati brigade, one of the militias whose headquarters were seized, said it had video evidence to prove it.

“This is a military coup against the true revolutionaries in the city of Benghazi,” he said. “Benghazi will not calm down.”

The attack on the American Mission in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Stevens, on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, was an affront to many in Benghazi, which Mr. Stevens had made his base during the uprising. He became a familiar, cheerful presence at public events.

“We want justice for Chris,” read one sign among the estimated 30,000 Libyans, including families, who marched into Benghazi’s main square on Friday to protest in front of the chief encampment of Ansar al-Sharia.

Some held signs reading “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Many protesters carried Libyan flags, and government police officers could be seen mingling with the marchers.

Members of Ansar al-Sharia held a counterdemonstration, and arguments erupted between the opposing sides, but no violence occurred, at least not initially. Protesters chanted: “You terrorists, you cowards. Go back to Afghanistan.”

Mr. Stevens and the others were killed in mayhem that was ostensibly provoked by anger over an anti-Muslim video that was made in the United States and has been roiling the Islamic world for nearly two weeks. But officials have said there are indications that part of the attack may have been coordinated and planned.

Okay, let's see how our resident "hate-my-own-country" folks on this forum spin this.

As noted in article below, CA has 11 GOP congressional districts considered competitive for this cycle. That is nearly half of what the Dems need to re-take the House (25).

Just a day ago, Mittens trashed California -

"I'm convinced that the path [Obama's] put us on is the path to Europe," he said. "Or, I jokingly say....to California."

- kind of hypocritical of a guy who is building a multi-million dollar house there; the one with the elevator for his cars.

Any way, more evidence of the pivot -

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...use-candidates

Do Romney's gaffes hurt California's GOP House candidates?

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's recent stumbles are unwelcome news for GOP candidates in tight California congressional races, though perhaps less so than for their peers in other states.
As Romney's poll numbers dip and he tries to regain traction, candidates in California seem to be taking a wait-and-see attitude as to whether to distance themselves from Romney, as numerous Senate and House candidates around the country already have done.

Spokesmen for some -- including Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Modesto, and former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, who's challenging Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara -- say what Romney says has little impact here. But other campaigns are less willing to discuss Romney's troubles.

Eleven California House districts are considered competitive, according to the closely watched Cook Political Report. That makes the Golden State a make-or-break battleground for the Democrats' long-shot quest to gain 25 House seats and perhaps reinstall San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.

This week a video surfaced of a May Romney fundraiser in Florida at which he badmouthed "47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what" because they're dependent upon government and pay no income tax.

Colin Hunter, a campaign spokesman for Republican Ricky Gill of Lodi, who's taking on Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton, in the 9th Congressional District, said he would "respectfully decline tocomment" on Romney's remarks.

Alee Lockman, campaign manager for Republican Kim Vann -- who's challenging Rep. John Garamendi, D-Fairfield -- said only that "Kim remains focused on talking with 3rd District voters and sharing her positive message of working toward common-sense solutions to the challenges facing our nation."

Representatives of Rep. Dan Lungren's re-election campaign didn't return emails and calls Thursday and Friday seeking comment.

Romney arrived in the Bay Area on Friday evening for a Hillsborough fundraiser to which no reporters were admitted, after 10 rocky days. Even before the "47 percent" video surfaced, his Sept. 12 criticism of President Barack Obama's handling of attacks that killed Bay Area native Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, had polled poorly. Then last weekend brought a wave of stories quoting sources within the Romney campaigns describing disarray and pointing fingers.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said Republicans definitely are nervous that if Obama wins big, House Democrats could exceed expectations and perhaps even retake the chamber. That's still a very remote possibility, he said, but "it is certainly true that as Obama's vote total goes up, the potential for significant coat tail increases."

But Gary Jacobson, a congressional elections expert at UC San Diego, said Romney's missteps might hurt California GOP candidates a little less.

"Insofar as they get tied to his message, then there might be some problem," he said. "But the advantage for California Republicans is that there's no Romney campaign here whatsoever. The state has been conceded to Obama, as well it should be. So that probably limits the kind of 'guilt by association' that Republicans might face when Romney makes comments that seem to be unpopular and not very astute.

"It never helps to have the top of your ticket floundering around. ... But I don't think it's going to be decisive in any of these races" in California, Jacobson said.

That thing about Dems not turning out in CA because there's little Presidential campaigning going on there (due to Obama's lock) is what the DNC has to now focus on. They need to nationalize the election. The meme that you can't fix DC from the inside has to translate to getting the wing nuts from CA out so Obama can have a successful 2nd term.

Let's see how this pivot progresses over the next week or so.

But, it does appear that Romney is paying off like a slot machine in giving the Dems potential for 2012.
I like that.

Watch this new killer ad and explain to me how Romney survives this politically -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJOo...layer_embedded

Dems need to now tie this milestone around GOP candidates running for the House.

Barely noticed by the media but perhaps a very big sign that it is over -

Americans for Prosperity, the Koch vehicle, was silent on the presidential front. They only spent about $600,000 last week, so it appears they are winding things down. Perhaps they've decided to stop pissing away their cash?

Whoa, now there's a hard nose business decision.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmmm ... what?

I got tripped-up a bit on that one as well, Rani. I believe Chas is working a "Norway-angle" on his comment,
in which case I would respond with: A-HA! IMO, you were pointing-out some serious hypocrisy and making
a recommendation for the extremely rare: "Royal Flush"!

Prince

Originally Posted by playwrite

Barely noticed by the media but perhaps a very big sign that it is over -



Whoa, now there's a hard nose business decision.

They can no longer buy loyalty to their cause (pure plutocracy) through the favored tool of brainwashing in America -- that is, television advertising. The product matters. If people can close their minds to the advertising of products irrelevant to their desires, then they can do so to ideas. "Work longer, harder, and for less so that those who treat you as less than human can get even more wealth and power" is as tough a sell as encouraging people to take winter vacations in Buffalo.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If your fingers accidentally typed "Rash Libel," (for Rush Limbaugh) it might be time to see a neurologist.

No slip of the fingers there. The nickname fits.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why don't you flush yourself while you're at it:

In a democracy, the vote is all that we have for stopping a pathological government. I prefer using my words to ridicule political thuggery to relying upon "Second Amendment solutions", terror, and conspiracy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

First there's denial, then comes anger, then....

hmm... I know this one.
Denial

then

Anger

then

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In a democracy, the vote is all that we have for stopping a pathological government. I prefer using my words to ridicule political thuggery to relying upon "Second Amendment solutions", terror, and conspiracy.

Rank hypocrisy

Well played Rani

I just did an interesting little analysis of the RealClearPolitics Average for Obama vs. Romney, to satisfy my curiosity.

What the average currently shows:

Obama: 48.3
Romney: 44.6
Spread: Obama +3.7

The average, appropriately, is the arithmetic mean of the included polls. However, if you take the median numbers, you get this:

Obama: 48
Romney: 45
Spread: Obama +3

What that suggests is that the polls in the average are skewed in Obama's favor by a total of 5.6 points (8*0.7). The National Journal poll (Obama +7) and the Pew Poll (Obama +8) are the most obvious suspects. If you drop those two out, you end up with:

Obama: 47.5
Romney: 45.2
Spread: Obama +2.3

The average margin of error in the polls is 3%. The standard deviation for the spread is 2.6.

If you throw out all of the polls where the majority of their data is more than two weeks old, you also end up with Obama +3. However, that still includes the National Journal poll, which as I showed above is highly suspect.

If you throw out the old polls and the questionable National Journal poll, all you have left is the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls, which are the only two national tracking polls at this point. That gives you this:

Obama: 47
Romney: 46
Spread: Obama +1

I would suggest that the real way the contest looks is this:

Obama: 47-48
Romney: 45-46
Spread: Obama +1-3

or

Obama: 47.5
Romney: 45.5
Spread: Obama +2

Just about the same result as throwing out the National Journal and Pew polls.

Nothing above is purely scientific, including the numbers from the polls, which are weighted and massaged by the pollsters. But what it does show (I believe definitively for this set of data), is that there are questionable polls skewing the average in Obama's favor. Several different approaches to dissecting the data turn up Obama +3 instead of Obama +3.7. If there is a bias in favor of Romney in any of the polls, it is exceeded by polls with a bias in favor of Obama.

Obviously you could just look at the National Journal and Pew polls and say "something seems fishy there", especially considering that both are left-leaning organizations. But it's sometimes fun to back it up with a little math.

The bottom line of it is that the media is trying to sell a "narrative" that the race is over, Romney is finished, Obama is re-elected. Why even vote? And they and their allies are probably (being charitable) putting out deliberately dishonest polls to support it. What's more, they know that much of the focus now rests on polling averages rather than individual polls. So in order to try and skew those averages, they have to put out these laughable polls (+7,+8) that are massive outliers, and obviously suspicious.

The moral of the story is this: the larger the amount of information, and the more sources there are, the harder it is to fool people.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I just did an interesting little analysis of the RealClearPolitics Average for Obama vs. Romney, to satisfy my curiosity.

What the average currently shows:

Obama: 48.3
Romney: 44.6
Spread: Obama +3.7

The average, appropriately, is the arithmetic mean of the included polls. However, if you take the median numbers, you get this:

Obama: 48
Romney: 45
Spread: Obama +3

What that suggests is that the polls in the average are skewed in Obama's favor by a total of 5.6 points

No it doesn't. Let's clarify exactly what you're saying here.

The mean is found by adding all the poll results and dividing by the number of polls. The median is found by taking a number such that half the polls deviate from it in one direction and the other half in the other. While there is no necessary relationship between the two, in this case they should come pretty close together assuming that the distribution of poll results is genuinely random.

They do. That the mean and the median are within a single percentage point of each other suggests that the distribution is indeed pretty random.

In fact, I wondered, looking at this, where in the hell you got that 5.6 point figure (which doesn't even show up anywhere in the mean compared to the median), and it looks to me like what you've done is to add the margin of error of 3 to the standard deviation of 2.6, for which there is absolutely no justification in any mathematical or statistical principle known to humankind.

If you are reduced to saying Romney can win on the basis of a conspiracy of the poll takers to lie to us, and to pulling weird numbers out of your backside, you are probably going to disappear after the election is over and Romney gets pasted. Or maybe you'll come up with a voter-fraud conspiracy theory to explain it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No it doesn't. Let's clarify exactly what you're saying here.

The mean is found by adding all the poll results and dividing by the number of polls. The median is found by taking a number such that half the polls deviate from it in one direction and the other half in the other. While there is no necessary relationship between the two, in this case they should come pretty close together assuming that the distribution of poll results is genuinely random.

They do. That the mean and the median are within a single percentage point of each other suggests that the distribution is indeed pretty random.

In fact, I wondered, looking at this, where in the hell you got that 5.6 point figure (which doesn't even show up anywhere in the mean compared to the median), and it looks to me like what you've done is to add the margin of error of 3 to the standard deviation of 2.6, for which there is absolutely no justification in any mathematical or statistical principle known to humankind.

If you are reduced to saying Romney can win on the basis of a conspiracy of the poll takers to lie to us, and to pulling weird numbers out of your backside, you are probably going to disappear after the election is over and Romney gets pasted. Or maybe you'll come up with a voter-fraud conspiracy theory to explain it.

The average differs from the median results by 0.7. There are 8 polls in the average. 8 * 0.7 = 5.6. Before you start ranting, maybe you should engage your brain. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you. Or maybe you don't know how to take an average. Who knows.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I just did an interesting little analysis of the RealClearPolitics Average for Obama vs. Romney, to satisfy my curiosity.

What the average currently shows:

Obama: 48.3
Romney: 44.6
Spread: Obama +3.7

The average, appropriately, is the arithmetic mean of the included polls. However, if you take the median numbers, you get this:

Obama: 48
Romney: 45
Spread: Obama +3

What that suggests is that the polls in the average are skewed in Obama's favor by a total of 5.6 points (8*0.7). The National Journal poll (Obama +7) and the Pew Poll (Obama +8) are the most obvious suspects. If you drop those two out, you end up with:

Obama: 47.5
Romney: 45.2
Spread: Obama +2.3

The average margin of error in the polls is 3%. The standard deviation for the spread is 2.6.

If you throw out all of the polls where the majority of their data is more than two weeks old, you also end up with Obama +3. However, that still includes the National Journal poll, which as I showed above is highly suspect.

If you throw out the old polls and the questionable National Journal poll, all you have left is the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls, which are the only two national tracking polls at this point. That gives you this:

Obama: 47
Romney: 46
Spread: Obama +1

I would suggest that the real way the contest looks is this:

Obama: 47-48
Romney: 45-46
Spread: Obama +1-3

or

Obama: 47.5
Romney: 45.5
Spread: Obama +2

Just about the same result as throwing out the National Journal and Pew polls.

Nothing above is purely scientific, including the numbers from the polls, which are weighted and massaged by the pollsters. But what it does show (I believe definitively for this set of data), is that there are questionable polls skewing the average in Obama's favor. Several different approaches to dissecting the data turn up Obama +3 instead of Obama +3.7. If there is a bias in favor of Romney in any of the polls, it is exceeded by polls with a bias in favor of Obama.

Obviously you could just look at the National Journal and Pew polls and say "something seems fishy there", especially considering that both are left-leaning organizations. But it's sometimes fun to back it up with a little math.

The bottom line of it is that the media is trying to sell a "narrative" that the race is over, Romney is finished, Obama is re-elected. Why even vote? And they and their allies are probably (being charitable) putting out deliberately dishonest polls to support it. What's more, they know that much of the focus now rests on polling averages rather than individual polls. So in order to try and skew those averages, they have to put out these laughable polls (+7,+8) that are massive outliers, and obviously suspicious.

The moral of the story is this: the larger the amount of information, and the more sources there are, the harder it is to fool people.

No drama -- Obama wins. A Romney collapse is far more likely than an Obama collapse.