Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 401







Post#10001 at 09-23-2012 04:57 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-23-2012, 04:57 PM #10001
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
The average differs from the median results by 0.7. There are 8 polls in the average. 8 * 0.7 = 5.6.
Alright, now I see where you got it; I was wrong about which mathematically meaningless and totally fallacious reasoning you were using. My bad. Yours, too, though.

There is no reason to expect the median and the mean to exactly agree. There is nothing "wrong" with the poll results if they don't. There is no justification at all for multiplying the difference between them by the number of polls. Here's an illustration to show you why.

Suppose there were 150 polls instead of 8. Suppose that the mean and the median differed from each other by just .1 instead of .7. Multiply .1 by 150 and you get 15. Adjust the poll average by 15 points and . . .

But you see what I mean. Suffice it to say there is no mathematical justification at all for doing what you just did.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#10002 at 09-23-2012 05:06 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-23-2012, 05:06 PM #10002
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Alright, now I see where you got it; I was wrong about which mathematically meaningless and totally fallacious reasoning you were using. My bad. Yours, too, though.

There is no reason to expect the median and the mean to exactly agree. There is nothing "wrong" with the poll results if they don't. There is no justification at all for multiplying the difference between them by the number of polls. Here's an illustration to show you why.

Suppose there were 150 polls instead of 8. Suppose that the mean and the median differed from each other by just .1 instead of .7. Multiply .1 by 150 and you get 15. Adjust the poll average by 15 points and . . .

But you see what I mean. Suffice it to say there is no mathematical justification at all for doing what you just did.
There is, you just don't get it. I guess the self-reported genius and superior education of leftists is overstated? When you take an average, you first add all of the numbers together, then you divide by the size of the sample. In this case, the sum of spreads reported in the polls is arguably 5.6 points too high. Meaning that you should subtract 5.6 from the sum before you divide by 8. Which gives you an average of approximately 3.0. Get it?

Also, the difference between the mean and median in this case is not less than 1%. The data set consists of percentage points, but that has no bearing on how far apart the two results are. 0.7/3 = .23. The average is 23% more favorable to Obama than the median.

The only logical leap I'm making is to attribute that suspicious 5.6 to National Journal and Pew. It's not much of a leap considering how far they deviate from the mean and median. The other approach is to leave them in and subtract .7 from every spread in the average, which gives you a result very close to the median (2.925 to be exact). Once again you see evidence in that 0.075 difference that the polls are skewed towards Obama.

In case you're confused again, the median is the middle value in the data set. If there are two middle values, you take the mean of those two values and that's your median. So the precise "corrected" average here is 2.925, while the median is 3.

Rasmussen, Gallup and AP are all below the median, by an average of 1 percentage point.

Hartford and Monmouth are the median values.

National Journal, NBC and Pew are above the median, by an average of 3.7 percentage points.

So you have two polls that are at Obama +3, 3 polls that are below and 3 that are above. The ones that are above are far more exaggerated than the ones below, as you can see. Which suggests that those polls, or at least the two that are the farthest out, should be viewed skeptically. NBC/WSJ is 2 points away from the median, which is the same as AP and one less than Rasmussen. So I would include that, while treating NJ and Pew as outliers, flawed, and/or biased and discarding them.

Are you getting it yet? I'm not saying you can pin down exactly what the "real" numbers are. What I'm doing is showing that the polls favoring Obama by greater than 5 points are highly suspect. Which is something anybody with a brain knows intuitively. I've just broken it down using statistics.

I can do the same thing using just the mean, which is 3.7. The amount by which each poll deviates from the mean:

Rasmussen: -3.7
AP: -2.7
Gallup: -1.7
Hartford: -0.7
Monmouth: -0.7
NBC/WSJ: +1.3
National Journal: +3.3
Pew: +4.3

If you throw out all of the polls that exceed the standard deviation (2.6), you get:

Obama: 48
Romney: 44.75
Spread: Obama +3.25

Since that number is also more favorable to Romney than the mean (3.7), you can see once again that the polls skewed to Obama are more skewed than the polls skewed to Romney. But of course, those polls were included in the mean to begin with, which means their impact was greater than what the above number shows. If, as I conclude, the Pew and NJ polls were deliberately fraudulent, they should be thrown out. Which as I showed before produces this result:

Obama: 47.5
Romney: 45.2
Spread: Obama +2.3

You then have a new standard deviation of 1.6. The new median is 2.5. You have 3 polls above the median, and 3 polls below it. If you throw out the polls that exceed the standard deviation, you get:

Obama: 47.25
Romney: 45
Spread: Obama +2.25

Once again, even with Pew and NJ gone, you see that the polls skewed to Obama are more skewed than the polls skewed to Romney (in this case, NBC/WSJ vs. Rasmussen). But the difference in discarding those two is far less than the changes that occurred as a result of dumping NJ, Pew, Rasmussen and AP from the original average. Where the latter dropped Obama's lead from 3.7 to 3.25, the former only dropped his lead from 2.3 to 2.25.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 09-24-2012 at 01:58 AM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10003 at 09-23-2012 05:21 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-23-2012, 05:21 PM #10003
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

JPT confirms again Brian's observation that the Right sucks at statistics.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#10004 at 09-23-2012 05:26 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-23-2012, 05:26 PM #10004
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
JPT confirms again Brian's observation that the Right sucks at statistics.
Show me how. You don't get to just tell people how smart you are, you have to prove it. Brian Rush has completely failed. Your turn.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10005 at 09-23-2012 05:57 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-23-2012, 05:57 PM #10005
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Show me how. You don't get to just tell people how smart you are, you have to prove it. Brian Rush has completely failed. Your turn.
You are implying that a difference between the average and median "proves" that the polls are manipulated, that's nonsense.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#10006 at 09-23-2012 06:08 PM by katsung47 [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 289]
---
09-23-2012, 06:08 PM #10006
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
289

Voters say they’re worse off after four years ofObama, so why is Romney struggling?

.By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News 9/19/2012

In the twilight ofPresident Barack Obama's first term, many polls, including a new QuinnipiacUniversity tri-state survey of likely voters, show that most Americans say theyare not better off than they were four years ago. But in those same polls, the presidentretains his edge over challenger Mitt Romney.

That's not normal,says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter A. Brown.

"Most times ifvoters think things haven't gone well, they say, 'Let's think of somebodyelse.' But at this point they're not saying that," Brown said."Clearly they think [Obama] is more in tune with their lives."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/v...-election.html
Why? Because the USis controlled by the Feds. They control the media and election machine. Theyselect the politicians to control the government. That's why even Clinton did agood job in his last term, Bush won the election. What the Feds needed was nota good economy, they need war and the Patriot Act. Several month after hiselection, 911 happened which satisfied what the Feds needed.

This time, Obamawill give the Feds something Romney can't give. So you saw Romney is under thefire of media despite the life of Americans is worse off after four years reignof Obama.







Post#10007 at 09-23-2012 06:25 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-23-2012, 06:25 PM #10007
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
You are implying that a difference between the average and median "proves" that the polls are manipulated, that's nonsense.
I am asserting that some of these polls are manipulated, and backing it up with proof that the polls which are more favorable to Obama than the mean or median are more extreme in their skew than the ones more favorable to Romney.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 09-23-2012 at 06:34 PM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10008 at 09-23-2012 07:06 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
09-23-2012, 07:06 PM #10008
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I am asserting that some of these polls are manipulated, and backing it up with proof that the polls which are more favorable to Obama than the mean or median are more extreme in their skew than the ones more favorable to Romney.
It's all a conspiracy. Everybody knows that. Next panelist!
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#10009 at 09-23-2012 07:07 PM by The Grey Badger [at Albuquerque, NM joined Sep 2001 #posts 8,876]
---
09-23-2012, 07:07 PM #10009
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Posts
8,876

Well, I still say Romney badly needs a daily oral pedectomy. Open up, Mr Romney, this will be a very difficult extraction....
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."

"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.







Post#10010 at 09-23-2012 07:16 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
09-23-2012, 07:16 PM #10010
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
You are implying that a difference between the average and median "proves" that the polls are manipulated, that's nonsense.
Rest assured -- JPT does not recognize the difference between the mean (typically the arithmetic mean, commonly known as average') and the median (point at which there are as many results equal to or above as equal to or below). Thus the mean results of the Presidential election of 2008 was 52.87% for Barack Obama and 45.60% for John McCain. The mean difference was 7.26% in favor of Obama. The median difference (counting DC as if a state) was 4.58% for Obama, the result in Ohio -- his twenty-sixth-best state or federal district.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#10011 at 09-23-2012 07:27 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-23-2012, 07:27 PM #10011
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Rest assured -- JPT does not recognize the difference between the mean (typically the arithmetic mean, commonly known as average') and the median (point at which there are as many results equal to or above as equal to or below).
I explained what the two things are in my above posts. And yet somehow, you can "rest assured" that I don't recognize the difference between the two. In fact, I was using the difference between the two to prove a point. They are alternate means of analyzing a set of data. The median, while a blunt instrument, is useful precisely because it discards outliers that skew the mean.

In other words, what you have shown is that you have no clue what I was talking about.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10012 at 09-23-2012 07:30 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-23-2012, 07:30 PM #10012
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by The Grey Badger View Post
It's all a conspiracy. Everybody knows that. Next panelist!
In fact it is, although a lot of it is also just groupthink.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10013 at 09-23-2012 07:47 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
09-23-2012, 07:47 PM #10013
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
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:
I don't doubt that you understand the difference between the mean and the median. As a number cruncher myself, I think where you go off track is by summing the error rather than averaging it.

Regardless of what you make of the numbers, the point comes screaming through that this is a close election and nobody can sit pretty right now.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#10014 at 09-23-2012 07:57 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-23-2012, 07:57 PM #10014
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
I don't doubt that you understand the difference between the mean and the median. As a number cruncher myself, I think where you go off track is by summing the error rather than averaging it.

Regardless of what you make of the numbers, the point comes screaming through that this is a close election and nobody can sit pretty right now.
If the error is .7 in a set of 8 numbers, that means that somewhere in the sum of those numbers there's an extra 5.6 in Obama's favor. That 5.6 number is not essential to what I was saying, but since there were polls of +7 and +8, it helps illustrate where that error is likely coming from. I probably didn't express it clearly enough. The average is not off by 5.6, the sum of the individual polls is off by 5.6.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 09-23-2012 at 08:00 PM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10015 at 09-23-2012 09:44 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
09-23-2012, 09:44 PM #10015
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Make it stop! [Electoral College Update]

As our friends on the Right twist themselves up in mathematical knots trying to show its not so bad that every national poll has Obama ahead, let's not let slip what is happening to the electoral college map.

With up to 14 point leads in Michigan and 8 points in Iowa, pollsters this weekend have started taking those two states out of their "swing" or "battlefield" status. That still leaves Fl, OH, NH, VA, NC, NV and CO as states in that status, but it also leave Obama with 243 solid electoral votes, needing only 27 to hit the magic 270.

All he needs is Florida to win. Or without Florida, just Ohio and just one of the other 5 states. Romney needs both Florida and Ohio plus a couple other states. He now can't win without both FL and OH.

Nate Silver has Obama at 76% chance of winning Ohio and that was before a new poll today showing Obama up by 5 in that state among likely voters.

Silver has Obama with a razor thin 59% winning chance in Florida.

Most important to note is that all polls reflected in Silver's model are BEFORE Romney's 47% video hit the electorate (which is not playing well in Florida) and BEFORE the forced participation of Ohio coal miners in a Romney ad (which hasn't gotten much attention nationally but is considered a killer in Ohio).

We'll see what happens in a couple of days in these key remaining states.

One thing for sure, folks counting national polls as anything other than a general indicator are pretty much out of it. Those trying to use mathematical twists and turns to explain national polls are pretty much desperate. I like that.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#10016 at 09-23-2012 09:58 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
09-23-2012, 09:58 PM #10016
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Make it stop! [1st poll post-47% video]

Public Policy Polling appears to have the first battleground state polls reflecting the impact of the 47% video. Full results coming after 10pm Eastern.

The polls come out of CO and FL, both showing a 3% pop for Obama in both states. In CO that would put Obama at 51-45.

More soon.

____________________________

Obama up in FL 50-46.

47% video is killer with FL Indys finding it "inappropriate" 58-37 they're going over to Obama 51-40. Mittens favorables dropped from 49/47 to 44/51 - killer.
Last edited by playwrite; 09-23-2012 at 10:06 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#10017 at 09-23-2012 10:56 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
09-23-2012, 10:56 PM #10017
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Public Policy Polling appears to have the first battleground state polls reflecting the impact of the 47% video. Full results coming after 10pm Eastern.

The polls come out of CO and FL, both showing a 3% pop for Obama in both states. In CO that would put Obama at 51-45.
Dukakis in a tank wasn't as garish a political blunder as this one. The time in which to spin his way out of it, let alone the ability to convince most Americans that they are are whining slugs who deserve the worst fates that plutocracy can impose upon them, is running out.

The only way for Romney to win is some disaster that no sane person wants befalling America. Right-wingers may have been convinced that President Obama is an unelectable disaster who won only under freakish circumstances that can't be repeated have had plenty of opportunity to convince the rest of us that our President is a political disaster... and they have failed.

I suspect that the giant gaffe will hurt Republicans down ticket, too. A Republican majority in the House that couldn't even pass a farm bill should be in deep trouble.



____________________________

Obama up in FL 50-46.

47% video is killer with FL Indys finding it "inappropriate" 58-37 they're going over to Obama 51-40. Mittens favorables dropped from 49/47 to 44/51 - killer.
Landslides begin when all the swing states swing one way.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#10018 at 09-24-2012 12:34 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
09-24-2012, 12:34 AM #10018
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

In order for the winner of the electoral college to be different from the winner of the popular vote, the popular vote margin has to be less than 1%, like it was in 2000. The odds of that happening are extremely small, regardless of the fact that it happened recently. RCP also has averages for each state. What you'll notice if you compare the state averages to the national average is that the state polls tend to be older. Meaning that more of the DNC "bounce" is still in there.

The thing that stands out the most from the state polls is how many states that Obama won in 2008 are up for grabs in this election. And most of the polls in those states show him lagging behind his margins in 2008, if not yet losing them outright.

Let me translate my previous posts, plus this one into a simple statement:

Right now, Obama has a narrow lead, but is under 50%. about 6-7% of voters are undecided. What has happened in the polls since the conventions is a spike in the number of people identifying as Democrats, and a spike in enthusiasm to vote among Democrats. That bounce has begun to fade. We'll see how recent events and the debates affect things going forward.

And there is also the question, as I showed above, of whether certain pollsters are weighting their data in a way that exaggerates Obama's support.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 09-24-2012 at 12:45 AM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#10019 at 09-24-2012 02:19 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
09-24-2012, 02:19 AM #10019
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
In order for the winner of the electoral college to be different from the winner of the popular vote, the popular vote margin has to be less than 1%, like it was in 2000. The odds of that happening are extremely small, regardless of the fact that it happened recently.
No, what must happen for the scenario to so break is that the loser of the popular vote win, on the whole, by smaller proportions in those states that he wins than than those by which he loses.

(Source: Leip's Election Atlas, for the 2008 election):


Nebraska CD2 1 0 365
North Carolina 15 0 4,310,789 14,177 0.33% 364
Indiana 11 0 2,756,340 28,391 1.03% 349
Florida 27 0 8,411,861 236,148 2.81% 322
Ohio 20 0 5,721,815 262,224 4.58% 302
Virginia 13 0 3,723,260 234,527 6.30% 289
Colorado 9 0 2,401,462 215,004 8.95% 280
Iowa 7 0 1,537,123 146,561 9.53% 273
New Hampshire 4 0 710,970 68,292 9.61% 269
Minnesota 10 0 2,910,369 297,945 10.24% 259

Total 365 173 131,463,122 9,549,105 7.26%

An even shift of roughly 3.63% of the popular vote in all states to John McCain would have allowed John McCain to win the popular vote -- but President Obama would have still won the electoral votes of Iowa and Colorado, and 280 electoral votes. He would have of course won the election. Down to a 4.76% even shift toward John McCain, Barack Obama still wins Iowa. Down to about a 4.80% even shift in popular vote, one has a 269-269 tie in the electoral vote to be decided by the votes of State Congressional delegations in the House of Representatives. Below that he loses New Hampshire and has 259 or fewer electoral votes, thus losing.

President Obama could have lost the popular vote by a margin of up to 2.26% and still gotten 276 electoral votes. Such may be a freakish scenario.... but an even shift of 1.05% of the popular vote from George W. Bush to John Kerry would have shifted 32 electoral votes from Dubya to Kerry, who would have had 283 or 284 electoral votes (one elector inverted Kerry and Edwards in reality) despite getting fewer popular votes than Dubya.

RCP also has averages for each state. What you'll notice if you compare the state averages to the national average is that the state polls tend to be older. Meaning that more of the DNC "bounce" is still in there.


The thing that stands out the most from the state polls is how many states that Obama won in 2008 are up for grabs in this election. And most of the polls in those states show him lagging behind his margins in 2008, if not yet losing them outright.
If the 'bounce' is going away, then something else is allowing President Obama to have gotten predominate results of leads in most of the legitimate swing states -- especially Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, states that Mitt Romney thought he had chances of winning this year, have slid out of contention. If President Obama loses Indiana and North Carolina -- then so what?

Let me translate my previous posts, plus this one into a simple statement:

Right now, Obama has a narrow lead, but is under 50%. about 6-7% of voters are undecided. What has happened in the polls since the conventions is a spike in the number of people identifying as Democrats, and a spike in enthusiasm to vote among Democrats. That bounce has begun to fade. We'll see how recent events and the debates affect things going forward.
We are close to how things were before the Republican National Convention -- and things are back to how they were before the Conventions began. Mitt Romney can't rely on New Hampshire, so it now seems that President Obama is now reasonably certain of winning every state that either Gore or Kerry won, and Nevada... for a total of 263 electoral votes. Any one of Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia clinches re-election for the President. Those four states are different enough and separated enough geographically that Romney must pour huge resources (including campaign appearances) into all four states. President Obama needs win but one. Romney has had plenty of time in which to refine a message to convince America that he is the right person for the time. At that he has largely failed, and what he has not done in a year he is unlikely to complete in six weeks. A 5% lead for the President in Ohio might look shaky in June, but late in September it is far harder to chip away.

Undecided voters on the whole either (1) fail to vote for the office in question, (2) use random chance such as a coin toss to make a decision, (3) waste their votes on independent or third-party nominees, or (4) break ineffectively toward the loser. The only exception is during a collapse of one of the nominees.

And there is also the question, as I showed above, of whether certain pollsters are weighting their data in a way that exaggerates Obama's support.
Have you considered that some might be doing so for the opposite reason?
Last edited by pbrower2a; 09-24-2012 at 02:23 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#10020 at 09-24-2012 09:18 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-24-2012, 09:18 AM #10020
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
When you take an average, you first add all of the numbers together, then you divide by the size of the sample.
Correct . . .

In this case, the sum of spreads reported in the polls is arguably 5.6 points too high.
Wrong.

Your only reason for believing that is because the mean is higher than the median, and there is no reason to expect it to be exactly equal to the median.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#10021 at 09-24-2012 09:37 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-24-2012, 09:37 AM #10021
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
I don't doubt that you understand the difference between the mean and the median. As a number cruncher myself, I think where you go off track is by summing the error rather than averaging it.
I disagree, although that is a mistake, yes. There's a more fundamental error he's making, though, which is making much of a much of the fact that the mean and median of the polls are not exactly equal. This doesn't come from the numbers themselves, but from what the numbers are numbering -- the things involved; qualitative rather than quantitative reasoning. As such, it isn't going to come out in number-crunching. Let's consider what exactly that implies and what it doesn't.

The mean is found by adding all the poll results and dividing by the number of polls. The median is the number or range of numbers where there are as many polls higher (measured, say, by Obama's advantage) as there are lower.

The reason this is not indicative of much is that the median doesn't take into account the size of Obama's advantage in any one poll except to note that it's higher or lower than some other poll. The mean being higher than the median indicates that a relatively small number of polls show Obama with a sizable advantage, and these few polls are pulling the mean up slightly compared to the median.

At most, it indicates that there are a few polls -- or maybe just one poll -- that's an Obama-leaning outlier. If the mean-above-median result is consistent, and if we can identify the outlier polls consistently, a correction might be argued involving cutting the outliers out of our calculations. Of course, the same could be argued w/r/t Rasmussen at this point in the election cycle, insofar as Rasmussen is certainly and deliberately an outlier the other way.

There is of course no justification for doing what JPT did with the numbers other than his own wishful thinking.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#10022 at 09-24-2012 09:39 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
09-24-2012, 09:39 AM #10022
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Correct . . .



Your (JPT) only reason for believing that is because the mean is higher than the median, and there is no reason to expect it to be exactly equal to the median.
We have an awkward situation because even if political values are arrayed much as if along a bell curve, political results fit a bimodal distribution loaded toward the center-left and somewhere far to the right of the center-right. There just isn't much of a center-right in elective office, at least in Congress. Elections can force strange and unwieldy results.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#10023 at 09-24-2012 09:50 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
09-24-2012, 09:50 AM #10023
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
We have an awkward situation because even if political values are arrayed much as if along a bell curve, political results fit a bimodal distribution loaded toward the center-left and somewhere far to the right of the center-right.
It's actually rather different than that and more complex, due to the influence of corporate money, which pulls the center of Congress to the right of the national center, but only on economic issues, not social issues.

As a result, on social issues the parties represent the people pretty well. The Democrats are at or a bit to the left of national center on issues like gay rights, gay marriage, women's rights, racial equality, church and state. The Republicans are quite a bit to the right of national center on these issues, representing a values-voter constituency of their own that's pretty far to the right. Thus we get the repeal of DADT, for example, right on schedule with the public's gradual shift of opinion on gay rights, and states enacting gay marriage on the same pattern.

On economic issues, though, the national center is to the left of where most of the Democrats in Congress vote. Most Americans want a more thoroughgoing health-care reform than Obamacare, want taxes raised on the rich substantially, want an income distribution in this country that resembles Sweden's, want jobs brought home and have no respect for the idea of free trade if it costs jobs, want corporations and rich individuals prevented from moving money out of the country tax-free, and so on.

On economic issues, the national center isn't much if any to the right of Bernie Sanders. Congress could move WAY left on economic issues and be very popular. It is prevented from doing so by the veto imposed by corporate money.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#10024 at 09-24-2012 10:42 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
09-24-2012, 10:42 AM #10024
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Make it stop! [Boomer wave building]

As long as Boomer cohort remains spilt, other cohorts have a voice.

If Boomers begin to coalsce on one side of a single issue, it is over. There's a good chance that may be happening around SS and Medicare -

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...88N04Z20120924

Analysis: For Romney, some troubling signs among older voters

Reuters) - Even before his running mate was booed by a lobbying group for older Americans on Friday, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was losing support among such voters, whose backing is crucial to his hopes of winning the November 6 election.

New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks - since just after the Democratic National Convention - support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.

Romney's double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare - the nation's health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled - also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas.

Voting preferences among seniors could change in the final six weeks of the campaign, but the polling suggests that a series of recent episodes favoring Obama and the Democrats could be chipping away at Romney's support among older Americans.

Romney's selection of Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate put the federal budget and Medicare at center stage in the campaign. But the debate over spending and entitlement programs that Romney seemed to be seeking has not unfolded the way Republicans wanted.

At the Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, on September 5, former President Bill Clinton gave a folksy but blistering critique of Ryan's plan to revamp Medicare, warning that it could leave seniors unprotected from escalating healthcare costs.

Meanwhile, Democrats' efforts to portray Romney as a wealthy former private equity executive with little sympathy for the less fortunate got a boost last week, from Romney himself.

On a secretly recorded video released by the liberal magazine Mother Jones, Romney was shown telling supporters at a $50,000-a-person fundraiser that 47 percent of Americans would never vote for him because they do not pay federal income taxes, feel they are "victims," and depend on government benefits.

Democrats accused Romney of dismissing a range of Americans, including elderly people who depend on government programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Romney's campaign rejected that, but the recent polls suggest that such claims may be resonating with Americans aged 60 and older, who for months had been the only age group to consistently support Romney over Obama.

Analysts say that if Romney cannot reverse the trend among older voters, he won't win on November 6.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/bo...p-booming.html

More and More, in Obama’s Corner


Mitt Romney has just come off a couple of rough news weeks in his quest for the presidency, but if Clyde Tennyson, 62, of Hampton, Va., is as typical of the baby boom generation as polling data seem to suggest, there is more bad news to come.

Mr. Tennyson, a designer at Hampton’s shipyard, voted for Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. In that election, the boomers split their vote down the middle, giving Mr. McCain and Barack Obama 49 percent each.

This time, Mr. Tennyson says he’s voting for President Obama, a shift that a sizable number of his fellow boomers are making, according to recent polling data.

He’s angry about the Republicans’ talk of changing Medicare from government sponsored to a private voucher program. Though Mr. Romney swears it’s not so, Mr. Tennyson also fears that the Republicans will alter Social Security. “I’m going to need Medicare and so are my kids,” said Mr. Tennyson, who has three children ages 29 to 39. “I’ve been paying money into Social Security the last 40 years, and it’s all I’m going to have to retire on — I don’t want to hear a word about privatization. Not Medicare, not Social Security.”

Mr. Tennyson is one of the 78 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964, known as the baby boom generation. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll, likely voters in roughly that age group favored Mr. Obama by 9 percentage points. In a Pew Research Center poll of likely voters, Mr. Obama is ahead, 50 to 44 percent, within that age group.

“This is a significant change, and that generation’s vote counts for a lot,” said Scott Keeter, director of survey research for Pew. The boomers, who range in age from 48 to 66, account for 37 percent of all voters. Generation X — roughly 31 to 46 — makes up 26 percent. The youngest voters, ages 18 to 30, and the oldest, over 65, make up 17 percent each.

The apparent shift could be offset by a softer level of support for Mr. Obama among the youngest voters, in the 18-to-29 age group, of whom 66 percent went for him in 2008, and potentially lower turnout.

What is moving the baby boom voters? It may be Medicare.

On Friday, at the AARP convention in New Orleans, the Republican vice presidential candidate Paul D. Ryan was widely booed when he mentioned repealing “Obamacare” and privatizing Medicare.

The Great Recession had a major impact just as the older boomers were approaching retirement. The typical household income for those 55 to 64 has dropped nearly 10 percent since the recession, to $55,748 from $61,716, the biggest decrease of any age group.

Lark McDonald, 51, who owns a small business in the Denver area, says he voted for Mr. McCain last time, and usually votes a straight Republican ticket, but is leaning toward Mr. Obama. He worries that the Republicans are moving too far right, he said, but he is also concerned they will dismantle the Obama health care program and make major changes in Medicare. “I take care of my father’s medical issues,” he said. “He relies on Medicare, and if we go to a voucher system, it will make everything harder to do.”

According to the Pew poll, 69 percent of boomers say Medicare is “very important” to their vote, which is surpassed only by those 65 and older. Also, 54 percent of likely voters in that age group, according to the Times/CBS News poll, believe that Mr. Obama is doing a better job of handling Medicare, compared with 42 percent for Mr. Romney.

And 30 percent “strongly approve” of the president’s health care program, the most of any age group.

In the last election, Howard Litvack, 53, a finance manager of a car dealership in Franklin, Tenn., backed Ralph Nader, as a protest vote. This time, he says, he’s voting for Mr. Obama. “It’s more important this time to have my vote count,” he said. “There’s more at stake.”

He is particularly concerned about the Republicans’ proposal for privatizing Medicare, which would apply to people under 55, including him. “It absolutely plays into this,” Mr. Litvack said. “I’m interested in how this will affect me, and believe me, it will affect me negatively.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...ey-on-medicare

Poll: Swing-state voters prefer Obama over Romney on Medicare

A new poll shows swing-state voters trust President Obama better than GOP rival Mitt Romney to handle Medicare.

A new Gallup poll finds voters in twelve battleground states say Obama will better address the challenges facing Medicare by 50 percent to 44. Among all voters surveyed nationally, Obama holds a 51 to 43 edge over Romney on the issue.

The poll though was conducted before a leaked video tape from a private fundraiser showed Romney claiming “47 percent” of voters were dependent on government and would vote for Obama.


More voters believe Obama and Vice President Biden have put forth a plan on Medicare than Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Fifty-one percent say Obama and Biden have presented a plan for Medicare with 46 percent saying they have not. Forty-four percent say Romney and Ryan have offered a plan with 50 percent saying the GOP ticket has not presented a Medicare reform plan.

Ryan, though, has authored a budget plan passed by the House which included significant changes to Medicare.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#10025 at 09-24-2012 11:09 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
09-24-2012, 11:09 AM #10025
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Homer votes!

Too funny -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArC7XarwnWI


Interesting how that ending meshes with this -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...a-factory.html

2,000 Foxconn workers involved in mass brawl at China factory
Armed paramilitary police had to be called in to quell a 2,000-man brawl at the troubled Foxconn factory in Northern China that makes parts for Apple’s iPhone 5, among other products.
Foxconn's CEO is know for this -

"Hon Hai has a workforce of over one million worldwide and as human beings are also animals, to manage one million animals gives me a headache," said Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou at a recent year-end party, adding that he wants to learn from Chin Shih-chien, director of Taipei Zoo, regarding how animals should be managed
Outsourcing and suicide nets indeed, but just as long as some are makin da money!

"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
-----------------------------------------