Originally Posted by Mikebert

No. The averages rounded are 45 and 48. 0.7 is the difference of averages expressed to an inappropiate degree olf precision. This different is essentially noise. It contains no information and anything you with it is gigo.

If you done the simple exercise I gave, you would see that it is inappropriate assume the averages given to three places are as valid as the raw data.

Do you have any background is this stuff? It seems to me that you are at sea.

Professionally, no. I took a course in statistics in college, got a decent grade if I remember. I recall the basics. In this case, I think you're splitting hairs, and I think what I posted is legitimate. None of this is precise, and the polls themselves are weighted by the pollsters to produce a different outcome from the raw data. But you can still look at that set of numbers and conclude that there are a small number of polls skewing the mean, while most of the polls show a much closer race.

And now this strange article, that seems to contradict what most of the media is telling us, and many of the polls are claiming:

Democrats’ Advantage in Voter Registration Slipping in Key States

Madness.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

And now this strange article, that seems to contradict what most of the media is telling us, and many of the polls are claiming:

Democrats’ Advantage in Voter Registration Slipping in Key States

Madness.

I've never seen the importance of voter registration by party, unless voting follows suit. Since voting, at least the polls on likely voting, are headed in the opposite direction, why is this important to you?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've never seen the importance of voter registration by party, unless voting follows suit. Since voting, at least the polls on likely voting, are headed in the opposite direction, why is this important to you?

Because it's from a "conservative source" and so he "knows" it's correct, unlike the "lies" in the "Librul Media".

Let's jump ahead a bit, assuming that the polls are correct and aren't a conspiracy to make an Obama victory seem inevitable or the country to seem more liberal than it is, and consider what will happen after the election is over in terms of political alignment.

If the polls are right, the Republicans are sailing for a real shellacking, which will give them three losses in four elections. Not only does it look like Obama will be reelected, but the Democrats seem likely to keep the Senate, and there's a good chance they'll retake the House. Let's assume for the moment that all this happens. What will the Republicans do?

There are already Republicans decrying the craziness into which the party has descended and calling for a return to moderation and sanity. We can expect those voices to become louder in the aftermath of another electoral loss.

However, there are sure to be other voices saying that Romney, like McCain, wasn't a pure enough right-wing candidate, and that he brought down the rest of the party -- a call to double-down on extremism.

Which set of voices will prevail within the Republican Party? What will the party look like as it licks its wounds and prepares for the 2014 midterms?

I confess I have no idea.

New Washington Post poll out on Ohio indicating Obama moving beyond reach (8 point lead) in this GOP must-win state -



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-lead-in-ohio/

Post Polls: Obama now has significant lead in Ohio

Among likely voters, President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in Ohio by 52 percent to 44 percent. In Florida, the president is up 51 percent to 47 percent, a numerical but not statistically significant edge. Among all registered Florida voters, Obama is up nine percentage points.

Obama’s lead in Ohio is built in part on generally positive assessments of his job performance, and on head-to-head comparisons with Romney on a series of issues. Slightly more than half of all Ohio voters — 53 percent — give Obama positive marks for dealing with the economy, with more — 56 percent approving of his overall performance.

That last part indicates the likely failure of Team Romney's entire 6 months of trying to paint Obama as a failure and that any GOPer would be better. From there, deck of cards....

If trend continues, OH may soon be put in "Obama safe" category. That would mean that while ahead in Florida, Obama doesn't need it to win.

When a race is tied, the Republican has an edge and likely voters are cited as to why.

When a Democrat leads by 5 points or less, the race is tied.

When a Democrat leads by 6-9 points, the Democrat has an edge.

When a Democrat leads by more than 9 points, the poll goes unreported.

When a Republican leads by 5 points or less, the Republican has a significant lead.

When a Republican leads by 6-9 points, the Republican has a commanding lead.

When a Republican leads by more than 9 points, it's a mandate. This term may also be used if the Republican wins by any margin.

Familiarity with these terms will mitigate stress when seeing them used by the media.

I forgot to post something about this. But even if the news is 5 days late, I think it says something about it being over for Romney that even the polling numbers can't -

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...lobbying-post/

September 20, 2012, 10:10 am

Pawlenty Is Leaving Romney Campaign for Lobbying Post
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, is resigning as a national co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to take a job in Washington as a top lobbyist for a group representing banks and financial companies.

Your campaign co-chair decides to leave just 2 months before a friken Presidential election to become a bank lobbyist???!!!!

This not only says something about Team Romney's chances but it also sure says a hell of alot about Pawlenty. Wow, what a snake.

When Romney soon returns to investment world, I'm pretty sure Timmy will be near the top of list of paybacks - completely at the mercy of Mitten's banking friends.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Let's jump ahead a bit, assuming that the polls are correct and aren't a conspiracy to make an Obama victory seem inevitable or the country to seem more liberal than it is, and consider what will happen after the election is over in terms of political alignment.

If the polls are right, the Republicans are sailing for a real shellacking, which will give them three losses in four elections. Not only does it look like Obama will be reelected, but the Democrats seem likely to keep the Senate, and there's a good chance they'll retake the House. Let's assume for the moment that all this happens. What will the Republicans do?

There are already Republicans decrying the craziness into which the party has descended and calling for a return to moderation and sanity. We can expect those voices to become louder in the aftermath of another electoral loss.

However, there are sure to be other voices saying that Romney, like McCain, wasn't a pure enough right-wing candidate, and that he brought down the rest of the party -- a call to double-down on extremism.

Which set of voices will prevail within the Republican Party? What will the party look like as it licks its wounds and prepares for the 2014 midterms?

I confess I have no idea.

Often in life recent past performance is the best indicator of near future results.
And I believe that such is true of the GOP in this decade for two reasons.

First, there is the matter of inertia. Running further to the right is "in their blood" so to speak. It's what they know, it's what they do. And the base is cued for the conflictual politics of being always on the defensive against a worl that they feel is against them. I have no doubt that JPT believes evrything that he writes. Living in a very red part of a very red state I've seen a lot of this in my neighbors. There really is a circle the wagons mentality on the right. I have a Romney supporting neighbor who worked for McGovern in '72. I know another person who had a successful career in engeneering before launching a second carrer in music, all while living in the highly competitive NYC area during both careers. He's traveled the world and yet he spout the smae kind of conspiracy theory that we read here.
That may be one reason why I choose not to respond to JPT very much anymore--he sounds too much like my neighbors. I juat get tired of hearing it.
This base is not going to go moderate. any time soon. They are way too wound up for that.

Second, there is the simple reality that in 2014 we will most likely be looking at a much smaller electorate that looks demographically much like the 2010 electorate. Old, fearful and angry. Even if 2012 looks and feels a lot like a 2008 reprise on election night 2014 can still look and feel a lot like 2010. Yes, the old coalition grows weaker every year but this 4T does seem to, much like the Civil War era, be running on what Lincoln called the "simple arithmatic" of the era. It is attrition. And it may take most of the 4T age the conservative parts of America out of the culture war mentality.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

This base is not going to go moderate. any time soon. They are way too wound up for that.

I tend to agree. First, values don't change easily. Second, the Republican base platform isn't going to change until there are more New Republicans than Old Republicans. You might want a innovative leader, a Goldwater, Nixon or Reagan, who can win elections while setting a new approach that others can copy.

I also look at the pace of change last time around. Before FDR the Republicans were isolationist. After Mao took over China, the Republicans became the strong on defense party, quite often talking tough and spending big. Before FDR the Republicans were balance the budget, avoid deficits, pre Keynesian fiscal conservatives. Reagan flipped them to borrow and spend stimulation policies, in good times and bad (though not necessarily when Democrats do it).

In order to become a newly dominant party, you have to identify problems (real or apparent) with the current dominant party. It's going to be really hard to create a new Republican party before the Democrats become dominant. I wouldn't say it is impossible, but at the moment I don't see how you get dayah from heah.

I think this is a clear sign that the heart of the GOP has come to recognize the futility of this election and has moved on to a new fight worth fighting

http://www.ibtimes.com/rush-limbaugh...minazis-794457

Rush Limbaugh Blames Declining Average Penis Size On 'Feminazis'

Rush Limbaugh is very concerned about your penis size. On his radio program, “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” the conservative pundit discussed a study about the allegedly declining average penis size, blaming the smaller size on feminism.

"'The study’s leaders claim to have bona fide research that says the average size of a penis is roughly 10 percent smaller than it was 50 years ago,' Limbaugh quoted CBS Philly as reporting. "And the researchers say air pollution is why," Limbaugh added.

However, Limbaugh doesn’t buy this explanation. According to him, the reason the average penis size has been declining over the past 50 years is feminism. Or, as Limbaugh puts it, “feminazis.”


"I don't buy this. I think it's feminism,” Limbaugh explained to his listeners. “If it's tied to the last 50 years, the average size of a member is 10 percent smaller in 50 years, it has to be the feminazis. I mean, the chickification, everything else."

“Give ‘em time, and they’ll blame Bush,” Limbaugh added.

Limbaugh did not comment on the ways in which female empowerment could shrink a man’s penis size.

The CBS Philly article employed as his source refers to a ChaCha story on the “weirdest scientific discoveries.” Neither CBS Philly nor ChaCha offer a link back to the supposed original Italian study on male sexuality.

According to ChaCha’s coverage of the study: “Excess weight gain, particularly around the waist, is a contributing factor. Environmental pollutants in the air have been shown to negatively impact penis size. Stress, smoking, and alcohol intake also play a factor.”

A follow up study shows a correlation between climate change skeptics and personal shrinkage.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think this is a clear sign that the heart of the GOP has come to recognize the futility of this election and has moved on to a new fight worth fighting

http://www.ibtimes.com/rush-limbaugh...minazis-794457



A follow up study shows a correlation between climate change skeptics and personal shrinkage.

This is an obvious "argument from authority" ...

Originally Posted by Aramea

This is an obvious "argument from authority" ...

I'm not sure we are discussing the proper topics... the presidential election, global warming, penis size... none of these seem critical at all. Watching TV this noon time, the one and only issue that has to be resolved is the applicability of Argument from Authority to the NFL in general, and the supposed touchdown catch at the end of the Seattle vs Green Bay game in particular. When the authority is more concerned with maintaining their own authority than getting it right, is it time to overturn the authority?

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm not sure we are discussing the proper topics... the presidential election, global warming, penis size... none of these seem critical at all. Watching TV this noon time, the one and only issue that has to be resolved is the applicability of Argument from Authority to the NFL in general, and the supposed touchdown catch at the end of the Seattle vs Green Bay game in particular. When the authority is more concerned with maintaining their own authority than getting it right, is it time to overturn the authority?

I'm not sure what all you said there.

However, I'm pretty sure anything considered amiss can be linked back to certain members being 10% less than before.

Darn those feminazies.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think this is a clear sign that the heart of the GOP has come to recognize the futility of this election and has moved on to a new fight worth fighting

http://www.ibtimes.com/rush-limbaugh...minazis-794457



A follow up study shows a correlation between climate change skeptics and personal shrinkage.

Speak for yourself, Rush!

The RCP Average has changed a little, but not much. It now shows this:

Obama: 48.6
Romney: 44.8
Spread: Obama +3.8

Most of the polls from my last analysis are still there, the tracking polls have been updated, and one poll (Politico) has been added. The median values are the same:

Obama: 48
Romney: 45
Spread: 3

Now, let's drop the National Journal (+7) and Pew (+8) polls again. The median values remain the same. The new average:

Obama: 48.2
Romney: 45.2
Spread: Obama +3

Kind of amazing how the average matches the median when you do that, isn't it? The standard deviation before dropping those two is 2.3. After dropping them, it's 1.3.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think this is a clear sign that the heart of the GOP has come to recognize the futility of this election and has moved on to a new fight worth fighting

http://www.ibtimes.com/rush-limbaugh...minazis-794457

A follow up study shows a correlation between climate change skeptics and personal shrinkage.

This is an obvious "argument from authority" ...

Perhaps, but misplaced. I checked, the thread; it's 2012 Elections. The 2012 Erections thread is under Society, Family and You (though Special Topics may be a better fit).

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think this is a clear sign that the heart of the GOP has come to recognize the futility of this election and has moved on to a new fight worth fighting.

Apparently the fight that they feel they can still win is the turnout fight.

Originally Posted by Alternet.org

What counts is turnout and, as AlterNet reported in July, political operative and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed is putting together an impressive get-out-the-vote operation, via his organization, Faith and Freedom Coalition, which funded by right-wing billionaires. Now that the New York Times weighed in with a front-page Sunday piece by Jo Becker about Reed’s organizing, perhaps the liberal establishment will take a deep breath and reassess whether its triumphalism is warranted -- or even helpful to the liberal cause...

...Barack Obama may be pulling ahead in the national polls, but among those nine battleground states, only one -- Wisconsin -- shows Obama with a commanding lead. While Obama is gaining ground in the remaining eight, they are still marked as “toss-ups” by the poll geeks at Real Clear Politics.

And guess where Ralph Reed, with a reported $10 million budget (and maybe more), is working? In every one of those states.

The fundamentalists have been the GOP foot solders for 30+ years now. Thr hard right is going into survival mode. If the Democrats and their allies go into a 3Tish bravado with 6 weeks to go, well to mix metaphors, the turtle can still win the race.

A poll from Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times confirms and expands Obama's lead in Ohio that the Wash. Post poll had indicated earlier.

The new poll has Obama up by 10 rather than just 8 in Ohio. There's also good news for Team Obama there for Florida -

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1800

September 26, 2012 - Obama Has Big Leads In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times Swing State Poll Finds

FLORIDA: Obama 53 - Romney 44
OHIO: Obama 53 - Romney 43
PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 54 - Romney 42

President Barack Obama is over the magic 50 percent mark and tops Gov. Mitt Romney among likely voters by 9 to 12 percentage points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a Quinnipiac University/ CBS News/New York Times Swing State Poll released today.

Voters in each state see President Obama as better than Gov. Romney to handle the economy, health care, Medicare, national security, an international crisis and immigration. Romney ties or inches ahead of the president on handling the budget deficit.


Matching Obama against Romney in each of these key states - no one has won the White House since 1960 without taking at least two of them - shows:
Florida: Obama leads Romney 53 - 44 percent, compared to 49 - 46 percent August 23;
Ohio: Obama over Romney 53 - 43 percent, compared to 50 - 44 percent August 23;
Pennsylvania: Obama tops Romney 54 - 42 percent, unchanged from 53 - 42 percent August 1.

Likely voters say Obama can better handle the economy, the top issue listed by voters, 51 - 46 percent in Florida, 51 - 45 percent in Ohio and 51 - 45 percent in Pennsylvania.


"Gov. Mitt Romney had a bad week in the media and it shows in these key swing states," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "The furor over his 47 percent remark almost certainly is a major factor in the roughly double-digit leads President Barack Obama has in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The debates may be Romney's best chance to reverse the trend in his favor."


"The wide difference between the two candidates is not just a result of Romney's bad week. In Ohio and Florida votes are basically split down the middle on whether the county and they and their families are worse or better off than they were four years ago. If voters don't think they are worse off, it is difficult to see them throwing out an incumbent whose personal ratings with voters remains quite high," Brown added.


"The president's strength results from the fact that for the first time in the entire campaign, he is seen as better able to fix the economy than is Romney, the issue that has been the Republican's calling card since the general election campaign began. And the economy remains the overwhelming choice as the most important issue to voters' presidential choice."

Nate Silver shows how Romney could still thread the needle without Ohio, but its a little far-fetched -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-without-ohio/

- essentially, with WI and MI going to Obama as well as OH, Romney would have to win every state considered a battleground state including, most pivotal, Iowa. That means Romney would have to also take FL, NC, VA, NH, CO and NV. Mittens losses just one of these 6 states or Iowa, he's done.

Hare to imagine Obama not picking up at least one of those 7 states.

Originally Posted by playwrite

A poll from Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times confirms and expands Obama's lead in Ohio that the Wash. Post poll had indicated earlier.

The new poll has Obama up by 10 rather than just 8 in Ohio. There's also good news for Team Obama there for Florida -

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1800




Nate Silver shows how Romney could still thread the needle without Ohio, but its a little far-fetched -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-without-ohio/

- essentially, with WI and MI going to Obama as well as OH, Romney would have to win every state considered a battleground state including, most pivotal, Iowa. That means Romney would have to also take FL, NC, VA, NH, CO and NV. Mittens losses just one of these 6 states or Iowa, he's done.

Hare to imagine Obama not picking up at least one of those 7 states.

Pretty good analysis by Jay Cost at realclearpolitics.com about the skewed polls that are weighted up to 10% pro Dem. Even with this heavy skew many are within the margin of error. Even Rasmsussen has a +2 Dem Skew...Does anyone think that'll be the numbers on election day...if you do, please enroll in AA....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_653067.html

That all of the polls are wrong is an interesting, if implausible, theory. I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Originally Posted by Weave

Pretty good analysis by Jay Cost at realclearpolitics.com about the skewed polls that are weighted up to 10% pro Dem. Even with this heavy skew many are within the margin of error. Even Rasmsussen has a +2 Dem Skew...Does anyone think that'll be the numbers on election day...if you do, please enroll in AA....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_653067.html

Poll bashing is pretty typical of the losing side at this stage in the election cycle.

Also, there is the longer-term superstition of the "liberal media" that pollsters are suspected by the Right to be a part and parcel - at least the ones with the polls showing your guy being down. The same silliness is evident when one considers that you must believe ALL polls are biased against your candidate - conspiracy does seem to run rampant on the Right.

But here's the real nut to crack. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe the motivation for the supposed polling bias is to dissuade Romney supporters from bothering to vote. Okay, well, where are Team Romney's internal polling results to counter those of the biased liberal media/pollsters?

You do know that each side spends enormous amounts of money on their own internal polls, right? Do you really believe that if the concern was their voters being demoralized by biased polls that Team Romney would keep hidden their polls showing the opposite results? Could it possible be that Team Romney's internal polls are showing the same increasingly bad picture or perhaps something even worse?

Or, perhaps Team Romney's pollsters are just part of that liberal media/pollster conspiracy???

Originally Posted by playwrite

Or, perhaps Team Romney's pollsters are just part of that liberal media/pollster conspiracy???
Do you really think ALL polls have the bias you're complaining about?

Obviously you've never been through the initiation ceremony for social statistics class. Hell, I've already said too much [peeks out window and shuts curtains]

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That all of the polls are wrong is an interesting, if implausible, theory. I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Since Weave and JPT are so convinced of the electability of their guy, I recommended a Forum pool. I was ignored.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Obviously you've never been through the initiation ceremony for social statistics class. Hell, I've already said too much [peeks out window and shuts curtains]

Obviously, you're wrong.

You need to get use to keeping those curtains shut. Yes, there's 2016, but that comes with Hillary.