obama 48-44 national, 47-45 swing states

:lol:

Let's see if I can drag this thread back to an adult conversation about the issue at hand. I'm sure the kids will pop back in with their little tantrums, but what the hell, it's always worth a shot.

The Dukakis lead is an interesting example of how things can change, but I don't get that vibe this time. The polls really haven't changed much, even when one of the candidates "has a bad week". Everyone keeps pointing toward the debates, so convinced that their guy will run away with it after that. Maybe.

Right now most polls have Obama up somewhere around 47-45, leaving 8% out of it. I'd like to know how much of that 8% is undecided and how much of it will be voting for an alternate party.

.

The undecideds won't vote for the incumbent:cool:


You're saying that's how it's been historically, that undecideds usually break to the challenger?

I also wonder if 8% is a high, low or normal figure for 4 months out.

.

.



How will undecideds vote on election day? Traditionally, there have been two schools of thought about how undecideds in trial heat match-ups will divide up at the ballot box. One is that they will break equally; the other, that they will split in proportion to poll respondents who stated a candidate preference.

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

The 155 polls we collected and analyzed were the final polls conducted in each particular race; most were completed within two weeks of election day. They cover both general and primary elections, and Democratic and Republican incumbents. They are predominantly from statewide races, with a few U.S. House, mayoral and countywide contests thrown in. Most are from the 1986 and 1988 elections, although a few stretch back to the 1970s.

The polls we studied included our own surveys, polls provided to us directly by CBS, Gallup, Gordon S. Black Corp., Market Opinion Research, Tarrance Associates, and Mason-Dixon Opinion Research, as well as polls that appeared in The Polling Report.

In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger:

DISPOSITION OF UNDECIDED VOTERS
•Most to challenger....127
•Split equally.................9
•Most to incumbent.....19
The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it's clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means: Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look ? 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.

An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide


Incumbent Races: Closer Than They Appear
 
Undecideds break to the incumbent when the incumbent has over 50% approval rating.

The break to the challenger, en masse, when the incumbent is unpopular.
 
Undecideds break to the incumbent when the incumbent has over 50% approval rating.

The break to the challenger, en masse, when the incumbent is unpopular.

Actually, undecideds almost always go mostly to the challenger. That or they don't vote. Obama knows he's in trouble when he sees a large number of undecideds.
 
It's a myth that Obamacare and Romneycare are the same thing or based on the same exact principles.

Personally, I feel that no Dem or Republican is doing what it takes to get back to market driven health care. Eliminate laws that require businesses to provide health care and you'll see prices go way down.

Eliminate laws, and you'll have only the young being able to get jobs...

The problem with "market" driven health care is that at a certain point, the most "Market driven" result is to let them die. This is what the whole "pre-existing condition" stuff is about.

What we should do is what every other industrialized country has done. Have single payer health care and universal coverage, and get employers out of it altogether.

That's f'ing bs. The market is for people that need the healthcare the most. That's how it works nimrod. The death panels cause death in Obamacare b/c they get paid whether they're effective or not.

The death panels exist, yes: the insurance bean counters that deny coverage or treatment.

Interference does exist, yes: the insurance company gets between you and your doctor.

The overwhelming majority of Americans know that Bachmann's nonsense about govt 'death panels' has been overwhelmingly debunked.
 
A myth? In politics?

NO freakin' WAY.

.

Nessie/Sasquatch 2012!

:lol:

Let's see if I can drag this thread back to an adult conversation about the issue at hand. I'm sure the kids will pop back in with their little tantrums, but what the hell, it's always worth a shot.

The Dukakis lead is an interesting example of how things can change, but I don't get that vibe this time. The polls really haven't changed much, even when one of the candidates "has a bad week". Everyone keeps pointing toward the debates, so convinced that their guy will run away with it after that. Maybe.

Right now most polls have Obama up somewhere around 47-45, leaving 8% out of it. I'd like to know how much of that 8% is undecided and how much of it will be voting for an alternate party.

.

The Dukakis example isn't necessarily a good one. The thing was, we were in a good economic place, but the normal cycle of things is that we change every 8 years. So the situation favored the Democrat. The problem was, it was time for a new Democrat, one who kind of conceded Reagan was right on the need to move past the old FDR/JFK/LBJ Keynesian model. That had been resoundingly rejected in 1984.

Had Bill Clinton been better known he'd have cleaned Bush's clock. Unfortunately, the DLC only had Al Gore for a champion.

Dukakis was an unknown, while Bush was a known. Bush was able to define Dukakis as someone who was soft on crime (and Dukakis didn't help matters much when he discussed the hypothetical rape/murder of his wife with less passion than the weather.)

Now, I do think that Obama is a known. everyone has an opinion about him at this point. Romney is still an unknown, such as the recent poll that had 43% being unaware he was a Mormon. So really, this becomes a race to define Romney.
 
That's f'ing bs. The market is for people that need the healthcare the most. That's how it works nimrod. The death panels cause death in Obamacare b/c they get paid whether they're effective or not.

I read this sentence and have to ask.

Are you some kind of special retard?

Are they letting you outside the house without your helmet? I mean, seriously? Is your nickname Corky?

the Death Panel Bullshit was debunked years ago.

The fact is, there is no profit to be made insuring the chronically ill. That's why we have Medicare. No one wanted to insure retired people, they were old, sick and didn't have any money, for C'Thulhu's sake.

Insurance companies love working people, because, usually, we can't afford to be sick. And when we get sick, they suggest to our employers we should be "let go"... which is what happened to me about four years ago. (And when I stopped being a Limbaugh Zombie like you still are.)
 
That's f'ing bs. The market is for people that need the healthcare the most. That's how it works nimrod. The death panels cause death in Obamacare b/c they get paid whether they're effective or not.

I read this sentence and have to ask.

Are you some kind of special retard?

Are they letting you outside the house without your helmet? I mean, seriously? Is your nickname Corky?

the Death Panel Bullshit was debunked years ago.

The fact is, there is no profit to be made insuring the chronically ill. That's why we have Medicare. No one wanted to insure retired people, they were old, sick and didn't have any money, for C'Thulhu's sake.

Insurance companies love working people, because, usually, we can't afford to be sick. And when we get sick, they suggest to our employers we should be "let go"... which is what happened to me about four years ago. (And when I stopped being a Limbaugh Zombie like you still are.)

Dude. I don't even listen to Limbaugh you f'ing tool. And let's put it this way; the average low middle class American has about a quarter mil bled from him during his working life for medicare. If he were allowed to invest that money instead, he could easily have more than a million dollars. There is more than enough money to pay for medical costs. The reality is that the system enables waste at every turn.
 
Dude. I don't even listen to Limbaugh you f'ing tool. And let's put it this way; the average low middle class American has about a quarter mil bled from him during his working life for medicare. If he were allowed to invest that money instead, he could easily have more than a million dollars. There is more than enough money to pay for medical costs. The reality is that the system enables waste at every turn.

So in addition to being slightly retarded, you are also bad at math.

Okay let's look at your claim.

A middle class American makes, let's say for sake of argument, 40K a year. He pays 1% of that into Medicare and his employer matches that 1%.

Which means he's paying all of $400 a year into Medicare, and his employer is paying 400. So that's 800 a year.

Ooooookay. Now assuming he's working from age 22 to 67 in a renumerative job paying in that $800 a year. It's nowhere near "A million." In fact, his total lifetime contribution in non-inflation adjusted dollars (Assuming he made 40K every year and it was a 1+1 match) his total contribution would be---- $36,000.

Now, yeah, if he bought Microsoft in 1980 and held onto it, he'd be sitting pretty. If he bought into Enron in 2001, he'd be sucking hind tit.

Life is that little thing that gets in the way of all those well-laid plans you've made.
 
Nessie/Sasquatch 2012!

:lol:

Let's see if I can drag this thread back to an adult conversation about the issue at hand. I'm sure the kids will pop back in with their little tantrums, but what the hell, it's always worth a shot.

The Dukakis lead is an interesting example of how things can change, but I don't get that vibe this time. The polls really haven't changed much, even when one of the candidates "has a bad week". Everyone keeps pointing toward the debates, so convinced that their guy will run away with it after that. Maybe.

Right now most polls have Obama up somewhere around 47-45, leaving 8% out of it. I'd like to know how much of that 8% is undecided and how much of it will be voting for an alternate party.

.

The undecideds won't vote for the incumbent:cool:

Agree!

From Rasmussen today:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting 46% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 45%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™
 
Dude. I don't even listen to Limbaugh you f'ing tool. And let's put it this way; the average low middle class American has about a quarter mil bled from him during his working life for medicare. If he were allowed to invest that money instead, he could easily have more than a million dollars. There is more than enough money to pay for medical costs. The reality is that the system enables waste at every turn.

So in addition to being slightly retarded, you are also bad at math.

Okay let's look at your claim.

A middle class American makes, let's say for sake of argument, 40K a year. He pays 1% of that into Medicare and his employer matches that 1%.

Which means he's paying all of $400 a year into Medicare, and his employer is paying 400. So that's 800 a year.

Ooooookay. Now assuming he's working from age 22 to 67 in a renumerative job paying in that $800 a year. It's nowhere near "A million." In fact, his total lifetime contribution in non-inflation adjusted dollars (Assuming he made 40K every year and it was a 1+1 match) his total contribution would be---- $36,000.

Now, yeah, if he bought Microsoft in 1980 and held onto it, he'd be sitting pretty. If he bought into Enron in 2001, he'd be sucking hind tit.

Life is that little thing that gets in the way of all those well-laid plans you've made.

Medicare is 2.9 percent and Social security is 6.2 percent. Let's say a person made $50K a year. That's $4,100 between those two. That's $200K in 45 years of work. If invested properly that could easily yield $1 to 2 million. Do you think that your medicare and social security will give you that much of a payout? No. It's an f'ing scam.
 
White people are reluctant to tell a pollster that they think our black POTUS is a failure and won't be voting for him.

It is called the Bradley Effect.

Barry would lose in a landslide if the election were held today.
 
Medicare is 2.9 percent and Social security is 6.2 percent. Let's say a person made $50K a year. That's $4,100 between those two. That's $200K in 45 years of work. If invested properly that could easily yield $1 to 2 million. Do you think that your medicare and social security will give you that much of a payout? No. It's an f'ing scam.

You're argument was "lower middle class". 50 K isn't even close to that.

And you limited your argument to medicare, not social security.

So nothing like moving the goalposts when your argument falls apart.

But okay, let's look at those two. Yeah, I guess in your new argument, if he invested 200K in property... he'd probably have $100K now. You did hear about the property value crash, didn't you? You know, underwater property mortgages because they built too many McMansions and they are renting them to poor families now because they can't sell them.

Same with the stock market, which in my 34 years of working for a living, tanked in 1987, 2000 and again in 2008. And those are the really big ones. This is another way the Plutocrats screw with you. "Trust us, invest in this 401K. It's better than social security." Knew a lot of folks who retired in 2008 (Often not by choice) who came up with nothing.

Fact is, you can have invested them, but investment carries risk.

Honestly, guy, you amuse me. They fuck you over and you say, "Thank you Sir, may I have another?"
 

Forum List

Back
Top