Surprise! Oversampling Dems Puts Obama in Lead

[Statistikhengst]

I gotta say, I had a lot of fun reading this thread, since it turned out that most of the polling ended up having a CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias and not a LIBERAL mathematical bias.

All that bullshit about oversampling..... oh, this is rich.

OH, and BTW, I proved this months ago...

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


It really is fun to read all the wailing that went on here....

Simple shell game. Stuffing ballot boxes can more than make-up for inaccurate polls. And in fact, they can make a mockery of the polls. All of the battleground states ended up being not close, that were supposed to be close, the Dems stuff the shiz out of those ballot boxes. Ninety-five percent turn-out in ghettos with nobody voting for Romney? Get real.

Oh, my, if you believe that load of horseshit, then there is no help for you at all.
Obama exceeded polling averages in states other than the battlegrounds as well, including Massachusetts and California. The one state where all polling, including Rasmussen, was wildly off to the left, was Montana.

Ballot boxes were not stuffed. At virtually every polling place in the USA, representatives of both parties are present to confirm and count ballots. In order for ballot boxes to be stuff, this would mean the willing cooperation of Republican voters. Really?? Haaaa!

There were some precincts in Philly where Romney got not votes. But in those precincts, there were also maybe 2 or 3 registered Republicans. There were also a couple of precincts in the Dakotas where Obama got no votes. Were they stuffed, too? So, your point?

Oh, and a little hint: use of "ghettos" may sound cool to you, but it sure as fuck sounds racist. So, if you are a racist, enjoy using it. But if you are not, you might want to reconsider that one.

Jesus, 14 months after the General Election, and some Righties are STILL all butthurt and lying out the same orifice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.

We lost because the American people chose Obama not Romney.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.

We lost because the American people chose Obama not Romney.

Thanks, Goebbels.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.

We lost because the American people chose Obama not Romney.

Thanks, Goebbels.

Oh, indeed, when on the losing side of an argument, invoke Godwin. Works every time.

Not.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do you always call people with whom you don't agree "asshole", or is it just latent homosexuality bubbling to the top?


Hmmmm....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The conclusion remains that almost minimal ballot box stuffing occurred.

We lost because the American people chose Obama not Romney.

Thanks, Goebbels.

Oh, indeed, when on the losing side of an argument, invoke Godwin. Works every time.

Not.

Oh, yea, cos some dork somewhere at sometime came up with a cheesy theory about every political discussion invoking Nazis eventually. Like that means something, idiot. I just called it how I saw it. I don't not say how I see it because you're beholden to some fallacy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thanks, Goebbels.

Oh, indeed, when on the losing side of an argument, invoke Godwin. Works every time.

Not.

Oh, yea, cos some dork somewhere at sometime came up with a cheesy theory about every political discussion invoking Nazis eventually. Like that means something, idiot. I just called it how I saw it. I don't not say how I see it because you're beholden to some fallacy.

Oh, you can call it however you want to see it. No one here is keeping you from looking like an idiot. Please, proceed, proceed...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Do you always call people with whom you don't agree "asshole", or is it just latent homosexuality bubbling to the top?

Hmmmm....

Well aren't you an enlightened libtard; invoking homosexuality as an insult. Just go ahead and put your hypocrisy on display.

And I don't have to use the word asshole. I can go can go with fuckface, as that is what you are. I didn't use the term ghetto to sound cool. I used it because it's a real word that has a real meaning, fuckface.

Ghetto - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I know that you're just another libtard who can't think for himself and that your latest marching orders are to brand those with whom you disagree that use the word 'thug' or 'ghetto' as racist. But you can fuck off, cos I do not play that lame shit.

 

[Toro]

Or it could be that Romney sucked...the polls showed it and the ballot boxes confirmed it.

I have little doubt that that is the case in your pathological world that you've created for yourself.

P.S. Watch out for the forks. They'll get you.

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I have little doubt that that is the case in your pathological world that you've created for yourself.

P.S. Watch out for the forks. They'll get you.

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern.

 

[Toro]

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern.

Liberals also complained about losing Ohio in 04.

It's typical. Partisans can't accept that they lost so they conjure up fantasies of fraud. It happened to Bush, its happening under Obama, and it will happen to the next President.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I have little doubt that that is the case in your pathological world that you've created for yourself.

P.S. Watch out for the forks. They'll get you.

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

Here are all 61 polls for Pennsylvania:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdDhyOXA2ay13c2ozTEVsOWlpTWNheEE#gid=41

End polling average:

Obama +3.88

End-polling average, last two days of polling only:

Obama +4.20

Final result:

Obama +5.38


His win in PA in 2012, though smaller than in 2008, is still larger than:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=42&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Kerry 2004
Gore 2000
Bush 41 1988
Carter 76
Humprey 68
Kennedy 60
Truman 48
Dewey 44
Hoover 32
Teddy R. 12


It is just slightly smaller than Ike's win in the Keystone State from 52.

Reagan was not able to get much over +7 here.

Pennsylvania is a traditionally single digit win state, the most recent exception being 2008, then 1972.


The polling in PA was right on target. And btw, this was the ONLY battleground state where Rasmussen nailed it, at Obama +5. Without the faulty Susquehanna poll (which showed a tie) in the mix, the average would have been:

Obama +4.43

 

[Statistikhengst]

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern.

Liberals also complained about losing Ohio in 04.

It's typical. Partisans can't accept that they lost so they conjure up fantasies of fraud. It happened to Bush, its happening under Obama, and it will happen to the next President.

I didn't. I saw the county data and saw the individual trends and knew that President Bush won the Buckeye state.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Bush won re-election in 2004 fair and square, just as Obama did in 2012, no doubt about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern.

Liberals also complained about losing Ohio in 04.

It's typical. Partisans can't accept that they lost so they conjure up fantasies of fraud. It happened to Bush, its happening under Obama, and it will happen to the next President.

January 13, 2014
Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Rick Moran

Barack Obama's election not only caused the oceans to recede, but the dead to rise from the grave.

At least, that's what an investigation by New York officials revealed when they sent out dozens of agents to vote in a New York election.

John Fund:

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud - or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City's watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a "John Test" so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city's Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as "a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed-style politics." The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI's investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state's attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn't think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York's new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced "community organizing" group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Just what did the investigators uncover?

You'd think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the "voter" was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and "play dumb" in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

An isolated incident? Only confined to corrupt New York City?

Not hardly:

Despite rumors that some politiqueras went over the line in encouraging voters, the tradition continued in Donna and other border towns and cities, and campaigns for nearly every local office or seat have paid politiqueras to turn out the vote in contested races.




Read more: Blog: Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

Here are all 61 polls for Pennsylvania:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdDhyOXA2ay13c2ozTEVsOWlpTWNheEE#gid=41

End polling average:

Obama +3.88

End-polling average, last two days of polling only:

Obama +4.20

Final result:

Obama +5.38


His win in PA in 2012, though smaller than in 2008, is still larger than:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=42&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Kerry 2004
Gore 2000
Bush 41 1988
Carter 76
Humprey 68
Kennedy 60
Truman 48
Dewey 44
Hoover 32
Teddy R. 12


It is just slightly smaller than Ike's win in the Keystone State from 52.

Reagan was not able to get much over +7 here.

Pennsylvania is a traditionally single digit win state, the most recent exception being 2008, then 1972.


The polling in PA was right on target. And btw, this was the ONLY battleground state where Rasmussen nailed it, at Obama +5. Without the faulty Susquehanna poll (which showed a tie) in the mix, the average would have been:

Obama +4.43

You love to put all the window dressing on it while ignoring the reality of grand voter fraud.

 

[candycorn]

It was actually the case in the real world too silly.

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern

Gasbag is actually right about the bolded portion. As if the GOP fixed 2 elections then all of the sudden forgot how? C'mon. Of course, if Gasbag accidentally injected himself with truth serum, he would agree hat it was incredibly without cause when the liberals did it and would also admit that he has no standing for this year long sour-grape-fest.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think America lost. If you have so much fraud in the biggest election in the world, she lost. Take bitterness out of the picture, I weep for America.

BTW, liberals complained about a lot less a lot more in 2000. That's pretty much the pattern.

Liberals also complained about losing Ohio in 04.

It's typical. Partisans can't accept that they lost so they conjure up fantasies of fraud. It happened to Bush, its happening under Obama, and it will happen to the next President.

January 13, 2014
Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Rick Moran

Barack Obama's election not only caused the oceans to recede, but the dead to rise from the grave.

At least, that's what an investigation by New York officials revealed when they sent out dozens of agents to vote in a New York election.

John Fund:

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud - or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City's watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a "John Test" so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city's Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as "a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed-style politics." The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI's investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state's attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn't think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York's new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced "community organizing" group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Just what did the investigators uncover?

You'd think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the "voter" was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and "play dumb" in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

An isolated incident? Only confined to corrupt New York City?

Not hardly:

Despite rumors that some politiqueras went over the line in encouraging voters, the tradition continued in Donna and other border towns and cities, and campaigns for nearly every local office or seat have paid politiqueras to turn out the vote in contested races.




Read more: Blog: Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

Ahh, American Thinker, home of extremely racist screeds and calls for not allowing the poor to vote.

BTW, where is the EXACT data?

 

[Statistikhengst]

For example, in the last 44 polls taken in Pennsylvania taken over many months, Obama led in 43 and was tied in 1. Yet, right up to election day, Republicans thought they had a really good chance of winning that state.

And then they think they lost by fraud.

Here are all 61 polls for Pennsylvania:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdDhyOXA2ay13c2ozTEVsOWlpTWNheEE#gid=41

End polling average:

Obama +3.88

End-polling average, last two days of polling only:

Obama +4.20

Final result:

Obama +5.38


His win in PA in 2012, though smaller than in 2008, is still larger than:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=42&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Kerry 2004
Gore 2000
Bush 41 1988
Carter 76
Humprey 68
Kennedy 60
Truman 48
Dewey 44
Hoover 32
Teddy R. 12


It is just slightly smaller than Ike's win in the Keystone State from 52.

Reagan was not able to get much over +7 here.

Pennsylvania is a traditionally single digit win state, the most recent exception being 2008, then 1972.


The polling in PA was right on target. And btw, this was the ONLY battleground state where Rasmussen nailed it, at Obama +5. Without the faulty Susquehanna poll (which showed a tie) in the mix, the average would have been:

Obama +4.43

You love to put all the window dressing on it while ignoring the reality of grand voter fraud.

That's not window dressing: those are cold, hard mathematical facts.

What, you think the polling was already accounting for voter fraud?

Haaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, I have to go to work now, but Gatsby, I will come back later and bat you around a little more. My old toys are getting boring, I may add you to my collection....



If you ever want to have a SERIOUS conversation about voter fraud, you may find out that I am for laws, nationally, to eliminate the possibility of what little fraud happens from happening.

But there is no doubt: Obama did not win in 2012 because of voter fraud. That is just la-la-land, nothing more. In Ohio, the REPUBLICAN SOS reported 135 verified and prosecuted cases of voter fraud, amounting to 0.0024% of the voter. Right, 24 ONE THOUSANDS of one percent. A number of those cases were elderly (above 80) who accidentally voted twice and turned themselves in in order to correct the error. There were over 500 cases investigated, but the panel, with a REPUBLICAN hypermajority, threw out most of them. They were also spread throughout the state, including small red counties.

I published a report specific to Ohio in May of 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: EXACT voter-fraud statistics out of Battleground OHIO

So, now, take a minute as to whether you want an intelligent conversation with someone who would actually be quite willing to listen to you, or just a pissing-match. Your call.

I do love my new toys....

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals also complained about losing Ohio in 04.

It's typical. Partisans can't accept that they lost so they conjure up fantasies of fraud. It happened to Bush, its happening under Obama, and it will happen to the next President.

January 13, 2014
Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Rick Moran

Barack Obama's election not only caused the oceans to recede, but the dead to rise from the grave.

At least, that's what an investigation by New York officials revealed when they sent out dozens of agents to vote in a New York election.

John Fund:

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud - or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City's watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a "John Test" so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city's Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as "a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed-style politics." The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI's investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state's attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn't think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York's new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced "community organizing" group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election.

Just what did the investigators uncover?

You'd think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the "voter" was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and "play dumb" in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

An isolated incident? Only confined to corrupt New York City?

Not hardly:

Despite rumors that some politiqueras went over the line in encouraging voters, the tradition continued in Donna and other border towns and cities, and campaigns for nearly every local office or seat have paid politiqueras to turn out the vote in contested races.




Read more: Blog: Voter fraud? What voter fraud?
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
​

Ahh, American Thinker, home of extremely racist screeds and calls for not allowing the poor to vote.

BTW, where is the EXACT data?

Yet your only response is a lib talking point about racism. You seem smart enough to not fall for the claim that blacks being asked for an I.D. is racist.

I guess I overestimated you.