electoral-vote.com

[Pointedstick]

I move in support of creating a Coolidge AI Bot with the ultimate aim of replacing the entire U.S. government with it.

That's an easy one.

Code: Select all

while (true)
{
    sleep (1);
}

[AdamA]

You might enjoy checking out this site periodically as we get closer to election day:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ ... -2012.html

It's got Obama winning pretty easily.

Should be interesting to see what happens to this chart after QE3.

[MediumTex]

You might enjoy checking out this site periodically as we get closer to election day:

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ ... -2012.html

It's got Obama winning pretty easily.

Should be interesting to see what happens to this chart after QE3.

I assume you think that it favors Obama.

QE3 is just monetary bread and circuses.

[AdamA]

I assume you think that it favors Obama.

Not really.  Just curious to see what impact, if any, it has on the election. 

[moda0306]

MT,

I think buying otherwise junk debt is one of the few things the fed can actually do to repair balance sheets.  Right now, rates can't fall lower really on treasury debt... they can on non-treasury debt.  Not saying it's right, but the whole "pushing on a string" affect is less apparent in mortgage rates than T-bill rates.

Any predictions on this years debt-ceiling circus?  I think it will, once again, send rates down, along with the stock market, especially with a deflationary time-bomb in the tax-hike/spending-cut scenario that might pan out.  With the last three months of stock gains and LTT's going over 3% today, I think I'm going to make a VP move into LTT's.

[MediumTex]

Any predictions on this years debt-ceiling circus?  I think it will, once again, send rates down, along with the stock market, especially with a deflationary time-bomb in the tax-hike/spending-cut scenario that might pan out.  With the last three months of stock gains and LTT's going over 3% today, I think I'm going to make a VP move into LTT's.

I would wait for doodle to panic before doing anything speculative with LT treasuries.

[moda0306]

MT,

That'll be tough... I think doodle's pretty hardcore MMR now.  Maybe I'm misremembering...

[Benko]

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that most sources of this media are in the tank for Obama and I believe that they are skewing the polls intentionally (more than they usually do) to invigorate Obama's base and suppress the Romney support.

+++

All they have to do is assume as many democrats will turn out to vote in this election as did in the last (anomalous from that point of view) election and as few republicans will turn out this time as last time. 

[Ad Orientem]

Here is an article that talks to the skewing of polls. There is a site, http://www.unskewedpolls.com/ that shows Romney is ahead by 7.8%.

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that most sources of this media are in the tank for Obama and I believe that they are skewing the polls intentionally (more than they usually do) to invigorate Obama's base and suppress the Romney support.

Here is the article: 
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/sk ... wed-polls/

First off the website you are referencing as being nonskewed is clearly an anti-Obama propaganda site. Secondly the suggestion that Romney is ahead by 7+% is laughable. His own staff  and polls generally see themselves as behind. If Romney is ahead by 7% we are looking at a repeat of Reagan's 49 state sweep.

I don't like Obama but it seems to me you are getting all of your information from right wing propaganda sites. That's not a good way of establishing bias. Barring the proverbial "October surprise" that changes the political landscape, if Romney wins by anything even close to 5% I will eat my left big toe. Frankly, sans some game changer, I will be very surprised if Romney wins at all.

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight as I am pretty sure I am voting for Calvin Coolidge.

[MediumTex]

Here is an article that talks to the skewing of polls. There is a site, http://www.unskewedpolls.com/ that shows Romney is ahead by 7.8%.

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that most sources of this media are in the tank for Obama and I believe that they are skewing the polls intentionally (more than they usually do) to invigorate Obama's base and suppress the Romney support.

Here is the article: 
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/sk ... wed-polls/

First off the website you are referencing as being nonskewed is clearly an anti-Obama propaganda site. Secondly the suggestion that Romney is ahead by 7+% is laughable. His own staff  and polls generally see themselves as behind. If Romney is ahead by 7% we are looking at a repeat of Reagan's 49 state sweep.

I don't like Obama but it seems to me you are getting all of your information from right wing propaganda sites. That's not a good way of establishing bias. Barring the proverbial "October surprise" that changes the political landscape, if Romney wins by anything even close to 5% I will eat my left big toe. Frankly, sans some game changer, I will be very surprised if Romney wins at all.

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight as I am pretty sure I am voting for Calvin Coolidge.

I'm going to write-in Calvin Coolidge.

Thanks for the great idea.

[MachineGhost]

Are left big toes in the Gumby Diet?

He's ready and waiting!

[align=center][/align]

[Gumby]

Are left big toes in the Gumby Diet?

He's ready and waiting!

Incidentally, the tastiest and healthiest chicken stock is made from chicken feet.

Here is an article that talks to the skewing of polls. There is a site, http://www.unskewedpolls.com/ that shows Romney is ahead by 7.8%.

As if we couldn't tell that you get most of your information from right-wing propaganda sites, you ought to know that nobody (except Fox News junkies) takes UnskewedPolls seriously...

See: http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewedpolls-2012-9

Making the rounds lately is a new site, UnskewedPolls.com.

The website is seeking to mitigate republican fears that Romney is slightly behind Obama by tweaking the partisan tilt rightward, rejecting polled data, and weighting them in favor of their candidate based on an extremely favorable formula from a Republican-leaning firm.

Now, you can believe it if you want, but you're deluding yourself and you deserve to know why

[...]

UnskewedPolls are really just skewing individual polls to fit a preferred reality, when what they should be doing is looking at an aggregation of polls weighted for their quantifiable historical biases and correcting for them to give an appropriate picture.

Then again, this all comes down to what you want in a poll. If you want a political talking point, some thing to spin to favor a preferred candidate, that's your own business, enjoy UnskewedPolls.com and enjoy life in a self selected vortex of spin.

But if you want to use a poll to gain insight on a race or to learn more about the public perception of an issue, just understand this: the methodology, the mentality, and the mathematics of UnskewedPolls.com leads to some incorrect conclusions.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewedpolls-2012-9

[MediumTex]

It might be that the methodology being used by the mainstream pro-Obama media might skewed instead.

I just saw a new poll that has Romney within the margin of error in Pennsylvania, 47/45. This is in a state that Romney has hardly campaigned in. All I'm saying is that if you think that this race is over think again.

And I do believe that many of the polls are tilted in favor of Obama to try and influence the vote. Same as with the media's reporting. Thank goodness for Univision!

Reub,

Perhaps this will be the 1948 presidential election of our time and everyone will be surprised on election day.

If the polls are as skewed and inaccurate as you believe, it ought to be an exciting election day.

[MachineGhost]

It might be that the methodology being used by the mainstream pro-Obama media might skewed instead.

I just saw a new poll that has Romney within the margin of error in Pennsylvania, 47/45. This is in a state that Romney has hardly campaigned in. All I'm saying is that if you think that this race is over think again.

And I do believe that many of the polls are tilted in favor of Obama to try and influence the vote. Same as with the media's reporting. Thank goodness for Univision!

I think Nate Silver's algorithm corrects for the left or right-leaning biases in polling firms and their polls, so I don't know how much more objective you can get than that.

[Xan]

The issue is that ALL polls (except perhaps for this unskewedpolls.com) have an algorithm to "correct" for biases.  The trick is that leaving a poll uncorrected is biased, and if you're going to apply a correction, there's no way to really know whether you've done it too much or too little.  The lesson here is that all polls must be taken with a bigger grain of salt than we probably thought.  Once you've opened the door for "correcting" the results, then you're open to criticisms about your corrections.

Something very close to this same thing, incidentally, goes on with long-term temperature records.  At most stations which have been measuring the temperature for a long period of time, the "heat island" effect has increased the local temperature greatly over the years.  Everyone agrees that the actual temperature measured is far too high to compare with earlier numbers, so they're adjusted downwards.  ...But there's no clear-cut, 100% objective way to do that, especially when the amount of the adjustment dwarfs the changes you're actually looking for.

[Ad Orientem]

OK forget FOX Gallup and WAPO. If you want the ultimate in unbiased predictions look here. Behold Britain's famous bookmakers. These guys have zero ideological bias, and the best incentive to get their predictions right, namely money. If they blow the call, they lose bucks (or pounds in this case). Historically they have been among the best predictors for all kinds of events.

If I'm reading this right (not a big gambler here) the current odds look to be about 5:1 in favor of Obama. So if you are really convinced Romney is gonna win this you have a fantastic VP play right in front of you.

[MachineGhost]

If I'm reading this right (not a big gambler here) the current odds look to be about 5:1 in favor of Obama. So if you are really convinced Romney is gonna win this you have a fantastic VP play right in front of you.

But bookies have to adjust the spread if they take in too much money to one side and that will effect the odds.  Future contracts might be better: http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres12_Quotes.html

[Pointedstick]

Reub, every poll and every betting firm has Obama ahead. I get that you really want Romney to win. But you need to be realistic. If Romney is behind, burying your head in the sand and insisting that every single poll is dead wrong and he's actually 7 points ahead is not going to help him get elected. You and his other supporters need to be knocking on doors, making phone calls, donating money, putting up lawn signs, and engaging in dialogue with independents, uncommitted voters, and conservatives who aren't registered to vote. But I don't think pretending that Romney is headed for a landslide victory when every measurement says otherwise will do anything for his chances of actually winning.

[Lone Wolf]

Are there circumstances under which you will consider an Obama victory legitimate?

Because, based on your posts, I'm thinking "no".

That seems a bit below the belt.  Reub's expressing skepticism about polls and the conventional wisdom, not stolen elections.

Prediction markets are excellent at condensing the conventional wisdom.  I've found that it's rare for them to be insightful, though.  Let's just say that a friend of mine made a very tidy sum betting that Bush would win the 2004 election even though the predictions markets had him as a severe underdog on the day of the election.

For what it's worth, I'm staring these 5:1 odds in the face and saying that I still pick Romney to win the election.  Even if he's an underdog, 5:1 seems a little extreme.  Delusional and intentionally contrarian, you say?  Maybe, but if I were really delusional I'd be trying to convince you that my man Gary Johnson was going to take it all. 

[akratic]

For an unbiased, real-time take on who is going to win, check out intrade.com

That site lets participants wager real dollars on events like who will win the Presidential election.  I've found it to be accurate in the past, and any time you find it to be inaccurate, you can put your money where your mouth is and make a profit.

[dragoncar]

However, win or lose, after the election he is free to file an amended return claiming the full deduction, in which case IRS will cut him a check.

Romney has decided to pay more taxes than he would legally owe.  This is a smart businessman?
[/quote]

Romney has decided to loan the government some money interest free for a few months to increase his chances of winning the presidency.  Seems like a prudent move (except insofar as it makes him seem even more disingenuous).

[MachineGhost]

Romney has decided to loan the government some money interest free for a few months to increase his chances of winning the presidency.  Seems like a prudent move (except insofar as it makes him seem even more disingenuous).

LBO.

[Storm]

I have a question for those voters that support less corporate influence on politics:  Why are you still supporting Romney?  It seems pretty apparent that Obama is our best chance at getting Citizens United overturned and reducing the influence of money on politics.

IMHO, this is what the election is all about.

[Xan]

Oh please!  Why should a group of people not be able to pool their assets in order to argue a political position?

The answer to "getting money out of politics" is to limit the vast and ever-increasing role of government in our lives.  Corporations feel that they must influence lawmakers because they perceive lawmakers as arbitrary thugs, capable of allowing businesses to thrive or destroying them at a whim.  Take that power away, and it won't be a problem anymore.

[Ad Orientem]

IMHO opinion no person or entity that doesn't have the vote should be allowed to give a dime to any political campaign or cause. Private citizens should be free to give as much as they want of their own money to whomever they want.