~~Gallup's final poll

[unregistered]

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Yes the trend I pointed out is far more meaningful because it suggests which candidate has the momentum going into the election.

statistically it presents limited credibility and means shit.....

But you go on believe anything you want.... I mean there is a difference between qualitative and quantitative data after all

 

[mercury14]

statistically it presents limited credibility and means shit.....

But you go on believe anything you want.... I mean there is a difference between qualitative and quantitative data after all

The margin of error is plus or minus 2% but a 6% swing means shit?

 

[CHNOPS]

somewhat enthusiastic is tantamount to nothing, it's a tepid response.

given the enthusiasm he had whipped up in '08, i expected even more enthusiasm this time around among his base.

No, sorry, 'not enthusiastic' is a separate answer. The above lists only the positive responses.

88% enthusiastic. You want twice as much.

It's almost poetical and shit.

 

[RobDownSouth]

given the enthusiasm he had whipped up in '08, i expected even more enthusiasm this time around among his base.

Pfft. Goal-post moving.

Your statement flies in the face of history. Virtually no incumbent gets a "more enthusiastic" base on re-election.

 

[CHNOPS]

Well I am wearing an affliction t shirt today......

I mean, I could explain confidence intervals to him, but my guess is it would be a waste.......

Besides, I am pretty sure you broke up with me so why the concern?

'Broke up with you.' A gay joke? Good one!

I bet that will catch on all over the Internet one day.

 

[Disgustipated]

I bet the size of VatAss' Affliction shirt is a Smedium or an Extra Medium.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=smedium

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The margin of error is plus or minus 2% but a 6% swing means shit?

The time period you cherry picked presents limited credibility. It would therefor be blended with the target confidence criterion over a period that does present full credibility to get to a real trend line number. In itself, yes it means shit.

In other words......it is not a trend by any actuarial standards. No more than if you were to say one less thing stupid today than yesterday.

 

[pete]

wow, the qualifying has already begun.

wish i could fast-forward to weds

 

[CHNOPS]

wow, the qualifying has already begun.

wish i could fast-forward to weds

I bet 176% of all people surveyed will be sad on Wednesday.

 

[RobDownSouth]

A +6 swing in momentum is a good thing for the Obama campaign. I never said what you claim.
Great for Romney but that's not the topic here.

Did you happen to see AJ smugly posting a poll predicting a landslide win for Romney?

Sure, the post was from October 4th, a month ago, but still...a LANDSLIDE!!

 

[pete]

I bet 176% of all people surveyed will be sad on Wednesday.

i'm only somewhat enthusiastic about this thread.

 

[mercury14]

The time period you cherry picked presents limited credibility. It would therefor be blended with the target confidence criterion over a period that does present full credibility to get to a real trend line number. In itself, yes it means shit.

In other words......it is not a trend by any actuarial standards. No more than if you were to say one less thing stupid today than yesterday.

Holy fuck, it's the day right before the election. I didn't just cherry pick this date to spin the poll, it's.... the day before the election.

Damn.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's worth noting that the original post numbers feature Gallup's "secret sauce" screening of what it considers to be "likely" voters. Gallup screens voters using questions that it declines to make public to determine who is and who is not a "likely" voter.

As an aside, the Nevada early voting has shown numbers of voters far in excess of the "likely" voter model, so take it with a grain of salt.

There's a link at the bottom of the article to get the unscreened "all adults" number for each candidate, which shows President Obama with 49% of the vote and the white guy with 46%.

 

[unregistered]

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Holy fuck, it's the day right before the election. I didn't just cherry pick this date to spin the poll, it's.... the day before the election.

Damn.

OMG you fucking moron!!!!!!!

I do not know how else I can tell you this. Two weeks worth of data is not a fucking trend. It is statistically impossible to call it a trend. It means shit. You are basically saying 2+2=3

It is impossible.

and yes, yes you are cheery picking. You went back to Obama lowest poll number.

you disingenuous, lying, fucking moron....

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

OMG you fucking moron!!!!!!!

I do not know how else I can tell you this. Two weeks worth of data is not a fucking trend. It is statistically impossible to call it a trend. It means shit.

Define a period you feel constitutes a sufficient number of data points to be called a "trend".

Justify this period.

 

[Disgustipated]

Looks like MSNBC's election results for tomorrow night has been leaked:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/early-election-results-via-msnbc-148500.html

Ahahahaha.

Ahahahaha indeed.

It's an MSNBC false graphic test... intentionally put out to discourage Republicans. It was GIVEN to left wing Democrat Politico. You will not see THIS type of graphic on the MSNBC tv screen or website on election night. Anyone that has seen MSNBC graphics are aware that this style is NOT of their standard making. It is obviously created specifically to put out false numbers. **** It's so generic, it's laughable. ****

 

[mercury14]

I think most of the polls, especially media driven polls, are using 2008 methodology that is no longer realistic and are designed primarily to manage the election results. I cannot believe that a national media bent for the last four years on enhancing Obama's chances of reelection, to the point of denying the truth to the American people, are all of a sudden gripped by a change in heart and purpose to start telling them the truth.

Tomorrow will tell the tale.

Gallup says you're wrong.

October 26, 2012
2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008

Composition of electorate by race, age, gender essentially the same
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- The composition of the electorate for the 2012 presidential election is looking quite similar to what it was in 2008 as well as 2004, according to an analysis of the demographics of Gallup's likely voter sample since Oct. 1. Thus, key elements of President Obama's electoral coalition, such as racial minorities, women, young adults, and postgraduates will likely turn out at rates similar to those in 2008.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b1dtbephxukk1ie1qbtmqg.gif

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Final RWCJ commentariat predictions:

• Karl Rove: Romney wins, 279 EC votes
• Michael Barone (Wash. Examiner): Romney wins, 315 EC votes
• Glenn Beck: Romney wins, 321 EC votes
• George Will: Romney wins, 321 EC votes
• Dick Morris: Romney wins, 325 EC votes
• The Vettebigot: Me not smart enought to go to electoral college, but Romney gets 2 billion more votes per day than Obama

 

[mercury14]

OMG you fucking moron!!!!!!!

I do not know how else I can tell you this. Two weeks worth of data is not a fucking trend. It is statistically impossible to call it a trend. It means shit. You are basically saying 2+2=3

It is impossible.

and yes, yes you are cheery picking. You went back to Obama lowest poll number.

you disingenuous, lying, fucking moron....

I'm saying that the Gallup poll shows the momentum currently with Obama because that's what it shows since October 11th. Romney peaked then and then has slowly coasted backwards. I don't really care that Romney had the momentum in early October because the election didn't happen then.

 

[mercury14]

We'll be re-visiting your analysis tomorrow night.

You think I work for Gallup?