How Bad Will Bronco Bama Lose?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Looks like Obama is headed for defeat Tuesday. Evangelicals are expected to come out in droves (they stayed home when McCain ran) and clean Obamas clock. So how bad will it be for the head nigga in charge?

I expect 300+ electoral votes for Romney.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

obama is gonna win, watch.

 

[JBCorbell]

Looks like Obama is headed for defeat Tuesday. Evangelicals are expected to come out in droves (they stayed home when McCain ran) and clean Obamas clock. So how bad will it be for the head nigga in charge?

I expect 300+ electoral votes for Romney.

Whatever you are smoking, STOP. It's fried your brain.

 

[Tryharder62]

Help!! Grab onto that kid!!!!!

http://t3.***********/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmTEWjkAzYwxP7RTBuQLRjG2ZX-VqKTJJzPsZPJ-ni69kyfPXg

 

[Cade Is Here]

obama is gonna win, watch.

yes he is a pro with voter fraud!!

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

yes he is a pro with voter fraud!!

loool, don't worry..

 

[mercury14]

I guess the polls could be wholly wrong. But if they're right or even somewhat close to being right then it appears Obama will win.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I guess the polls could be wholly wrong. But if they're right or even somewhat close to being right then it appears Obama will win.

If they're close to being right, then it's presently a toss-up.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Michael Barone went out on a limb and predicted Romney winning handily.

Because he wants to rally the base and help his guy win. If you want I can show you this. I think Krugman is right: Romney could still win but it would mean that virtually all polls are systematically biased. That's a very big claim to make.

Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
November 3, 2012, 4:15 pm426 Comments
Reporting That Makes You Stupid

Today’s Financial Times bears a banner headline on p.1: “US election hangs on a knife edge”. Aside from everything else, surely this gets the cliche wrong: you rest on a knife edge, don’t you? If you try to hang on one, I think you just cut off your fingers.

More important, though, this headline deeply misleads readers about the state of the race — and in so doing, it echoes a lot of political reporting right now. Quite simply, many of the “analysis” articles being published in these final days leave readers worse informed than they were before reading.

As Nate Silver (who has lately attracted a remarkable amount of hate — welcome to my world, Nate!) clearly explains, state polling currently points overwhelmingly to an Obama victory. It’s possible that the polls are systematically biased — and this bias has to encompass almost all the polls, since even Rasmussen is now showing Ohio tied. So Romney might yet win. But a knife-edge this really isn’t, and any reporting suggesting that it is makes you stupider.

Worse yet, some reporting tells readers things the reporters have to know aren’t true. How many stories have you seen declaring that “both sides think they’re winning”? No, they don’t: the Romney campaign is visibly flailing, trying desperately to find new fronts on which to attack Obama. They clearly know that it will take a miracle — sorry, a last-minute surge — to prevail on Tuesday. It’s OK, I guess, to report campaign spin; but surely it’s not OK to report campaign spin as the truth, which is what these stories are doing.

Again, as Nate says, it’s definitely possible that the polls are systematically wrong. The obvious ways they could go wrong, cell phones and Latinos, favor Obama rather than Romney; but maybe pollsters are overcompensating for these factors, or maybe there’s a large Bradley effect distorting poll responses. Reporting about these possibilities would be interesting.

But reporting that suggests that this is a too-close-to-call race doesn’t get at any of this; it’s just lazy, and a disservice to readers.

 

[mercury14]

If they're close to being right, then it's presently a toss-up.

No not really. If they're close to being right, the most likely situation is that some will be leaning too much to Romney and some will lean too much to Obama. If that happens Obama will be highly likely to win. What you're suggesting is that all polls are leaning unrealistically toward Obama; possible but looking at history it's quite unlikely.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Yes we know.

What percent chance to you give each candidate? I'm giving Obama an 82% shot. I originally had him with about 277 votes but I'm thinking 280-something now.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

You have nothing to back that up except the skewed polls you've been fed. Every poll is different, meaning that nobody really knows what is going to happen until it does, on Tuesday. I think the momentum is with Romney and I don't have a clue how many electoral votes that adds up to. I remember the day before the election the "polls" showed Reagan behind, but guess what?

Zero polls show Romney ahead in Ohio. Not even Rasmussen. Is Rasmussen skewed to Obama now?

 

[Byron In Exile]

No not really. If they're close to being right, the most likely situation is that some will be leaning too much to Romney and some will lean too much to Obama. If that happens Obama will be highly likely to win. What you're suggesting is that all polls are leaning unrealistically toward Obama; possible but looking at history it's quite unlikely.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

What I'm suggesting is that there are too many toss-up States to make any sort of reliable prediction. When the point spread between the candidates is less than the margin of error, the poll is worthless.

 

[koalabear]

I trust all polls and economists. Remember, there was no housing bubble.

 

[garbage can]

The thrill appears to be gone:


OBAMA'S CLEVELAND RALLY ATTENDANCE 20X LOWER THAN 2008


"Last night, in the cold and with long lines, 30,000 people showed up in Ohio to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. That same day, Obama attracted a meager 2,800. But enthusiasm for President FailureTeleprompter can be judged by more than comparisons with Romney. In 2008, at his last stop in Cleveland, a Democrat stronghold, Obama attracted 80,000 people. This morning, at his last 2012 stop in that same city, Obama could only attract 4,000."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/03/Obama-Cleveland-80k-compared-to-4k

I'm sure Merc can explain that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

I'm sure Merc can explain that.

The article explains it. You're comparing a small venue to a giant stadium venue.

And Breitbart is lying about the Romney venue being cold and having long lines. It was kinda chilly but sunny and nice. I was there. And it was John Boehner's district which is a cluster of Cincinnati's white flight conservatives who had advertised for weeks. Similarly if Obama held a rally in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park a lot of people would show up.

 

[Adre]

Intrade has Obama at around 65%. As clever as the local Lit pundits are, I will throw my lot with people who actually bet their money on these things. The liberal Governor goes back to Boston.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

NOVEMBER 3, 2012 12:00 A.M.
Parsing the Polls
If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.
By Michael G. Franc

And if Gallup is wrong they're going to be laughed at.

Wasn't it just like three months ago that conservatives here lambasted Gallup as a liberal shill that was to be countered with Rasmussen Reports? What happened to that?