Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The American Political Thread

947K views 22K replies 68 participants last post by  Vader101 
#1 ·
Something I've noted several times is that, while most of us agree it's important to be informed about Canadian politics and to be an engaged citizen, the fact is that Canadian politics are generally pretty boring (this can be a good thing, IMO). The Americans, on the other hand, have turned the dysfunction of their political system into an entertainment industry (although it appears Harper, et al., are determined to reduce the Canadian system to the same level).

So I thought I'd start a thread for discussion of the Reality TV show they call American Politics.

I'll start with this posting I saw on another forum, with respect to the Republican's policies on women's health care, especially with regard to contraception and abortion:
After years and years and years of specifically targeting homophobes, racists, bigots, religious zealots, anti-intellectuals and sociopaths why should we be at all shocked that the GOP picked up a ****load of misogynists along the way?
 
#2,142 ·
Macfury said:
Only four presidents have been elected by the electoral college without winning the national popular vote: Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush II. Each of them received within 0.5 % of the popular vote of the other candidate. Based on current polling results and underlying methodology, Obama would have to pull that off while losing the popular vote by 2 to 3 per cent.
As someone who appears to disregard reason and science when it doesn't fit your preconceived outcome I shouldn't expect you to understand that correlation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with causality. I expect that next you'd have us believe that since no incumbent President except one has prevailed when the Washington Redskins have lost their final home game before the election, this also has some bearing on the Electoral College totals. What's next, "Hamburger polls across the nation point to Romney landslide"?

Macfury said:
Based on current polling results and underlying methodology, Obama would have to pull that off while losing the popular vote by 2 to 3 per cent.
Says the eminent polling analysis organization, the Macfury Institute for Obama Hatred. I'm sure you realize that even your esteemed GOP-centric Real Clear Politics currently shows the average national polls being up by half a point for Obama.

Oh sorry, I see that after applying the Macfury Patented Magical Poll Analytics™ to that number shows he's actually behind by 2 to 3 points. I see.

Macfury said:
I've searched the methodologies of most of the polls and all of the recent polls on RCP over the past month and have found no poll that oversamples Republicans. I've also checked polls not included on RCP, such as Quinnipiac. Even the last FOX News poll showing Obama and Romney tied oversamples Democrats by 5 per cent--that's because these polls are prepared at arm's length by third parties, in this case Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research.

However, I've also studied The Electoral College positions carefully this election, and I've been downloading the methodologies of significant polls in swing states, particularly Florida and Ohio. The national results are replicated on a state-by-state level, with most pollsters assuming a 2012 turnout identical to 2008, while ignoring 2010 entirely. While New York and California are out of reach to Romney, Obama is fighting for his life in a large number of states believed to be solidly in the Democrat fold. If you'd told David Axelrod last month that a major Michigan poll released on the eve of the election showed Romney ahead by a point, he'd have called you crazy.
…. aaaaaand here we go down the right-wing conspiracy theory rabbit hole with Macfury.

Sorry MF, I know that the polling numbers are no comfort to your desired result, but you have no basis for making these claims of oversampling and skewed polling. Over time, with the sheer volume of endless polling that happens during US Presidential elections the polling averages have been shown to be very close to the final result.

Macfury said:
Polls can change, even in the final days, but if the vote were held today, Romney would win handily.
Yes, polls can change, although at this point historically they've been fairly well settled. But yes, Romney can win, although if he does it will be a squeaker for him. Not "handily", not a blowout.

Or on the other hand, you can believe the right-wing fairy tales such as the ones pedalled on UnSkewed Polls.com. Here in amongst the clearly unbiased articles like "Vote Mitt Reagan" and "KinderGarden Of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks" and links to books and web sites for the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Morris and other fair and balanced members of the punditocracy, we see articles railing against the corrupt polling companies who are all in the tank for Nobama and predictions of 359 EVs for Romney.

Hurry up everyone, and head over to Intrade. $1000 on Romney to win will get you almost $3000. According to the rock-solid polling analysis of MF, it's a sure thing.
 
#2,143 ·
Gratuitous, I know you are counting on an Obama victory, but I expected better of you than ad hominem attacks. I checked out your recommended Unskewed Polls site but found it wanting. Polling methodology is available directly from the polling providers and I do the math myself. Likewise you're wasting your time sniffing around the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sites, since they don't produce any polls.

I've taken time to explain my reasoning and share it here in a political forum. No need to be hostile.
 
#2,144 ·
Gratuitous, I know you are counting on an Obama victory, ......
I don't know why you bother GA, but all the power to you.

I've heard over and over the conspiracy theories of dem oversampling, amongst several other wild theories. But despite any reasoning you may provide, it just ends up that you're just a Obama lover. And people jumped on me when I used the 'T' word...
 
#2,145 ·
Okay let's get real here, Obama and Romney are virtually tied. The reason is both are carrying states with a fair amount of EC votes, public opinion has nothing to do with it, it's the representational system that is the key. Romney and Obama aren't going to Florida ( last I saw ) that means what ever the poll states they agree with .... meaning one knows it's lost to them, Florida carries many EC votes, so......... Ohio is the next battle ground, who carries Ohio will win. Right now, I'm thinking it's Obama in Ohio. As for you poll fans, Romney is behind in Mass by about 35%.....so, that's how well they think he was a Governor........ I don't think we will know until about 5 am the next morning..... many many states tie their voting up with propositions and that can be a slow voting process......
I agree rps. It is interesting that the state where Romney was governor he is not well liked.

Perhaps that'll be the result should Romney get in. In fact I can guarantee it.
 
#2,146 ·
Gratuitous, I know you are counting on an Obama victory, but I expected better of you than ad hominem attacks. I checked out your recommended Unskewed Polls site but found it wanting. Polling methodology is available directly from the polling providers and I do the math myself. Likewise you're wasting your time sniffing around the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sites, since they don't produce any polls.

I've taken time to explain my reasoning and share it here in a political forum. No need to be hostile.
Macfury, I never took you for the easily wounded type, but no hostility or ad hominen was intended. My satire was directed squarely at your arguments, which I find highly worthy of mockery. I thought you might enjoy a chuckle or two. If I've offended you that was not my intention and I apologize.

Regarding the link to the UnSkewed Polls site, I added that because you are using exactly the same arguments and language as that site. I see that the Unskewed Polls information is being quoted throughout the right-wing blogosphere, it seems to be the go-to site for those on the right who think that the polls are all wrong. I'll take you at your word that you are independently analyzing dozens of polls per day to correct what you see as faulty data. Is your home-brewed poll analysis less extreme in their conclusions than the unskewed guy, even though they seem to point to similar results? Will Michigan and Penn. fall to Romney despite what all this supposedly biased polling is telling everyone else?

As for counting on an Obama victory, I wouldn't gamble money on it, as you have for Romney. Of course I'd prefer to see Romney dispatched back to his plutocratic lair, but I don't need to create a new version of the data to conform to my desired result.
 
#2,147 ·
I don't know why you bother GA, but all the power to you.

I've heard over and over the conspiracy theories of dem oversampling, amongst several other wild theories. But despite any reasoning you may provide, it just ends up that you're just a Obama lover. And people jumped on me when I used the 'T' word...
I generally don't bother these days as I usually have more important things to do than sit in Everything Else debating politics. It started out with what I thought was a realistic observation, based on the current polling of what I thought Romeny's chances are. As I said, difficult for him, but not impossible.

MF engaged me with a conspiracy theory that all the polls are wrong and biased and that Romney is a sure thing, which I just found ridiculous.

To those who have read my posts here, I would think my preference would be clear. I don't think Obama is fantastic, I've found him often very disappointing, but Romney would be a disaster in my opinion. Romney is a mountain of BS masquerading as a person, and I'm constantly amazed that so many Americans could be blind to that. But I guess that makes me an Obama-lover.
 
#2,148 ·
I generally don't bother these days as I usually have more important things to do than sit in Everything Else debating politics. It started out with what I thought was a realistic observation, based on the current polling of what I thought Romeny's chances are. As I said, difficult for him, but not impossible.

MF engaged me with a conspiracy theory that all the polls are wrong and biased and that Romney is a sure thing, which I just found ridiculous.

To those who have read my posts here, I would think my preference would be clear. I don't think Obama is fantastic, I've found him often very disappointing, but Romney would be a disaster in my opinion. Romney is a mountain of BS masquerading as a person, and I'm constantly amazed that so many Americans could be blind to that. But I guess that makes me an Obama-lover.
I couldn't agree with you more in regards to Obama, and Romney. And I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the polls in any case.

This will be a really interesting election.
 
#2,149 ·
I generally don't bother these days as I usually have more important things to do than sit in Everything Else debating politics. It started out with what I thought was a realistic observation, based on the current polling of what I thought Romeny's chances are. As I said, difficult for him, but not impossible.

MF engaged me with a conspiracy theory that all the polls are wrong and biased and that Romney is a sure thing, which I just found ridiculous.

To those who have read my posts here, I would think my preference would be clear. I don't think Obama is fantastic, I've found him often very disappointing, but Romney would be a disaster in my opinion. Romney is a mountain of BS masquerading as a person, and I'm constantly amazed that so many Americans could be blind to that. But I guess that makes me an Obama-lover.
Still Romney does own the Ohio voting machines and the Republirats were sure that BO won the last election by fixing those very same machines.:D
 
#2,150 ·
Macfury, I never took you for the easily wounded type, but no hostility or ad hominen was intended.
My feelings aren't hurt. However Unskewed Polls is not my source of information. They align too much probability in favour of the Republican candidate. My predictions are much more modest than theirs.

Also, when I say that I believe Romney will score a decisive victory, by this I mean that his victory will not be in dispute by Wednesday morning.
 
#2,151 ·
I wonder if the real poll results are more along the lines:

Bush-III 5%
Bush-IV 5%
Take your ___ ___ ___ poll and shove it ... 90%
 
#2,152 · (Edited)
My feelings aren't hurt. However Unskewed Polls is not my source of information. They align too much probability in favour of the Republican candidate. My predictions are much more modest than theirs.

Also, when I say that I believe Romney will score a decisive victory, by this I mean that his victory will not be in dispute by Wednesday morning.
So below is a chart for the battleground states showing polling averages for 3 web sites: Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight blog (538), Real Clear Politics (RCP), and the UnSkewed Polls.com site that believes the polls all favour Obama and has therefore "unskewed" them.

You say your analysis is much more modest than UnSkewed but, I would assume, more favourable to Romney than either 538 or RCP. So what are your numbers - currently of course?



(For 538 I used Silver's adjusted averages, where he weights polls based on past accuracy and some weighting due to relative age of the poll and size. I would imagine if I'd used his straight averages they would have been similar to RCP's, assuming they both use the same polls to make their averages, which I'm not sure of.)
 
#2,155 ·
You say your analysis is much more modest than UnSkewed but, I would assume, more favourable to Romney than either 538 or RCP. So what are your numbers - currently of course?

--------

(For 538 I used Silver's adjusted averages, where he weights polls based on past accuracy and some weighting due to relative age of the poll and size. I would imagine if I'd used his straight averages they would have been similar to RCP's, assuming they both use the same polls to make their averages, which I'm not sure of.)
RCP only averages polls as presented--it treats them agnostically, I have simply been adjusting to Gallup's thorough analysis of voter makeup, which shows high Republican enthusiasm and party self identification favouring self-identified Republicans at 1 per cent above Democrats.

If I see a poll in which Democrats are favoured nationally in self-ID sampling by 5 to 10 per cent, I adjust the numbers to something closer to Gallup, although not all the way. I assume the possibility that Dems and Republicans are are represented about equally, just as a hedge.

Nate SIlver is a showman, but I don't believe past performance of any poll is a strong indicator of future accurate predictions, particularly if that poll takes 2008 as the norm and skews to replicate it. In that election there was high enthusiasm for O and low enthusiasm for McCain who ran as a liberal. Silver has exactly one good prediction in him so far, but I consider it largely a matter of luck.

Silver self-identifies as a supporter of Obama and I believe he is unable to see the bias creeping into his numbers. A perfect example would be Silver's treatment of two polls by PPP. In one Ohio poll showing Obama up by a point, 49–48, he weights the survey at 95%. An older survey showing Obama up by five is given a weighting of 116%. This is purely subjective when methodologies are identical.

In another poll he reweights a poll showing a 9 per cent advantage for Democrats because he feels it's skewed toward Republicans.

I call voodoo, not mathematics.

When you ask what my numbers are, are you referring to the Electoral College?
 
#2,156 · (Edited)
I'll concede that I would not bet on this election. MF is certain that Mitt's the man. We will see - Hopefully on Tuesday night.

Dewey wins!
I agree. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top