[jbock13]

The Examiner also published a story saying Romney led on every battleground state, including Pennsylvania, if its own version of unskewed polls were used. Perhaps they'd like to pick a side?

[Purple Haize]

Because the majority of the polls are using faulty modeling. If polling agencies are using X to represent the 2008 election, and since the 2008 election was an anomaly, then unless X is repeated, all calculations using X are flawed.

[belcherboy]

Because the majority of the polls are using faulty modeling. If polling agencies are using X to represent the 2008 election, and since the 2008 election was an anomaly, then unless X is repeated, all calculations using X are flawed.

So which poll do you feel is most accurate? Why? Why do you believe most polling is skewed?

[belcherboy]

The Examiner also published a story saying Romney led on every battleground state, including Pennsylvania, if its own version of unskewed polls were used. Perhaps they'd like to pick a side?

Can you post a link to that article? I'd love to see it. I wonder if it was written by the same author.

[Purple Haize]

Basically any poll saying one candidate's lead is outside the margin of error is faulty

[belcherboy]

Basically any poll saying one candidate's lead is outside the margin of error is faulty

I've never heard that theory before. Do you believe that a blowout political victory is an anomaly? Because I assume Reagan (twice), HW (once), and Clinton would have been well outside the margin of error of their polls in their presidential victories. Or is it just this particular race that you feel that way?

[Humble_Opinion]

Belcher - if you're relying on polls, as the current models predicting an Obama victory in the electoral college map are, then you are shorting yourself, as these models are skewed in favor of Democrats. In most polls they oversample Democrats by a margin of 4 - 8%, which was similar to the 2008 election. However, the 2010 mid-term turnout showed an increased enthusiasm amongst conservatives and Republicans. While it's difficult to predict the outcome of the election, it's far from being a lock. I'd encourage you to read these articles, which highlight my points.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... Page2.html

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/sk ... wed-polls/

Also, I seem to recall that more than one poll had Reagan losing to Carter in the popular vote in 1980 just a week or so before the election. We all know how that turned out... Also, whoever said that Rasmussen was the most accurate by a longshot was correct. Their poll is the only one that is worth placing any stock in...

[jbock13]

Looks as though the picture/columnist I was looking at didn't work for the examiner, but a conservative blog. Oops.

[belcherboy]

Belcher - if you're relying on polls, as the current models predicting an Obama victory in the electoral college map are, then you are shorting yourself, as these models are skewed in favor of Democrats. In most polls they oversample Democrats by a margin of 4 - 8%, which was similar to the 2008 election. However, the 2010 mid-term turnout showed an increased enthusiasm amongst conservatives and Republicans. While it's difficult to predict the outcome of the election, it's far from being a lock. I'd encourage you to read these articles, which highlight my points.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... Page2.html

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/sk ... wed-polls/

Also, I seem to recall that more than one poll had Reagan losing to Carter in the popular vote in 1980 just a week or so before the election. We all know how that turned out... Also, whoever said that Rasmussen was the most accurate by a longshot was correct. Their poll is the only one that is worth placing any stock in...

Did you read this part of the above article?

First let us address the party identification “problem” brought up by many critics of the current set of polls. The critics contend that many of the polls sample too many Democrats and too few Republicans. If the two parties were weighted more equally, then the critics contend that Romney would be polling much better in the key states. After a pollster reports there numbers on Twitter these critics will usually quickly ask, “What is the party ID numbers?” If the pollster reports any positive number for Democrats then the poll is usually quickly dismissed as biased and/or innacurate.

The problem with the party identification argument is that it is old as time, and hardly ever correct. Republicans made the same argument about state polls in 2008 that showed President Obama in the lead, and Obama ended up winning in those states just as the pollsters predicted. Democrats claimed that polls unfairly favored Republicans before the 2010 election, but just as the pollsters predicted the Democrats lost a significant number of House and Senate seats in 2010. Party identification changes from election to election, and those changes typically favor the winning party. If pollsters are showing samples with more Democrats than Republicans, it may simply be because Democrats are winning this election.

It is also worth noting that many states are not balanced when it comes to the party identification of the voters. Party identification numbers have trended toward the Democrats, especially in presidential elections. If a pollster reports that their survey showed eight percent more Democrats in Wisconsin than Republicans, it may very well be that there really are more Democrats in Wisconsin than republicans.

[adam42381]

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contr ... tId=743474

[belcherboy]

Also, whoever said that Rasmussen was the most accurate by a longshot was correct. Their poll is the only one that is worth placing any stock in...

Again, from the above article.

Even Rasmussen Reports, the pollster commonly favored by conservative critics, has Obama ahead in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Nevada. In order accept the critics’ contention, namely that the pollsters all are wrong and manipulating their numbers to help Obama, one must accept that Scott Rasmussen (a man whose polling organization is infamously known to favor Republican candidates) is purposefully or negligently cooking his numbers to put Obama up in these states.

[jbock13]

I know it's a cliche, but all I can say is, whether you do, or you don't, either way you're right.

When I did campaigning for Paul in the VA Primary, I knew we'd lose. That didn't deter my efforts to do what I could.

Now, where this election is, is not yet clear. We have around 40 days left. If you throw up your hands and say we can't do anything, don't be surprised if we lose. After all, we did nothing.

[belcherboy]

I know it's a cliche, but all I can say is, whether you do, or you don't, either way you're right.

When I did campaigning for Paul in the VA Primary, I knew we'd lose. That didn't deter my efforts to do what I could.

Now, where this election is, is not yet clear. We have around 40 days left. If you throw up your hands and say we can't do anything, don't be surprised if we lose. After all, we did nothing.

Who is saying to do that? We are merely predicting "who can beat Obama" in this thread and answer the question posed in this thread title.

[jbock13]

Fair enough.

[TH Spangler]

I just listen to Governor Romney's speech to the Clinton Global Initiative Forum in NYC and was VERY impressed. He received a standing obviation from the crowd. Romney will do very well in the debates, I think he really gets it. It took me a while to get totally on board .... but I am now.

[Humble_Opinion]

Belcher - of course I read those articles. I posted them for you. My point was that there are still many questions about the methodology incorporated in the production of all of these polls. One of the foundations of polling centers around trying to 'predict' turnout around party lines. Regardless of whether you believe the ID numbers the point of the articles highlights the importance of turnout, and many of them from what I've read have treated turnout as it was in 2008, completely ignoring the results of 2010 and the rise in those registering as Republicans, which is the highest it's ever been since 2002.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... san_trends

[Purple Haize]

I just listen to Governor Romney's speech to the Clinton Global Initiative Forum in NYC and was VERY impressed. He received a standing obviation from the crowd. Romney will do very well in the debates, I think he really gets it. It took me a while to get totally on board .... but I am now.

I like his initiative to tie aid to jobs. In that, it is hoped that this initiative will see less money siphoned by dictators and more money to the actual needy.
Loved his line 'A few words from Bill Clinton will help anyone. I just have to wait 2 or 3 days for the bounce!'

[jbock13]

Uhm, shouldn't we cut all foreign aid?

[Purple Haize]

Uhm, shouldn't we cut all foreign aid?

No. Because some of it is obligated via treaty (see Egypt) and some of it is to promote US interests. It's the 2nd one where we should be a lot more discriminating with and what Romney addressed.

[jbock13]

Why would you want to favor any regime? Egypt hates us now because we gave to Mubarak or however you spell it... if we hadn't, then we'd be blameless for usage in their propaganda.

When the government picks the winners, everyone loses. That same economic principle works in foreign affairs as well.

[Purple Haize]

Why would you want to favor any regime? Egypt hates us now because we gave to Mubarak or however you spell it... if we hadn't, then we'd be blameless for usage in their propaganda.

When the government picks the winners, everyone loses. That same economic principle works in foreign affairs as well.

The Camp David Accords are the one bright spot in Jimmy Careters Presidency. It brought 30 years of peace between two countries who had fought more or less non stop for the previous 30. And it helped bring stability, although limited, to the region.

[jbock13]

But again, why do we involve ourselves with other countries? What business of it is ours?

I know we don't see foreign relations the same way, so I know it does no good. I would type l.o.l, but that is for teenage girls who text.

[Purple Haize]

But again, why do we involve ourselves with other countries? What business of it is ours?

I know we don't see foreign relations the same way, so I know it does no good. I would type l.o.l, but that is for teenage girls who text.

Because Isolationism and even non intervention isn't a solution. I'm personally glad the French decided to get involved in the late 1700's. I'm fairly certain the S Koreans are glad we involved ourselves. The Philippines were pretty happy we intervened, twice. Europe is also relatively happy we involved ourselves pretty from 1917-1989. Greece is thrilled we involved ourselves with them right after WW 2.

[jbock13]

The Phililippines were happy we intervened? Uh, you may want to check on that.

My philosophy is that we should stay out of the worlds business. It worked for the first 120 years of our nation.

[Purple Haize]

The Moro War and a smaller conflict in the 1940''s