Poll numbers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by whoknows87, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. whoknows87 macrumors 6502a


    Aug 8, 2012
    Wash Post/ABC news Romney 50% Obama 47% National Poll, and dead even in Ohio

    I feel like we are in for a surprise this election, seems like Romney might be the next president........... a lot of these polls have Romney ahead , very alarming
  2. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    One would think...

    Then one sees something like http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

    along with the projections and forecasts for the elections in the battleground states, then some reasoning prevails.

    I'm not going to fret about it yet until election day, and Obama loses in Ohio.

  3. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006
    National polls have to be the most irrelevant statistic ever since we don't use a popular vote to elect the President.

    Obama has the edge in the electoral college and it looks like any momentum Romney was gaining has stalled, and Obama's starting to get a little ground back.
  4. vega07 macrumors 65816

    Aug 7, 2006
    I wouldn't discount national polls completely, but with our electoral college, they don't seem to accurately represent outcomes. I think many people in academia have realized this long ago. What you want to watch for are polls from the battle ground states.

    And you can never rely on just one poll.


    I was devastated when Silver's blog showed Obama's chances of re-election dropping significantly after the Denver debate. But I'm more calm now seeing that Obama's numbers have significantly risen since, and now he's at a 73% chance of winning. :D
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    A very reasonable view.

    I can't say I'm not nervous about the possibility of a Romney win, which would be devastating to the economic recovery...not to mention the Supreme Court.

    But Nate Silver's an extremely bright guy, and as I write this he's projecting Obama's chances of winning at 73.1%.

    And yes, it'll almost certainly all come down to Ohio.

  6. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    May 27, 2009
    There is that darn 47% number again. :eek:
  7. leenak macrumors 68020

    Mar 10, 2011
  8. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Jan 30, 2004
    having a drink at Milliways
    seems like there is a growing possibility there might be a split decision, with Obama remaining president but without the majority of the popular votes.

    hope not as it would mean an even more divided congress, and even less will get done.

    the only good thing coming out of it would be to finally reform the stupid EV system, now that the GOP would be at the receiving end of it.
  9. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Jul 4, 2004


    I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

  10. leekohler macrumors G5


    Dec 22, 2004
    Chicago, Illinois
    Not just the economy, but civil rights. If Romney wins, I could very well never see equal rights in my lifetime. Oh, and I'd be out of a job too, as I'm sure mine would be shipped to China or India.
  11. BladesOfSteel macrumors regular


    Jul 13, 2009
    St. Paul
    I didn't want to make a new thread on this . . . but I found this interesting.

    Seriously, I actually enjoyed not having any ads for the presidental race. The last poll numbers that I saw which were done by a local TV station, had Obama up by 10 points.

    I'm glad Romney had money to waste.
  12. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006
    Yes he is. He was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart about a week ago (Oct 17th?). Great interview, definitely worth checking it out if you haven't seen it.

    Yep. As Nate Silver's model projects, it's a 49.8% chance the deciding electoral vote comes from Ohio.

    They just really don't matter at all. How relevant can a poll of "500 likely voters" tell the outcome of an election with over 150,000,000 registered voters on top of the fact that you don't even decide the election by the popular vote?


    We can break it down like this:

    States the President will definitely win (237 electoral votes):
    Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York
    New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, D.C., Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii

    States that Mitt will definitely win (191):
    West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, Montana, Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Missouri, Kansas

    So it comes down to:
    Ohio (18, 74% chance of Obama win)
    Wisconsin (10, 85% chance of Obama win)
    Nevada (6, 77% chance of Obama win)
    Iowa (6, 68% chance of Obama win)
    Colorado (9, 56% chance of Obama win)
    New Hampshire (4, 68% chance of Obama win)
    Virginia (13, 54% chance of Obama win)
    North Carolina (15, 81% chance of Romney win)
    Florida (29, 64% chance of Romney win)

    So, 237 for Obama and 191 for Romney. 270 to win
    237 + Ohio (18) + Wisconsin (10) + Nevada (6) = 271 for Obama
    237 + Wisconsin (10) + Iowa (6) + Nevada (6) + Colorado (9) + New Hampshire (4) = 272
    237 + Wisconsin (10) + Iowa (6) + Nevada (6) + Virginia (13) = 272

    These are probably the three most likely scenarios to put Obama over 270, the 2nd and 3rd ones being if he loses Ohio.

    That said, with Obama having nearly a 75% chance of winning Ohio, 77% chance for Nevada, and 85% chance for Wisconsin, he's in quite good shape even if he loses all of the other states.
  13. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    That's how I pretty much projected as well. Glad I'm not alone in that. I'm surprised that Romney thinks he has the testicular fortitude to win MN on such a short notice and before the election, when he should be concentrating more on Ohio and Nevada, while Ryan should work on Wisconsin. If his biggest issue is Unions, you'd think his advisers would advise him to take out the biggest union states, which would be those for the Auto industry, and the SIEU. Get those out, and you'd have a better chance.

    But then I remember which candidate we're talking about here and would rather sit with a bowl of popcorn and watch the smeg-ups continue.

    If Obama carries Ohio, it's over.

  14. dscuber9000 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2007
    Indiana, US
    I'm not sure that says much of anything, really. I'm getting Obama and Romney ads in Indiana and everyone knows we're going for Romney.
  15. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006
    Weird. I don't think I've seen a single Romney ad here in Massachusetts. And he was governor here. Can't say I'm upset about that though, I want to punch a baby every time I hear that asshat open his mouth.

    Plenty of Obama ads here in Mass though.
  16. leekohler macrumors G5


    Dec 22, 2004
    Chicago, Illinois
    You have to wonder why people would vote for him when he can't even carry the state he used to govern.
  17. skottichan macrumors 6502a


    Oct 23, 2007
    Columbus, OH
    As an Ohioan, nothing was more hilarious than Karl Rove going "If McCain wins Ohio, he can win the election!" just as the election map had the "Obama wins Ohio" pop up. If that wasn't beautiful serendipity, I don't know what was.

    It amuses me that local news polls have Obama with a 6-10pt lead, but the national polls have it as a dead heat (inside the ±3% MoE).
  18. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030


    May 18, 2004
    a lot of western wisconsin gets television from minnesota (esp. from minneapolis/st paul), and while there may or may not be any hope for romney in minnesota, he's clearly got to be hoping he and ryan can carry ryan's home state.......so buying time in minnesota makes sense from the stand point of getting coverage in part of wisconsin
  19. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    True, but I don't know if the rural numbers are going to be enough to overcome the unionized votes in the metro areas (Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Janesville, Eau Claire, etc.) If those carry the state, western WI votes aren't going to matter, no matter how much TV time he buys in MN.

    In short, this move to get Minnesota is like trying to drain Lake Wobegon one teaspoon at a time.

  20. classicaliberal macrumors regular


    Jul 19, 2011
    Obama definitely has a significant edge as far as the Electoral College goes.
    Romney has several things going for him as well, things not to be underestimated:
    - Momentum (huge factor, polls almost always underestimate momentum)
    - Motivated base (negative motivation though, more anti-Obama than pro-Romney)

    I think that Obama will unfortunately end up winning (both options are quite unfortunate, Obama being the worse of the two) if for nothing else, because he actually stands for something. The Obama brand actually means something, and he has people voting FOR him more than Romney. Obama is going to make history winning a second term in such a terrible economy with such a terrible employment rate. Great marketing, great politicking, and frankly... a population that's far more open and willing to accept redistribution, massive debt, class warfare, and higher taxation. The Democrats are winning the war of words I'm afraid. I think history will prove that the Republican Party and the Romney candidacy killed off the Tea Party way too soon... it was essential excitement they needed to win.
  21. Coleman2010, Oct 26, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2012

    Coleman2010 macrumors 68000

    Oct 9, 2010
    Romney is ahead nationally because he has huge support of White voters in the south. That won't help him win the electoral college.


    LOL @ Romney has Momentum. He had a little after the first debate. It's since died after the 2nd and 3rd.

    As far as the tea party look how the tea party candidates have fared since winning office. They continually make rape/abortion gaffes and are an embarrassment to the republican party.
  22. Sydde macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    It would not be entirely unrealistic to see Obama win Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado and either Nevada OR Iowa along with the blue states, leading to the 269-269 tie. In such a case, the House chooses the president, based on one vote per state (California gets as many votes as North Dakota), which would probably favor Romney. If the House's result was out of line with the national popular vote, though, there would be problems. Perhaps serious enough to get us to fix this messed up sport we call "Elections".
  23. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006
    Momentum? No. This "momentum" is manufactured by the media to keep you tuning in to their coverage of a race that is nowhere as close as they describe. Gotta make it seem close.

    Motivated base? The republicans are doing a great job of motivating the Obama supporters to go out and vote with their non-stop ridiculous comments (see Mourdock, Robert).

    At least we both agree there.

    Maybe because for 99% of the population they aren't going to see any tax increases, but tax cuts?

    Class warfare as been going on for eons. It's about time we have a party who puts the middle class in front. Middle class families shouldn't be paying 30% tax rates when Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney, and Donald Trump are paying less than 15%. That's ridiculous.

    The tea party? The American version of the taliban? All of these extremists are already supporting Romney. Fortunately, many moderate people can see this insane extremism being promoted by these people on the right and won't vote for them.
  24. Queen of Spades macrumors 68030

    Queen of Spades

    May 9, 2008
    The Iron Throne
    Just want to throw out the compulsory "I hate the electoral college" comment. Also I hate this nervousness. I really wish the election were tomorrow, my nerves can't take it. :eek:

    I hate it every time that asshat calls Massachusetts his state. ******* you, dude, you're from Michigan. Going to Harvard doesn't make you a Bostonian.
  25. jeremy h macrumors 6502

    Jul 9, 2008
    I really wouldn't be surprised for Romney to do better than initial polls suggest.

    One of the recognised issues with polling here in the past was that people often weren't prepared to publicly admit they're going to vote for the 'nasty' party. There was a classic case in the early nineties when Labour were miles ahead in the polls (they even ran a pseudo victory rally the night before the election) but the next day everyone woke up and realised they'd actually lost. No one could understand it (even the bemused Tories who won) but it turned out that people said one thing to the pollsters and voted differently because they were embarrassed to admit in advance how they were going to vote

    If you're running a positive campaign against a negative one that's trying to make people scared then you have to be further ahead than the polls suggest you are.

Share This Page