Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

2012 US Presidential race polls


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's see, Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight, and Talking Points Memo are all leftwing blogs/sites. RCP and Electoral-Vote are legitimate. Never heard of Votamatic. Who runs that? Sounds pretty sketchy. Votamatic, seriously? That's what they call themselves?

What about your beloved InTrade?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at the predictions by pollsters that use state-by-state polls. These give a better indication of which candidates will win particular states and therefore get the electoral votes there.

As of Oct. 31

FiveThirtyEight: O-300, R-238

Electoral-Vote: O-280, R-206, T-52

Votamatic: O-332, R-206

HuffPost Pollster: O-277, R-206, T-55

RCP: O-201, R-191, T-146

TPM: O-303, R-191, T-44

Princeton Election Consortium: O-303, R-235

I wonder why Shady only ever refers to RCP.... hmm.

Let's take a look at this list at midnight or so and see how accurate it turns out to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 59 Philadelphia voting division, Mitt Romney got zero votes

Republicans are responding by suggesting that there's fraud and that voter identification laws need to be pushed through.

voter id won't make someone vote republican...and how many people will use fake id to vote multiple times when the voting lines had in some locations waits of up to 8 hrs....
Link to post
Share on other sites

"We lost because too many people voted. :( "

If your chances of election depend on fewer people voting, that could be a clue that your policies suck.

Also on the polling front, Dick Morris fesses up: he predicted a Romney landslide to try to boost the Romney campaign:

I think that there was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory and I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said.

He was a Romney employee, given a platform on a "fair and balanced" news outlet to spread a message he thought he would boost the Romney campaign, while Fox described him as a "Political Analyst" and "Former Clinton Advisor" and neglected to mention his ties to the Romney campaign.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia (now), 59.1 million Americans voted for Romney and 62.6 million voted for Obama.

Imagine a meeting of 122 colleagues. After a difficult debate, your proposal gets the support of 59 but loses to another proposal that wins 63 votes.

Would you say that your (losing) proposal lacked support? Would you give up?

-----

This is not 1964 or 1972 - it's no landslide. Moreover, this is no cartel; neither American side will readily give up/give in.

IMHO, unlike China, Russia or even Europe, America is a thriving democracy; America is a thriving society.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

If your chances of election depend on fewer people voting, that could be a clue that your policies suck.

-k

Right, a policy of "reaching across the aisle" probably cost him a few million votes. But really the election was won by pandering and the vote buying of special interests aided by a biased mainstream media.

Edited by Pliny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, a policy of "reaching across the aisle" probably cost him a few million votes. But really the election was won by pandering and the vote buying of special interests aided by a biased mainstream media.

Yeah, it couldn't have had anything to do with voters running the heck away from the insanity of the theocratic social conservatism of the republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it couldn't have had anything to do with voters running the heck away from the insanity of the theocratic social conservatism of the republicans.

Or having a base that consists only of rich white folks and dumb white folks, thats shrinking every election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or having a base that consists only of rich white folks and dumb white folks, thats shrinking every election.

As opposed to a base of dumb minorities and upper middle class 20-30 y/o living with their parents and pursuing or unemployed with arts degrees? Does that sound racist? I guess it's only ok if you're insulting the intelligence of "white folks".

Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to a base of dumb minorities and upper middle class 20-30 y/o living with their parents and pursuing or unemployed with arts degrees? Does that sound racist? I guess it's only ok if you're insulting the intelligence of "white folks".

I wasnt insulting the intelligence of white folks. There are both smart ones and dumb ones. The reality for the republican party is that their base is shrinking. White voters are a smaller percentage of the ellectorate each election, and groups like hispanics are growing by a percent or two. If they dont figure out a way to broaden their base they arent going to win elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this simple-minded ethno-racial analysis is that Hispanics can be counted as both "white"/"Hispanic", and "black"/Hispanic. There were about 7 million fewer "white" voters at the polls by choice (they stayed home), not just because of shrinking population ratios. It would be "dumb" to only focus on these demographic aspects of the electorate from one election cycle.

For the record, I left my ballot unmarked for the office of President / Vice President of the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this simple-minded ethno-racial analysis is that Hispanics can be counted as both "white"/"Hispanic", and "black"/Hispanic. There were about 7 million fewer "white" voters at the polls by choice (they stayed home), not just because of shrinking population ratios. It would be "dumb" to only focus on these demographic aspects of the electorate from one election cycle.

For the record, I left my ballot unmarked for the office of President / Vice President of the United States.

Or maybe there was 7 million less white voters because the generation where there are higher amounts of white voters died. That is the other thing with older whiter voters 4 years is a long time and there are around 3 million deaths a year in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe there was 7 million less white voters because the generation where there are higher amounts of white voters died. That is the other thing with older whiter voters 4 years is a long time and there are around 3 million deaths a year in the US.

No...they are still very much alive....they just didn't vote. Fewer votes were cast in 2012 than in 2008, and it is not because millions of people died. The fastest growing racial demographic in the U.S. is Asian, not Hispanic.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe there was 7 million less white voters because the generation where there are higher amounts of white voters died. That is the other thing with older whiter voters 4 years is a long time and there are around 3 million deaths a year in the US.

THe bottom line is the demographics are changing. Even if the demographics were the same as they were in 2008, republicans would have won this time. And they are going to keep changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...