Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

[duper]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Some will find the bullying and coercing of an honest business, to make it divest itself of "innappropriate" thoughts, a good thing. Me? I'm reminded of Benghazi.

The bullying was pretty f-ed up. But it isn't thoughts that people disapprove of. It's the action of spending large chunks of money in an effort to prevent a group of people from gaining the same rights that the rest of us have. Especially given that there is no constitutional reason to block that segment of the population from having those rights.

Of course, you will probably read this as a defense of the bullying, right.

 

[streaker]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Yet somehow Gallup only had Obama up by one in a poll I saw this morning. What a President that Obama is

I think Gallup had Romney up one point.

According to Karl Rove, Carter was up on Reagan by 8 points prior to the debates in 1980. Reagan also suffered from an "out of touch" perception the skeptical media pinned on him- aloof, parochial, aristocratic. Reagan changed the public perception in the last 8 weeks, where Obama isn't the wall flower Carter was, so I doubt that there will be some new perception of Romney- even if he manages to not stick his foot in his mouth during the debates. Besides, IMO I think the country is more secular, more liberal than in 1980- especially our "unbiased" media. Obama will take the key undecided states and win the electoral count easily, although the popular vote may be close.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Yet somehow Gallup only had Obama up by one in a poll I saw this morning. What a President that Obama is

Romney will win. I don't think there is any question about that. He'll also be a worse President than GW.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I think Gallup had Romney up one point.

Reagan also suffered from an "out of touch" perception the skeptical media pinned on him- aloof, parochial, aristocratic.

The main perception problem with Reagan was that he was a loose cannon and potentially dangerous. The debates showed he could be a politician and this mollified many of his detractors.

But the single biggest thing that happened was Carter looked tired and beaten up by the job, while Reagan was always sunny and had simplistic answers to difficult problems. That swung people over to Reagan for just enough time for him to swoop in and win the election before people could think through whether what he was suggesting would actually work in the real world (spoiler: it didn't).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

That was until the end of Reagan's term when he had different issues...but the result was similar.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Will try to post the article about the subject but someone recently rebutted the "Reagan was down right before the election" mantra. IIRC two things happened: 1) Carter had a boost coming out of his convention that disappated as they usually do, and 2) the failure of the rescue mission in October brought home that the one thing keeping Carter's #'s afloat (rally 'round the Prez during an intl crisis)evaporated as it became clear the hostages would not be coming home anytime soon. As Kep alluded to, in their one debate a week before election day Reagan came off as a not dangerous man, while Carter fumbled a question with an answer about discussing nuclear proliferation with his 8 year old daughter. None of these things have any relation to current events taking place 32 years after the Reagan-Carter race.

EDIT: Found it.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/107171/exploding-the-reagan-1980-comeback-myth

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Romney will win. I don't think there is any question about that. He'll also be a worse President than GW.

That's better then being a worse President that Obama.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Romney will win. I don't think there is any question about that.

What is the sound of one Scoob trolling?



It brings up an interesting thought experiment, though. What if every pre-election poll and every exit poll had Obama up, say, 5%, but the final election result had Romney up 5%? What would happen? (You may reverse the candidates in the experiment if you like). There must be some theoretical breaking point -- a reversal of 10%, 20%, whatever -- beyond which public perception actually becomes very broad that the election has been stolen. Is there any sort of remedy within the system that can deal with that?

I'm sure there must have been local elections -- mayor, sheriff, dog catcher, whatever -- which have been outrageously and beyond doubt stolen, investigated, and reversed. But what would happen if, to put it bluntly, the election mattered? There have always been accusations of stolen elections (1960, 2000, 2004) but what if it was utterly obvious to everyone? What the heck could we do about it?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

What is the sound of one Scoob trolling?



It brings up an interesting thought experiment, though. What if every pre-election poll and every exit poll had Obama up, say, 5%, but the final election result had Romney up 5%? What would happen? (You may reverse the candidates in the experiment if you like). There must be some theoretical breaking point -- a reversal of 10%, 20%, whatever -- beyond which public perception actually becomes very broad that the election has been stolen. Is there any sort of remedy within the system that can deal with that?

I'm sure there must have been local elections -- mayor, sheriff, dog catcher, whatever -- which have been outrageously and beyond doubt stolen, investigated, and reversed. But what would happen if, to put it bluntly, the election mattered? There have always been accusations of stolen elections (1960, 2000, 2004) but what if it was utterly obvious to everyone? What the heck could we do about it?

I doubt it would ever be obvious to everyone. There are too many people for whom the end result is more important than how you get there and as long as the end result was to their liking, they'd deny even obvious things. We constantly see someone on here say something is obvious and then others chime in totally disagreeing that something is obvious or even exists. People largely see what they want to see.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

What is the sound of one Scoob trolling?

I'm trolling because I agree with Laura Ingraham? Bottom line is if Romney (Money Boo Boo) doesn't win this they should just shut down the GOP forever and start over again.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The main perception problem with Reagan was that he was a loose cannon and potentially dangerous. The debates showed he could be a politician and this mollified many of his detractors.

But the single biggest thing that happened was Carter looked tired and beaten up by the job, while Reagan was always sunny and had simplistic answers to difficult problems. That swung people over to Reagan for just enough time for him to swoop in and win the election before people could think through whether what he was suggesting would actually work in the real world (spoiler: it didn't).

True. The populace loves simple answers to difficult problems, even if the simple answers don't actually work. Reagan's optimism was great, and his did have a sense for things at times, but the substance didn't always follow.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I'm trolling because I agree with Laura Ingraham? Bottom line is if Romney (Money Boo Boo) doesn't win this they should just shut down the GOP forever and start over again.

Really big picture it doesn't matter much who wins. Neither is going to really address and fix the problems facing this nation and will largely kick the can down the road as every president has for a good while.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I'm trolling because I agree with Laura Ingraham?

In a word?

Yes.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I doubt it would ever be obvious to everyone. There are too many people for whom the end result is more important than how you get there and as long as the end result was to their liking, they'd deny even obvious things. We constantly see someone on here say something is obvious and then others chime in totally disagreeing that something is obvious or even exists. People largely see what they want to see.

Probably true.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Really big picture it doesn't matter much who wins. Neither is going to really address and fix the problems facing this nation and will largely kick the can down the road as every president has for a good while.

I don't disagree with that. Although the middle class in this case is the can and that kind of ticks me off.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

What is the sound of one Scoob trolling?



It brings up an interesting thought experiment, though. What if every pre-election poll and every exit poll had Obama up, say, 5%, but the final election result had Romney up 5%? What would happen? (You may reverse the candidates in the experiment if you like). There must be some theoretical breaking point -- a reversal of 10%, 20%, whatever -- beyond which public perception actually becomes very broad that the election has been stolen. Is there any sort of remedy within the system that can deal with that?

I'm sure there must have been local elections -- mayor, sheriff, dog catcher, whatever -- which have been outrageously and beyond doubt stolen, investigated, and reversed. But what would happen if, to put it bluntly, the election mattered? There have always been accusations of stolen elections (1960, 2000, 2004) but what if it was utterly obvious to everyone? What the heck could we do about it?

Didn't major polls in 1936 have Alf Landon winning and then FDR won in a landslide? Of course, the polling methodology was very poor back then and limited in its reach.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Really big picture it doesn't matter much who wins. Neither is going to really address and fix the problems facing this nation and will largely kick the can down the road as every president has for a good while.

Disagree strongly (no surprise). Policies do matter, and these guys have very different policy preferences. The election will have a significant impact -- at the very least it's the difference between solidifying or reversing the policies of the Obama's first term.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Didn't major polls in 1936 have Alf Landon winning and then FDR won in a landslide? Of course, the polling methodology was very poor back then and limited in its reach.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5168/


From Wikipedia:

In retrospect, the polling techniques employed by the magazine were to blame. Although it had polled 10 million individuals (only about 2.4 million of these individuals responded, an astronomical sum for any survey), it had surveyed firstly its own readers, a group with disposable incomes well above the national average of the time (shown in part by their ability still to afford a magazine subscription during the depths of the Great Depression). The magazine also used two other readily available lists: that of registered automobile owners and that of telephone users. While such lists might come close to providing a statistically accurate cross-section of Americans today, this assumption was manifestly untrue in the 1930s. Both groups had incomes well above the national average of the day, which resulted in lists of voters far more likely to support Republicans than a truly typical voter of the time.

In addition, although 2.4 million responses is an astronomical number, it is only 24% of those surveyed, and the low response rate to the poll is probably a factor in the debacle. It is erroneous to assume that the responders and the non-responders had the same views and merely extrapolate the former on to the latter. Further, as subsequent statisical analysis and study have shown, it is not necessary to poll 10 million people when conducting a scientific survey. A much lesser number (such as 1,500 persons) if appropriately chosen is adequate in most cases.

George Gallup's American Institute of Public Opinion achieved national recognition by correctly predicting the result of the election, and for correctly predicting the results of the Literary Digest poll to within about 1%, using a smaller sample size of 50,000.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Disagree strongly (no surprise). Policies do matter, and these guys have very different policy preferences. The election will have a significant impact -- at the very least it's the difference between solidifying or reversing the policies of the Obama's first term.

I agree here too. I think what Bob was getting at was the major issues of the day will not be solved (i.e. entitlements, overall spending, the actual role of the federal government, etc.). No question in my mind though that policy does matter and Mitt Romney is a train wreck on policy.

 

[Rover]

Didn't major polls in 1936 have Alf Landon winning and then FDR won in a landslide? Of course, the polling methodology was very poor back then and limited in its reach.

Not to mention 1948, although I believe the issue with that race is the polling (Gallup I guess, don't think there was anybody else back then) stopped sometime in October, and thus missed Democrats coming back to Truman.

But for Kep's scenario, I don't see that happening for one big reason. Polling firms have a vested interesting in getting it "right" with their last poll before the election. That's why a firm like Rasmussen can show pro-GOP #'s for two years, but then the weekend before election day actually poll the race correctly and then say their results are fool proof. Nobody dings you if you were wrong leading up to the final days. Just if you screwed up during that time (see Zogby, which had to rename itself).

A good example is I saw a poll where Obama had a 1 point lead in "likely" votes, but a 10 point lead or something in registered voters (might have been that AP poll from a couple of days ago). Clearly that's absurd. Come the day before the election, they'll tweak their model of likely voters to eliminate such a large discrepancy.

The only possible way I can see this happening is if a 3rd party candidate was drawing larger than usual #'s (say Ross Perot's 20%) but their support collapsed suddenly.