2012 US Presidential race polls

[BC_chick]

Thank you for acknowledging the substantial American contributions to this Canadian experience, including hosting this web site.

No, no, thank you for acknowledging that we're only irrelevant when you have nothing to back up your argument.

[BC_chick]

Really? It's "true" that both of our candidates will result in "shitty" government? Because from where I'm sitting, such a statement doesn't require a "rebuttal" and got exactly the response it warranted.

There's lots you can say to a post like that. How about the lesser of the shitty governments? Or the shitty government that best represents your views. Or that all governments are shitty to some extent.

Why the taunt about not being American when you spend so much time on a Canadian board yourself?

[Guest American Woman]

There's lots you can say to a post like that. How about the lesser of the shitty governments? Or the shitty government that best represents your views. Or that all governments are shitty to some extent.

Wow. You're right. That would have been so much better. Assuming I actually even think any of those things, I really don't see any of those responses as any more appropriate than mine. As an American, I said what I felt. If you have a problem with that, the problem is yours.

Why the taunt about not being American when you spend so much time on a Canadian board yourself?

Why do you see it as a taunt? I'd really like to know.

And I hope you don't find this to be negative too, but I don't spend all that much time here.

[BC_chick]

Wow. You're right. That would have been so much better. Assuming I actually even think any of those things, I really don't see any of those responses as any more appropriate than mine. As an American, I said what I felt. If you have a problem with that, the problem is yours.

Why do you see it as a taunt? I'd really like to know.

And I hope you don't find this to be negative too, but I don't spend all that much time here.

BD being Canadian still gives him a right to his opinion about your political environment. Pointing out his citizenship does nothing to discredit him, but pointing out the flaw in his argument does make for a better rebuttal.

And maybe it's just because it's a slow board but most times when I log on you are one of the highest posters and you've got a lot of posts under your belt.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I know these boards can be addicting... but to say you don't spend a lot of time here is not all that genuine.

[Guest American Woman]

BD being Canadian still gives him a right to his opinion about your political environment.

Did I say otherwise??

Pointing out his citizenship does nothing to discredit him, but pointing out the flaw in his argument does make for a better rebuttal.

I wasn't trying to discredit him. Just pointing out that, feeling the way he does, it's a good thing he's not an American. Why do you have a problem with that?

And maybe it's just because it's a slow board but most times when I log on you are one of the highest posters and you've got a lot of posts under your belt.

While you're checking out the number of posts under my belt, you might want to check out how many years I've been a member and how many days there are in a year.....

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I know these boards can be addicting... but to say you don't spend a lot of time here is not all that genuine.

Ummm. Yeah, it is. Quite frankly, you're making yourself look ridiculous. And with that, I am done with this. Your reaction to my response about our "shitty government" is beyond puzzling to me - not to mention bordering on ludicrous.

[BC_chick]

Did I say otherwise??

I wasn't trying to discredit him. Just pointing out that, feeling the way he does, it's a good thing he's not an American. Why do you have a problem with that?

While you're checking out the number of posts under my belt, you might want to check out how many years I've been a member and how many days there are in a year.....

Ummm. Yeah, it is. Quite frankly, you're making yourself look ridiculous. And with that, I am done with this. Your reaction to my response about our "shitty government" is beyond puzzling to me - not to mention bordering on ludicrous.

IOW, you can't defend your position so you're going to end with a personal attack and say you're done with this.

Ta!

[Guest American Woman]

IOW, you can't defend your position so you're going to end with a personal attack and say you're done with this.

Ta!

I don't have to defend myself. I've no reason to defend myself. And last but not least, stating my reaction to your reaction to my post is hardly a "personal attack."

[BC_chick]

I don't have to defend myself. I've no reason to defend myself. And last but not least, stating my reaction to your reaction to my post is hardly a "personal attack."

I thought you were done with me?

Oh, and calling me 'ridiculous' was the personal attack since it addresses your views of me*, not of my argument.

And you're free to think what you want of my reaction to your post. As others have pointed out, you and BC2004 both do this so my reaction is hardly unique.

ETA re:

While you're checking out the number of posts under my belt, you might want to check out how many years I've been a member and how many days there are in a year.....

K, so with 365 days/year, not including leap years, you've been here roughly a year and a half longer than me and you have 6 times more posts than me.

Edited October 28, 2012 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

I thought you were done with me?

*sigh* I was simply pointing out that I have no reason to defend myself and that what I said wasn't a personal attack. .

Oh, and calling me 'ridiculous' was the personal attack since it addresses your views of me*, not of my argument.

I didn't call you ridiculous - and it most definitely did address your "argument."

And you're free to think what you want of my reaction to your post.

Yes, I am, thank you very much. I'm also free to post about it.

Have a wonderful day.

[kimmy]

Good grief. Nobody cares.

As several people have noted, the electoral college system makes the overall popular vote somewhat besides the point. Some people have been discussing the "538 blog", which seems to have a lot of research about what the electoral college count is going to look like on election night. And with just over a week to go, things still don't look good for Romney despite what his glee-club here would have you believe.

-k

[cybercoma]

Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight) is giving Barack Obama a 73.6% chance of being elected at the moment. 270towin.com is giving Barack Obama a 77% chance of reaching 270 electoral votes. Most gambling lines have Obama the 2:1 favourite to win the election. It doesn't look good for Romney at all right now. Obama's drop stopped on Oct 13. Since then he has been pulling away from Romney again.

Edit: Correction the betting odds. Most sites are sitting at 2:5 right now, which is nearly 3:1 odds (75% probability) for Obama. Source: http://www.oddscheck...election/winner

Edited October 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[Shady]

Yep, all incumbents are favoured to win re-election. Until they don't.

[Sleipnir]

Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight) is giving Barack Obama a 73.6% chance of being elected at the moment.

According to FiveThirtyEight, Obama has 80+% chance of winning if election were held now. Compare to 75% forecast for November 7th.

[cybercoma]

Yep, all incumbents are favoured to win re-election. Until they don't.

FiveThirtyEight has all of its statistical measures open for your to scrutinize. You can see that it's based off the polling state-by-state. They don't just throw up the probability based on nothing more than a hunch that incumbents are favoured. The betting sites are based on who people (that are mostly American voters) are choosing as the favourite to win. They're all in agreement about the margin of probability. So what exactly are you saying?

[Shady]

FiveThirtyEight has all of its statistical measures open for your to scrutinize. You can see that it's based off the polling state-by-state. They don't just throw up the probability based on nothing more than a hunch that incumbents are favoured. The betting sites are based on who people (that are mostly American voters) are choosing as the favourite to win. They're all in agreement about the margin of probability. So what exactly are you saying?

So how exactly is Obama an 80% lock when he's going to lose the popular vote?

[Sleipnir]

So how exactly is Obama an 80% lock when he's going to lose the popular vote?

How do you know he's gonna lose the popular vote?

[Shady]

Study from University of Colorado says Romney will win.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

[bush_cheney2004]

So how exactly is Obama an 80% lock when he's going to lose the popular vote?

The answer is that President Obama is not a "lock"...that is why the Americans will still have an election on 6 November if nobody here minds too much.

[Shady]

There was a similar study done not that long ago showing Romney winning as well. That model has correctly predicted every election since 1980.

[cybercoma]

So how exactly is Obama an 80% lock when he's going to lose the popular vote?

Shady, stop pretending you have no idea how the numbers work. You play stupid when it's convenient for you, then turn around and criticize other people's understanding of the polls. You know how the electoral college works. You can see the polls on FiveThirtyEight and 270toWin and you can figure it out for yourself. All of the predictions, especially on FiveThirtyEight, have been fully justified and explained based on wide variety of measures. Obama is not a "lock." They're predicting that there will be a roughly 75% chance of him being re-elected on election day. That still means Romney has a 1 in 4 chance of winning. That's really good odds compared to the lottery.

[cybercoma]

Study from University of Colorado says Romney will win.

http://www.colorado....rado-study-says

That's nice. Your Colorado study doesn't account for even a fraction of the things FiveThirtyEight is accounting for. Not to mention it was published in August.

Edited October 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[Shady]

How do you know he's gonna lose the popular vote?

The last several national polls show Romney leading by 3 to 5 points.

[Shady]

The answer is that President Obama is not a "lock"...that is why the Americans will still have an election on 6 November if nobody here minds too much.

Very good point. With a week left of campaigning as well.

[cybercoma]

Like, seriously Shady.... what a terrible study to post. It makes predictions about factors that will affect the various states, while the numbers we've been talking about are based on actual polling data in the states, as recent as yesterday.

[Shady]

That's nice. Your Colorado study doesn't account for even a fraction of the things FiveThirtyEight is accounting for. Not to mention it was published in August.

No, it's just predicted every presidential winner for the last 30 years. Your blog sounds great though.