Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Columbo

Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election

Obama vs Romney   327 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Obama
      279
    • Romney
      48

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

2,023 posts in this topic

This race was over before it started. The American people are not connecting with Romney. Looking at the Electoral map its hard to imagine a scenario where Obama doesn't win by a healthy margin.

Obama may come close to 350 electoral votes, he had 359 in 2008. Unless something drastic happens that's a true game changer this is going to be another landslide win for Obama.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This race was over before it started. The American people are not connecting with Romney. Looking at the Electoral map its hard to imagine a scenario where Obama doesn't win by a healthy margin.

Obama may come close to 350 electoral votes, he had 359 in 2008. Unless something drastic happens that's a true game changer this is going to be another landslide win for Obama.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new CNN Poll shows the race tightening up with Obama leading Romney by 3% - 50-47.

Lucky for Obama Romney is a very weak candidate who is gaffe prone and wooden. Otherwise Obama would be a one term president.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new CNN Poll shows the race tightening up with Obama leading Romney by 3% - 50-47.

Lucky for Obama Romney is a very weak candidate who is gaffe prone and wooden. Otherwise Obama would be a one term president.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you check the history of that poll? Probably not. Obama has fallen two points since the Democrat convention while Romney has increased by one. Seeing as it is now in the margin of error, it is close.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^ Too funny Sharpie .. poor puppy .. :lol:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That poll was also for 'likely voters' and it was done on 783 people by telephone....which doesn't really represent the folks who will turn out for Obama, as they're usually more prone to have cellphones.

Doesn't matter really, polls will fluctuate and swing this way and that for the next 6 weeks. What's really telling is how long and by how much Obama's been leading Romney in the battle grounds states.

Romney's a piss-poor candidate and this election will be over early on Nov 6th. Obama will have it won before the Central timezone states are all done, let alone the Western States. Romney's path to the presidency is almost out of reach at this point. He's behind in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you seem to think that posting your opinion , and then posting a video that you think validates your decision not to vote, answers the question i asked you .

well it does not , my vote did count at the last election, and there have been changes in my society because of this , changes that i wanted .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

michigan and PA is not a swing state these days. it will stay blue. Romney already pull all ads in michigan. Philly will hold the fort for PA again like 2008. Especially today when they blocked the voter ID law in PA.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To date, 186 CDCers out of 215 can breath a sigh of relief....

http://www.newscient...no-contest.html

Don’t believe the US presidential opinion polls. Barring a political earthquake, Barack Obama will be re-elected at a canter

FROM tabloids and broadsheets to left-leaning blogs and conservative talk shows, the US media has been united on one point in recent months: the presidential election is too tight to call. The difference between the candidates is "razor thin", The New York Post said recently. The "race remains close", agreed The Washington Post. According to The New York Times it is "widely expected to rest on a final blitz of advertising and furious campaigning".

But it takes just a few clicks to go from that last article to one that tells a very different story - one much more in keeping with what science tells us about the election. The New York Times hosts FiveThirtyEight, a blog by statistician Nate Silver dedicated to crunching electoral numbers. It gives the Republican challenger Mitt Romney a 1-in-4 chance of victory. Over at PredictWise, another source of political forecasts, Romney's odds are only a shade better. The race isn't close or razor-thin or dependent on advertising. It is President Obama's to lose - something that readers are rarely told.

Why the discrepancy? To answer that question, think about what polls actually are. They are often taken as an indication of who will win the election. But polls only provide a snapshot, often with a large margin of error, of who would win if the election took place today. That's very different from what we really care about, which is the candidate most likely to win the real thing in November. That's a forecast. It's what FiveThirtyEight and PredictWise provide, and it's a more complex beast than a poll.

The PredictWise forecast, the work of Microsoft researcher David Rothschild, depends on three types of data and the impact that each is known to have.

One is economic indicators, and the link here is simple: the better the economy is doing, the greater the incumbent's chances of winning. The US economy remains unhealthy but, crucially, it's on the mend. We know from previous elections that the direction of the economy has a bigger influence than its absolute state, so this information narrowly favours Obama.

The next ingredient is the wisdom of the crowd. It is well known that groups can make more accurate predictions than individuals when opinions are aggregated into a collective forecast. In this case, the aggregation takes place at websites like the Iowa Electronic Markets, where investors buy and sell futures in the two candidates. The return on these contracts is based on who wins and by how much, so prices reflect the traders' collective confidence in each candidate. Obama's shares have recently been trading at two to three times the price of Romney's.

The final input takes us back to opinion polls. With a little number crunching, polls can be transformed into forecasts. The process depends on the trends in polling numbers seen during previous elections.

It's known, for instance, that support for the incumbent tends to pick up two to three months before election day. This is probably due to the challenger's honeymoon period coming to an end. It is easier for voters to idealise a challenger, who may not previously have had a high national profile, than it is the incumbent, who has been headline news for almost four years. As voters learn more about a challenger they inevitably discover things they do not like, prompting some to decide to stick with what they know. This may be one reason why Obama has edged ahead in the polls in recent weeks.

There are different recipes for combining these ingredients, and not every forecaster uses them in the same way. Some, including Rothschild, increase the accuracy by considering data on individual states rather than at a national level. But almost every model is predicting an Obama victory. Most have been making this prediction for a year or so. And election forecasting is hardly a newcomer: one model run by Allan Lichtman of the American University in Washington DC has correctly called the popular vote in the past seven elections. "I don't see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News & World Report.

If the models are robust, and their predictions strongly in favour of Obama, why are we being told that the race is a dead heat? I think it is partly a cultural issue. Earlier this year I wrote a story about election forecasting for a British publication. The science editor liked it, but a colleague on the politics desk vetoed the piece, in part because he simply didn't believe the forecasts. I can see why. The hurly-burly of day-to-day politics is filled with dramatic events, like the recent leaked video of Romney talking in unvarnished terms about voters he cannot hope to win over. These events make the race feel like a roller-coaster ride.

The truth, as revealed by the science, is much more prosaic. Obama is way ahead and has been for ages. The meat and drink of daily political reporting - party conventions, gaffes, attack ads - have a limited and often passing impact. That's not to say that an unforeseen event couldn't put Romney in the White House. But it would have to be something huge, because studies of previous elections show outcomes depend far more on fundamental factors such as employment rates.

That, however, doesn't make for an exciting story. I remember where I was when John McCain selected the deeply divisive Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 - an event that supposedly redefined the race. Two weeks later Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. It was genuine drama, the stuff that sells newspapers and advertising space. But it didn't change the way people voted. The scientific predictions gave McCain minimal chance all the way through the 2008 race, and he duly lost. The forecasts are similar for Romney. The race is not tight, and the only honest approach is to say so.

Jim Giles is a consultant for New Scientist based in San Francisco

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polling is not an exact science. They use the exit polls from 2008 to set the parameters for the 2012 election.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way Romney can win, not with the way he is screwing himself over.

Obama does not even have to attack the guy, he does enough damage on his own.

This is going to be the most one-sided election of the century.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.