User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6944 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Post 5599
According to Gallup the early voting is strongest out west and in the south while the east is pretty weak.. Obama is getting absolutely killed in the polls in the South. According to Gallup last week Obama was trailing Romney by 22 points in the South. Gallup expects that 40% of the south will do early voting. Obama was up in the West but of the three regions he was leading the west was his weakest region. Also more Republicans have voted than Democrats so far, 19 to 15.
Put it all together and I'd say trailing by only 6 points probably isn't really doom and gloom for Obama. It might even be a sign that Obama is doing pretty good all things considered.
Why? Where are these mythical states that an appearance by Obama is going to turn a red state into a blue state? \ Obama doesn't need to steal a state from Romney. He simply needs to hold the leads he has in the states he is leading in to win the election.
This. It's not victory formation time quite yet, but the clock is ticking and Team O has the lead. Just get one more first down and avoid punting with time on the clock.
In 2004 I remember being all set to watch the election unfold at Wells Bro expecting the drama of 2000 to happen again. It was not to be. It quickly became apparent as the polls closed that Bush was going to win.
But at least we're willing to make a bet. Did you have a bad night at Turning Stone once or something?
If Silver is right, and the state and national polls can be aggregated for our best picture of the state of the race, it's something like a 3-to-1 shot that Romney wins. That's like Kansas City beating the Yankees. That happens all the ####### time.
It is possible that Silver is incorporating too much uncertainty into his model (Wang's critique), but I tend to the side that uncertainty is good and we shouldn't be too certain in the results of contemporary public opinion polling within +/- 2 or 3 percent.
And I'm not confident that Nate's right - the divergence between the state and national polling has yet to be explained. It's entirely possible that the national polls are doing something better than the state polls.
What are you talking about? I haven't seen you proposing any bets.
I've seen this behavior before. I call it the "You guys just don't understand the real value Francoeur brings!" two step.
Yes, but he's playing defense in Pennsylvania, Michigan & Minnesota. Romney doesn't need any of them to get to 270 (actually, 269 will do), and not long ago no one would have suggested Obama was going to need to run ads in those states during the last week of the campaign. In fact, I'm pretty sure that anyone but the most partisan spinner would concede that if Romney wins any of those states, he's going to be elected by a considerable margin.
Oh, I'm not confident at all. I might even be the opposite. But that's when I make most of my bets.
What are you talking about? I haven't seen you proposing any bets.
I was joining your "you liberals, you lefties" club and using the royal "we" regarding your sidestepping Bitter Mouse's attempts at a wager and Andy's suggesting you start backing up your confidence on various betting websites.
Why, do you want to make one?
I don't believe I used the word "panic". I'm merely noting that Obama is finding it necessary to actively defend Democratic-friendly states that many assumed would have been locked up by the last week of the campaign. That suggests, to me at least, that the Obama campaign does not actually believe they are doing as well as some here have suggested.
The narrative you're trying to spin simply doesn't exist. People here think it is going to be a close race but that Obama will win.
Hella confidant...
First - there are two substantial outliers amongst all the polling data - Gallup, which I think is just got its LV/RV screen wrong, and Rassmussen, which is a GOP pollster. I'd also note that every other pollster that's presenting early voting data shows the opposite of Gallup. I'm not saying Gallup is hackish - no 'unskewed' wishcasting here - just that when you have tons of data saying one thing, and an outlier saying something different -- toss the outlier. Only Rass has shown Romney with a lead in Ohio. Every other Ohio poll has shown Obama with an Ohio lead.
I can find a couple of plausible paths for Obama without Ohio that are legitimate, but I just can't see how Romney loses Ohio and then somehow manages to pick off a less purplish/bluer state.
Second - while everyone talks up ground game, Team Obama has a proven track record with one. They did it twice in 2008 - and while Joe loves to tout the national poll popular vote accuracy, Obama outperformed in virtually every swing state versus the polls. They know the math, they focus resources where appropriate, and their operation is tip-top when it comes to getting their people out. In a tight election where a point here and a point there makes all the difference, I feel confidant that the Obama ground game can get that point. While Romney might have a better ground game than McCain - who really knows? And exactly what is it about Romney that indicates he has or would potentially put together a better ground game? He didn't beat his primary opponents with a ground game - he carpet bombed them via the airwaves... that ain't working here.
I had hopes 6 weeks ago that Obama would put this away, but whether the first debate, a natural tightening, Romney's amazing ability to pull off the etch-a-sketch, or all of the above -- it's now certainly going to be close. I have zero hopes of Indiana staying in Obama's column, and I suspect he'll shed NC, too... but the rest? Florida is by no means out-of-reach - in fact, if you look at the polling, it's almost dead tied up. The states where Romney is supposedly planning his Ohio alternatives -- Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, NH, Colorado - do any of those look like particularly good bets (and keep in mind, replacing Ohio requires 2-3-4 of them, not just one)? To the best of my knowledge only Colorado has any polling showing a Romney lead.
It's gonna be tight, but I'm confidant enough that I'd take an even money bet on President Re-Elect Obama any time...
Those same people pretty much started this thread contending Obama would win, but it wouldn't be close. So that's progress.
Which people did this? Started out as "it's not close" and moved to "ohshit, it's close, just like I said"?
And a tied national race is not consistent with the swing state polling. That inconsistency is the big thing that frightens me - it suggests that something is going wrong somewhere in the polling, and we don't know where that is.
And do you care to argue with a few Democrats about whether or not slavery will continue on or not as well?
Or is it 53, including DC, Maine's thing and Omaha?
Obama is getting killed in the South. The difference between the national polls and the swing states is where the difference lies. The swing states, outside of Florida, are not in the South.
If you break it down by region it was something like +4 in the West, +6 in the North, +6 in the East, and -22 in the South two weeks ago. So Obama leading by +2 or more in a good chunk of the swing states is not unusual.
Sure - but again, if you look at Gallup's RV numbers - they actually have Obama up 1 (at least, last Gallup crosstabs I looked at)... All pollsters use different methods to get to their LV screen, and I just think based on this - Gallup is just wrong about their LV - RV parsing.
As for the national vs state split -- I just think it comes down to two things:
1)Obama is not running a national campaign. Just like in the 2008 primaries, they know this is about delegate counting. They've focused everything - from staff to ad buys to message tailoring - to the states they know lead to 270+. I'm in Chicago, and as I mentioned, I've volunteered for the Obama campaign... from Chicago - I have done absolutely nothing with the campaign "in chicago"/Illinois... this past weekend - we tripped up north across the border into Wisconsin. While I don't look them all up - I sure don't get a lot of 773/312/etc (Chicago area codes) on my lists. This is the 2008 primary all over again - they'll let the national numbers fall where they will and just focus on getting their 270+.
2) While I'd certainly defer to Nate or someone who puts forth a more robust explanation, whether in agreement or not, it just seems logical to me that you're likely to get better samples out of a single state poll than you will on a national poll. From a national polling perspective -- there's just so much you have to normalize... On a state level, it just seems like there's less drift. Sure, sure - you have states like Ohio that are relatively diverse -- but isn't it easier to get a representative sample from an Ohio poll, where you just have to demographically adjust for Ohio, then it is for a national poll where you have to adjust that across 50 states?
You mean like Gallup saying " +4 in the West, +6 in the North, +6 in the East, and -22 in the South two weeks ago."?
Well, that was from Gallup's crosstabs...haven't check it closely since last week -- but when Gallup had the 6 pt Romney eye-popper -- that was precisely what popped out... Obama leading everywhere except the South - where he was down 22.
And zonk.
If true, then Obama should be much further ahead than 290-248 in the RCP "no toss-ups" map. A 3- or 4-point swing from the national polls to the state polls should yield much more than a one-state difference in the Electoral College.
***
We know where part of it is — people seem to be lying about voting early. For example, from what I've been reading, no more than 22 percent of Ohioans have voted, but 30 to 36 percent of respondents in Ohio polls have been claiming to have voted already. If early voters (1) skew to Obama and (2) are being over-counted, then that would skew the polls substantially.
I believe Clinton is making an appearance in Duluth, in an attempt to influence the race in that congressional district.
Virginia begs to differ.
I have one poll with Romney leading by two in Ohio and another with him lead by three in Virginia. These aren't good evidence of Romney holding leads in those states. I could go into the crosstabs of any individual poll and find just about anything I want.
Systematic evidence means going through the safe state polls and showing that Romney is overperforming expectations by a degree equivalent to the degree he's seemingly underperforming in competitive states.
Unless you believe Gallup is equally weighting their polls across those four regions despite massive population differences, the above is little more than trivia.
Regardless, if Obama is leading everywhere but the South, he should be at ~350 in the Electoral College projections.
Point remains the same.
The swing states, which get the heaviest amount of polling statewide, can diverge from nationwide polling by a handful of points. And, yes, the vast majority of swing states are in regions where Obama is doing well.
I can confirm this. There are always a ton of Wisconsin political ads on Minneapolis/St. Paul stations. And there isn't really any major media in western Wisconsin -- they pretty much have to use the Minnesota stations to reach them.
And you don't think he is? You think he is leading in Alabama by less than a point, as suggested by RCP's aggregate number? You think he is losing in Arkansas by almost 2 points as suggested by Nate's aggregate?
Yes, and hypocrites. We know.
There are about only 64,000 early ballots left that haven't been turned in yet. So far the early ballots represent 22% of the total ballots cast in 2008. It looks like this year about 150,000 less early ballots have been cast. Now then the interesting thing is that according to the polls a third of the Ohio voters have stated they have already voted. If that is true then that means a little under 4 million people are going to vote in 2012 as opposed to over 5.5 million Ohioans voting in 2008. Looks to me like a lot of polling places "LV" screens are off.
Unless you're seeing a different aggregate list -- I think both the OH and VA polls you're talking about are from Scotty Rass....
I confirm all of this. Just saw one in fact, well fast forwarded through one.
And I was one of "them" who was super confident in an Obama victory. And I am still pretty darn confident BTW. Which is why I am willing to make the handle bet with Joe K.
Hell, let's take a quick look at Nate's adjusted polling averages and fundamentals for the South. This is first Romney's lead in the adjusted polling average, then his expected lead in the state fundamentals:
AL: +22, +27 (that means Romney +22 in the adjusted polling average, Romney +27 in state fundamentals expectation)
AR: +27, +22
FL: +1, +4
GA: +10, +11
KY: +17, +20
LA: +24, +21
MS: xx, +22
NC: +2, +6
SC: +8, +14
TN: +19, +21
Weighted by state population, that gives an average of +11 to Romney against state fundamentals of +13. So the polls of the Southern states do not show Romney overperforming expectations.
On the other hand, if Romney really is +22 in the South, then he's overperforming expectations by at least 10 percentage points in the region, and that would explain a lot of the national / state polling divergence. The problem is that instead of confirming Gallup's weird results, the existing state polls contradict Gallup.
It seems odd to trust Gallup's crosstabs instead of the actual polling of these states, in order to explain why we should trust the actual polling of swing states instead of the national polling by Gallup and others.
I still don't see a convincing, evidence-based explanation of the divergence between state and national polls.
Boom. They're ceding Pennsylvania to Romney.
The national polls say that Romney is leading by less than a point and yet not all states have Romney leading by a point or so. That happens.
I don't think it's necessarily a matter of "trusting" either -- it's just seeing where the disparity lies and trying to explain it. I'm not sure if Gallup actually DOES any individual state polling but again, I'm not saying Gallup is hackish or anything... it's just that they have a fairly different result from everyone (except Scotty R, I guess) and I'm just looking for data that might explain that.
Regional crosstabs simply seem useful in that regard because we have a ton of state polling in toss-ups...
The thing to be explained is the systematic divergence between the state polling and the national polling. The aggregate state polling (all polls of individual states) project Obama to a national lead of 2-3 points, while the aggregate national polling (all the polls of the whole country, not of individual states) project Romney to a national lead of about 1 point. That's the thing I'm trying to understand.
The divergence could be explained if the underpolled safe states are tilting toward Romney and we just don't have the polling data to show it. That's what I was looking at in #5857 - if the polls of safe states show Romney overperforming the "fundamentals" projection, then it would be possible to say that Romney has a small national lead (as the national polls show) but Obama has a lead in the electoral college based on leads in important swing states (as the state polls show). However, there is no positive evidence that Romney is overperforming the fundamentals in safe states. So we're back to having no good explanation.
For instance in Alabama Nate has only 2 polls listed for them. Both from the same company, one in August and one in June. He has no polls listed for Alaska. Arkansas has 3 polls; 1 in October, 1 in September, 1 in March. Delaware no polls. . . .so on and so on.
Why?
Because Romney needs to be overperforming expectations in the safe states to balance out his underperformance in the swing states, if we're going to harmonize the state and national polling numbers.
Not really. States are not equal.
The issue seems to be that with a 1 point national lead it is hard to believe that Obama could be up by 2 to 4 points in some states. I'm not sure why that is hard to believe. Can you believe that Romney will win Alabama by 15 points or so? Why isn't that hard to believe? Can you believe that Obama will Illinois in a landslide? Why isn't that hard to believe?
Well, first - I guess it depends on which aggregator you're using... TPM's poll tracker - which essentially seeks to do the same thing RCP does -- has it exactly dead even nationally with latest inputs from today.... literally 47.9 to 47.9. Dead tied.
But I guess at a high level - I would just say that it's a tight race all over... Obama has a lead in Ohio - but it's not a huge lead by any stretch. Romney has a lead in NC - but again, it's not a huge lead by any stretch.
As I understand it - and I'm sure you probably could explain better than I -- if we take the standard MOE (3-4%), this means that the range of a 49-49 poll could be actually 51-47, 50-48, 48-50, or 47-51.
Add that in with the state polls -- where, sure, the results could be the same (i.e., perhaps those 50-47 Ohio polls with 3% MOEs are actually 48-48) -- and I think we've easily got our explanation.
What makes me confidant is that Obama loss/Romney win requires that all those state polls that show small Obama leads actually need to come in at the very bad end of those MOE extrapolations.... not just a few of them, but almost ALL of them.
Hence - it seems perfectly rational to me that Obama has a statistically insignificant national lead that will actually be a relatively safe, even if close and not as wide as last year, EC win.
It's kind of odd that you doubt Gallup's LV model (#5825) but then accept, at face value, Ohio polls that claim Ohio will be even more Dem than it was in 2008, despite the huge gains the GOP made in Ohio in 2010.
Is it possible that Romney has effectively saturated the markets he needs to in the swingier states, and that he actually does have too much money (almost unique in politics)? An obvious answer is that if this spending in MN, PA, and MI causes a concerned Obama campaign to siphon off dollars from OH, FL, NV, NM, and IA, then it's a smart use of those excess Republican dollars.
It's interesting to see Obama getting to 272 without OH, CO, NH, AZ and FL. It does mean he needs NM, NV, VA, PA, and IA, though. That's a lot tighter than I care to see.
For the purposes of a prediction thread, what are the states in play? I have it as the 10 in my previous paragraph along with NC (barely), and I suppose MI, MN, and WI should be included. Arizona isn't really a swing state. Neither is Indiana, though I can see including for the sake of completeness any state that Obama won in 2008, no matter how far behind he is there in 2012.
Obama gets to 271 with OH, and can then afford to lose VA and NV. I think this last scenario is a little more likely than the route to 272 I described.
edit: what's the scenario that ends in electing Romney and Biden? Does that require a 25-25 split of the states, sending the choice to the House and Senate, respectively, following an EV tie?
seconded.
this thread is at times fantastic, but the woodies people have for Barone/Silver/Rass/Gallup/etc. has made this really bad, heck looking at the 100th flooded street picture is still exciting. At least utter, "Bengazhi" or "Biden said...." or something every few posts.
There are other ways to weight samples beyond party ID -- plenty of pollsters, in fact, will tell you specifically why they avoid using party ID as the weight of weights like Scotty R does.
Gallup's LV/RV weighting doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with party ID -- they might very well be screening out poor, minorities, students/young voters, etc for reasons that have nothing to do with party ID.
But hey - by all means... you're drunk on unskewed kool-aid, and far be it for me to stop anyone from a nice, weeklong bender....
I dropped out of this thread entirely because all anyone talks about is polls.
The only one of NM, NV, VA, PA and IA that Obama is not heavily favored to win is VA. That makes me feel very much less concerned.
***
I agree with MCoA regarding state polling and national polling. I don't think the answer is necessarily the polling in the south. The answer could also be Obama underperforming in CA, NYC and other large D strongholds.
O is listed at +16.8% in CA vs. fundamentals of 18.9
NY is +25.2 vs fundamentals of +24.9
MA is +17 vs fundamentals of +17.9
OR is +10.2 vs fundamentals of +12
I think there's a clear pattern of Obama not spending money in D stronghold states, and those states not supporting him at levels previously predicted.
Uniform swing is behaving weirdly this election.
Every page or so I try to bring up something else. Haven't come up with anything in a while. I'll keep looking though.
Anyone on the conservative side want to "handle" bet the election? 'cause I still think it will be Obama (fair warning - I was pretty sure Kerry would win, so please no one else make a bet trusting me, that way lies madness and disappointment).
Well, it isn't just the South it is all the other regions as well. Obama, according to Gallup, is only leading in the east by 4 points despite that whole area being a stronghold for Dems.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_romney_vs_obama-1922.html#polls
If Obama is only up by 4 in the east, that means the 'east' probably includes Ohio, which would displease many Ohioans. I wonder if they tried to squeeze Indiana in there, too. 4 points, given NY and NJ, just seems off.
As for people not happy with the poll talk, introduce another subject? There's been some talk on the hurricane, on strategy, on perception.... It's an extremely tight race and while it always seems like there's a lot at stake, there really is a lot at stake. This isn't 1992. Talking about polls is one way of dealing with tension, expectation...
Swings got their name for a reason.
Hey, who else gets sexually aroused by visiting slaughterhouses? PM me to swap offal pics!
I know bashing "poll truthers" is the big thing on the left, but they never seem to want to answer the basic underlying question: Do they, or do they not, believe the electorate will be as Dem or more Dem than 2008? If they do, then I understand their confidence that Obama will win. But if they don't, then their confidence seems unexplained vis-a-vis the national and even state polling.
@5881--Romney's recent ads in MI are wonderfully consistent with the rest of his campaign. 'We're losing! Let's make #### up!' It worked in the first debate. It might work here. I wonder if we're going to be treated to a version of 'McCain's black, out of wedlock child' as in the NC primary in 2000, or this is as bad as it's going to get.
According to that poll, all Romney has to do is pick up 87% of the undecideds and he edges out Obama.
There's a difference between "conservative" and "Republican," just as there's a difference between "liberal" or "progressive" and "Democrat."
I think Obama is a conservative, though he is officially a Democrat.
It seems easier to just do something else.
Hey, you never know. Four years ago Indiana and North Carolina were in the same boat.
Uh, Obama is ahead in Virginia.
I'm as happy to bet on Virginia as I was with Pennsylvania.
Romney's problem is that he needs to win all the close ones + Ohio to win.
That's news to RCP, which has Virginia tied, but with Romney winning in six of the last nine polls and Obama ahead in just one, with two polls tied.
Even going by Rasmussen, which is right leaning, Romney has to win 6 to 7 of the 8 states that they consider tossups.
Despite those dozen fundraising appeals I'm now getting every day in my inbox, I think it's clear that both campaigns realize a few things:
1. The solid blue and red states can be ignored as far as presidential campaign advertising is concerned. That constitutes about 80% of the 50 states.
2. There are only so many ads you can run in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire and Nevada before they reach the point of diminishing returns, hard as that may be to believe.
3. And once the ads have been paid for in those eight states, it's not necessarily a bad idea to throw some money in Pennsylvania and even Michigan. That's not a sign of "panic", but rather a realization that it's better to spend a bit of money in those states rather than run the risk that a last minute event might be enough to tip those states.
If the Democrats were cancelling ads in the 3 major swing states (Ohio, Florida and Virginia) and diverting that ad money to Michigan and Pennsylvania, I could see the idea of "panic". But I've seen no evidence that this is the case. I know that it's virtually impossible to escape both Obama and Romney ads on every DC station that aims at the Northern Virginia market, and that it's long past the point of likely diminishing returns.
Looking now at Rasmussen, a reputable pollster, if Romney wins toss-up states Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado, he will become POTUS.
So, make the bet, tough guy.
RCP is omitting polls (Mellman and PPP). Romney is ahead in Rasmussen (twice) and Fox News. Three polls show a tied race. Again, I'm happy to place a wager on just VA.
Romney is also behind in Colorado and New Hampshire.
Even if you give Romney: Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire and North Carolina, he comes in at 261 EC votes. He needs to win all of those + Wisconsin, or most of those + Ohio. He's behind more in Wisconsin than he's ahead in North Carolina.
I don't have $10,000 hidden in my sock.
Looking now at PPP, a reputable pollster, if Obama wins North Carolina, a toss-up state, he will almost equal his 2008 map, and has an outside chance at winning Arizona.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main