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 0.7281 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.
Except, of course, when it doesn't happen.
Obama up 50-48, which is not so good, but Obama up 61-39 with people who already voted. I'm assuming that's very good, no? The 50-48 excludes the early voters, right?
In fairness that quote is from 2000.
Countered by the Alabama-LSU rule going for Obama - it really is a dead heat!!!!
No, it is all voters.
Year DEM GOP D-R1972 35% 61% -26
1976 43% 54% -11
1980 30% 55% -25
1984 36% 63% -27
1988 43% 55% -12
1992 38% 32% 6
1996 43% 35% 8
2000 45% 47% -2
2004 49% 48% 1
For House Elections:
Year DEM GOP D-R1976 54% 44% 10
1980 43% 54% -11
1982 49% 47% 2
1984 45% 52% -7
1986 49% 45% 4
1988 51% 43% 8
1990 51% 45% 6
1992 51% 44% 7
1994 41% 55% -14
1996 47% 49% -2
1998 45% 48% -3
2000 46% 49% -3
2002 45% 48% -3
2004 49% 46% 3
2006 57% 39% 18
Party ID
Year Dem Ind GOP1972 46% 19% 35%
1976 41% 34% 25%
1980 45% 26% 30%
1982 46% 24% 30%
1984 38% 26% 36%
1986 40% 26% 34%
1988 38% 26% 35%
1990 37% 30% 34%
1992 38% 27% 35%
1994 36% 29% 35%
1996 39% 26% 35%
1998 37% 28% 35%
2000 39% 27% 35%
2002 38% 23% 39%
2004 37% 26% 37%
2006 38% 27% 35%
Courtesy of the Washington Post.
Ah. Thanks.
Newt Gingrich said Obama's going to win last Thursday.
I can't wait to vote for Obama again in 2016.
More like the opinion of a fraudster Gingrich rented his email list to.
If it makes you feel any better, it's actually only worked for 1 of the last 2 Presidential elections.
Perhaps, but Newt's speechwriter is convinced.
Zogby: tie
Rasmussen: tie
Battleground: tie
UPI: O+1
Reuters: O+1
NBC/WSJ: O+1
ABC/WaPo: O+1
YouGov: O+2
Pew: O+3
RAND: O+3
Yes, but there are party affiliation surveys with far more respondents than any of the political polls that are currently being watched so closely, and they don't show any defection from the GOP to the "indy" column in the years since the Tea Party.
If so, here's another one that should make you even more nervous:
REPUBLICANS HAVE WON EVERY NOVEMBER 6TH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SINCE 1860
Hey! Those guys can't rip-off the "vast conspiracy" and "steal election" crap! That's the left's go-to mantra!
No fair!
I mean, I haven't checked. But they might! And if they don't, there's probably a very similar string in there. Or in a similar constant, like e or something.
It's possible that my laziness is keeping me from my rightful position as America's Preeminent Numerologist.
They own the RANDOM capitalized WORD thing though.
In other words, no more than a one-point decline in GOP party ID, which is hardly enough to explain Romney's lead among independents.
Does it work as a reverse jinx if I'm admitting it's a reverse jinx?
Most relevant to this site:
"Grover Cleveland Alexander and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were anomalies, and yet both adhere to the pattern.
Alexander lost his First re-election bid in 1888 DESPITE getting more popular votes than his opponent and more than he got in 1884- losing the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison. Cleveland then comes back to win a second non-consecutive term in 1892, defeating Harrison's re-election bid by a larger margin than he first won in 1884."
Massive Decrease in Early and Absentee Voting—in Chicago
Oh man. Now, from the links that Yankee Clapper and Kehoskie have posted, I am completely convinced that Obama will lose his reelect bid. Polls mean nothing, all that matters is this thinly sourced evidence from partisan sources.
Clearly he will go down in flames.
From that article:
I'd mostly like to question the phrase "a spokesman for the Illinois Republican Party" -- why is this not attributed? It's a spokesman! It seems weird for both the Illinois Republican Party and for the Weekly Standard not to say who it was.
Yes, they seem to be comparing 2012 early and absentee to 2008 early, just as alleged.
***
Still waiting for those links showing a huge defection from the GOP to the "independent" column since 2008.
Well guess what in 1988 my Mam says that Week End I ate a whole bowl of Buttered Pease and got the Squirts again Al and who should win but George Hubert Walker Busch.
In 1992 I recall my Bowel Habuts were normal the weak end before the Election and in 1996 I was regular as can be with nicely formed Fibrous Floaters and both times it was Dem. win even though my Mam voted for Ralph Nadir.
I really hopt Al Gore would win in Y2K Al and I voted for him my first time ever in the Booth but the weekend before I could not resist getting a big bag of Loaded Fat Free Lays with Olestra Al and once again results were not good for my Colon or for the Nation.
Then in 2004 I was on Tainterhooks hoping I could excel in the Alberta Fall League and be called up the the Chi. Sox and I must of sat on the can all the live Long weekend and who should win but Busch again he must have been Pres. about six times. But in 2008 I was watching my diet you betcha and Mr. Obrella was a Land Slide.
So what polestars want to know is Whats in Keefes Toilet this weekend but it is a Trade Secret Al. Lets just say I have sat here & composted this whole E Mail without getting up once to run for the Facilities. Ha ha but who knoes al.
Honest question: Have you posted your prediction? I've followed the thread pretty closely, and I haven't seen it. If not, do you plan on posting one?
Also, just in case mine was one of the predictions you missed, it was in #1426. I stand by it, reserving the right to revise it up to about 3 pm (eastern) Tuesday.
As a "Nate defender," (meaning, I guess, defender of poll aggregation and data analysis?) if Romney wins, I would expect a very detailed and cogent blog post on "what went wrong," and I would expect it to be much more than "the data were wrong/biased." That begs the question "why didn't you discover that bias and incorporate it into your model?" Maybe it would have been impossible to do so. But Nate would, IMHO, have to acknowledge that a Romney win would beg that question.
He did, it's not to far back in the last two or three pages, you should be able to find it.
That Chicago one went up on Free Republic 10 minutes before Joe's post. Interesting, as Yankee Claaper would say.
Joe's prediction is is in post 1002, on this page
EDIT: And thanks, Joe. It won't surprise you to learn that I think your prediction is in Romney absolute beyond my wildest dreams best case scenario territory. But I imagine you have similar feelings about my prediction (to the extent you've even thought about my prediction; I don't pretend to be important enough that people would think about such things.)
Cheers.
Yes, yesterday. It was the second comment on the page, about three or four pages back. (EDIT: Or six pages back; thanks Lassus and Monty.)
***
Clicking that link was the first time I've been to Free Republic in at least a month.
Boy, time flies.
http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=baiy
Obama PV win 50-48
"“I think the conventional wisdom is trending now towards a Obama win, something along the lines of what Karl Rove and his team pulled off for President Bush in 2004, but I’m by no means certain,” Hume told Fox News host Chris Wallace. “And there’s this striking discrepancy between national polls — which tend to be done, by and large, by older, more-seasoned polling firms — and state polls — a number of which are done by less-established firms. The national polls have this a tie. The state polls, as you just suggested — the battleground state polls suggest and indicate that President Obama is ahead in all of them.”
“It seems striking that there would be this difference,” he added. “And it is sobering, if you’re a Romney supporter, to think that he is trailing or just tied in so many of those states.” “I think it’s unlikely — it’s hard to imagine as a political journalist that all these many polls are off. But the discrepancy is unmistakable and puzzling.”
He has a 100.0% chance to win. Every state.
Romney wins popular vote: 21%
Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college: 7%
It does! I kept thinking, "Well, that was really recent. Surely it's just one more page back..."
Obama wins the popular vote 49.8%-49.0%
51+2 Democratic seats in the Senate.
"People lined up on the sidewalk to greet Christie, who was wearing grey suit trousers and the same blue fleece jacket with his name and title monogrammed on the left breast that he’s been sporting since the storm hit. Christie’s home in Mendham is still without power.
The crowd was enthusiastic and boisterous. Virginia Einstein of Hoboken was one of many who wanted a photo with the governor. Why? “What Christie has done ... he’s a f---g rock star,” she said.
Inside the shelter, it was more of the same. People flocking to meet Christie, some to shake his hand or get a hug, others to tell their troubles to.
He patted a lot of shoulders, and hugged anyone who appeared to need one.
When one little girl asked whether he was going to dress up for Halloween on Monday, Christie said, “I’m going to be governor for Halloween _ scare everybody.”
Asked if he had seen a Saturday Night Live skit that spoofed his and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s storm response, Christie said he’d fallen asleep but got the synopsis from his older kids who had watched the show.
“The only time I’m cool with my kids is when I’m on Saturday Night Live or when Oprah came to the house,” he said.
I liked this part:
Points for honesty.
Oh, man. That's such a good political move that I want to believe it's on purpose.
Reminds me of the law of zeroes. Since 1840, every president elected in a year ending in 0 was either shot, or died in office (or both), until Bush in 2000.
A week before the 2008 election 33% of the people identified themselves as Republicans. A week before the 2010 election 29% of the people identified themselves as Republicans. In Gallups last poll this year 28% of the people identified themselves as Republicans.
Dems have stayed stable. They were at 34 in 2008, 32 in 2010, and 32 in 2012.
What has stayed relatively stable for the GOP is the % of people leaning Republican. Meaning you add up those who declare themselves Republicans and Ind/Others who when questioned lean Republican have stayed mostly unchanged though down a point or two.
So you take the two pieces of information and it seems obvious that the growing tea party movement and libertarians has taken points away from Republicans when talking about demographics.
If it is, it's dicey. You can't really turn on the power to a block of houses and exclude one, can you?
(Or does he live in a governor's mansion?)
If he's decided that his governor's residence doesn't get power until everyone else in his state has power, then he's VERY smart.
Even though it's ripe for cynicism, if he did that I'd still applaud it.
The governor's mansion is in Princeton so his house in Mendham is his actual house.
Then I have to assume he wouldn't deny anyone else on his block power.
*Rimshot*
That's loser talk! I go full Machiavelli on this: make sure your own block is the absolute last one on the list. Too bad, neighbors!
My "holy ####, this is turning out to be a real nailbiter" prediction. I consider this to be pretty close to the worst-case scenario for Obama. Ohio's polling has been very consistent, and there's no way in hell that he's losing Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin unless every poll were drastically wrong.
Yep, I noticed that you had Obama winning 271-267. This would be quite an interesting outcome, although I don't consider it likely.
Also, just for fun: the map looks very weird when you flip every state. Seeing the coasts red and the middle of the country blue really messes with your head.
I saw the trailer for Zero Dark Thirty - looked pretty cool.
McGreevey lived in Drumthwacket, which is the Governor's Mansion in Princeton.
Corzine didn't live there because the doghouses for his pets probably have more square footage.
Christie lives in a very wealthy town - he's not nearly hand-to-mouth as McGreevey was by politician standards (U.S. Attorneys getting more coin than Woodbridge Mayors), but of course he doesn't have Corzine bucks, either. Christie's wife works for Cantor Fitzgerald, though, and she pulls in some good dough.
In terms of the national (toss-up) vs. state (Obama lead) polling issue, I tend to think that one is going to be right and one is going to be wrong, moreso than the truth being somewhere in between. And I think the state results are more likely to be right. I also think that the toss-up states are most likely going to all break the same way. Now, that could be either way, and I do think there's some chance that there are systematic biases underlying the polls. What hasn't been talked about much, though, is that there's a chance that those systematic biases are actually working AGAINST President Obama. As I try to think about what could be causing problems for pollsters, it seems to me that the people they're liable to be having the most trouble reaching - cell phones, young people, maybe the poor, maybe Hispanics - are more likely to be Obama supporters than Romney supporters. Old white folks with land lines who'll answer the phone for anybody are much more likely to be Republicans. So, I decided to go ahead and predict a strong pro-Obama map. And then I threw in one extra WTF state win for Obama (AZ), because, hey, nobody's going to remember that I was the idiot who picked Obama to win Arizona, but if Obama actually DOES win Arizona, I'm damn sure going to refer back to this comment over and over again. Anyway, here's my map: Obama wins 358-180 (call it 51.5 - 47.0 in popular vote, just for the heck of it).
Michael Barone: projecting a Romney landslide.
Brit Hume: "If my theory held then Mitt Romney would not just be ahead - he'd be well ahead. But he's not. So we don't really know what is happening out there. It comes down to turnout."
And until Reagan toughed it out, they all died.
--------------------------------------------------
My official prediction is that Obama will carry every state.
He has a 100.0% chance to win. Every state.
Unskewing that, it's Romney with 103% of the popular vote and a Mormon Tabernacle Choir in every state capitol.
MSNBC, for Obama, at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2011
Romney: 258
Well played.
I think it'll be fairly late. They're not going to count states until their polls close, even if they're gimmes, and even in my "Obama's fondest dreams" map, he doesn't break 270 until he starts winning states in the Mountain region. I'd guess nobody officially calls the race until at least, say, 11:00 Eastern time. If it really does end up 271-267 (as a couple of people predicted), then time-wise, Obama doesn't win until they officially call Hawaii and as obvious as it is that Obama will win his strongly Democratic birth state, I just don't think any networks will officially do so until the polls close in Hawaii (even if they start doing a lot of talking about what is likely to happen in Obama's second term).
11:01eastern time. I don't think it's a rout by any means but I think he gets enough of the swing states that California pushes him over the top.
If he had picked Newt Gingrich for VP and this all included one of these the moon colony, they could sign me up and Obama could go to hell. Sorry.
MSNBC, for Obama, at 8:05 PM on May 12, 2011
Fox News for Romney, at 7:00 AM on November 5, 2008, based on a hot tip from Mitch McConnell.
Make a note: KIKO SAKATA WAS THE IDIOT THAT SAID OBAMA WOULD WIN ARIZONA!
Even if *every* swing state goes for Obama, he's still at 269 until 11:00. So yeah, they don't call it until 11:00, but when Nevada is called for Obama, in the "worst case", they'll talk about how Obama is going to be re-elected, without officially calling the race.
If Obama wins Virginia and Ohio, and they call those states early, they could be talking about how Obama won by 8:00.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main