I know there's a lot of delusion going around the conservative movement, but there are people who actually think President Obama is going to lose Illinois? Seriously, are you smoking the Heisenberg blue meth? The interesting thing about Nate Silver is that he has skin in the game that no other pollster or predictor has. His methodology has President Obama being re-elected comfortably, and has since the very beginning. If Romney wins in the landslide sandbagger and others are predicting (which is not going to happen) Silver won't just be wrong, he'll be ruined.
What? "Not liking the guy" is not a metric. It's projection. Also, plenty of people dislike Mitt Romney. A lot of Republicans dislike Mitt Romney. It took five years of non-stop campaigning for the GOP to talk itself into nominating Mitt Romney. Want proof? Watch how fast he goes under the bus when he loses.
Romney won't even have the dignity of being thrown under the bus if and when he loses. He'll get the George W. Bush treatment from the Republican party, thrown down the memory hole, never to be voluntarily mentioned again.
No in this case it's an observation. And yet they are saying they would crawl over broken glass mixed with salt and cayene pepper with their flies undone to vote for him in order to get rid of Obama. Not just them plenty of independents are saying the same thing. Update: Obama/Springstein Madison WI rally sees crowd of fifteen thousand half the expected size of thirty thousand.
Insider polls? What does that even mean? Or did you just hear it somewhere? I agree that Illinois outside of Chicago is fairly red. But it's not 100% red, and there are plenty of college towns that will all go for Obama. I can see him having a slightly smaller less of a margin of victory in Illinois, but he's going to win it. Comfortably. Anything else is simply wishful thinking powered by delusion and desperation.
In 2008 Obama won Illinois 61.9% to 36.8% for McCain, as large a margin as Obama won by in any large state. Really, that's the end of that story. The notion that Illinois is so Republican outside of Chicago that the state can be picked off by Romney isn't even coherent enough to be delusional.
Given how apparent it is that he will lose, I'm surprised that this process has not begun already. It's probably related to how, as noted in the other thread, they've been able to con the media into going with the "dead heat" story. Any chance that the Repugs will go in a more sane direction after this?
Not much of one. In the extremely unlikely events that the Republicans lose the Hosue this election and get blown out of the water in the 2014 midterms then maybe they'll start tacking towards sane in 2016, but that's the least it would take and even that's probably not enough. We probably have to wait until demographic change turns Texas into a blue state before the Republican party will either back away from the crazy or wither into irrelevance.
The ones that the campaign does. You do realize that the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign pay no attention to the "public" polls because both campaigns run their own polls right? They also don't release those polls for public consumption. It has been said that Nate Silver was graced for some reason by the Obama campaign and they were giving him the polls that they themselves were doing. Why? I didn't say Romney would landslide the state. I said if Obama can't get more voters in Chicago then Romney gets outside the city Romney will win. It's not something delusional given how close they are.
Let's suppose that was true in '08. Do you have reason to believe it wouldn't also be true in this election?
THIS ISN'T 2008 NUMBNUTS. Yes Obama won by such a huge number. People were pissed at Republicans/Bush and they had become hooked on Obama's Hope and Change con job. To say that the voter landscape in 2012 will look like 2008 is the height of stupidity. You need to look at the 2010 voter landscape where a Republican almost unseated the Democrat Governor by winning 98 of 102 Illinois counties. He lost the popular vote only 32,000 votes. Mark Kirk, Republican was elected as Senator in 2010. The Republicans gained four House seats in 2010 while the Democrats lost four. The argument that because in 2008 Obama kicked ass in the state means Romney has no chance is a bullshit argument made by retards like Liet. In fact this is what I was posting about in earlier threads. The left is stuck on 2008 and they believe that the turnout is going to be like 2008. It's not. And because of that a lot of leftists are going to be in for a surprise tomorrow. Remember Liet it's down the road not across it.
Illinois? As of the last poll its up by 16 points for Obama. This is 5 days ago. They haven't done much polling because no one with a pulse and a brain thinks the Illinois is in play. http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president/illinois http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/il/illinois_romney_vs_obama-2955.html There was one two months ago that had Romney only down by 13. Seriously, its inane to think that Obama isn't going to win Illinois. At what point do they figure out they are being lied to for someone else's gain? Evidently never.
Nope. And I really don't care. If Obama's campaign wants to give him their internal polls then that's fine. But their polls are weighted wrong. They are oversampling Democrats and paying too much attention to the 2008 turnout and ignoring what happened in 2010 when the Democrats lost over 700 elected positions from the local, state, and federal level combined.
Silver was pretty accurate in 2010. The Senate and Gubernatorial races had large samples of public polling available. He was 36 out of 37 in gubernatorial races, he predicted the GOP would gain 6 senate seats, they gained 7. In the House, only about 20% of the races had public polling, which Silver indicated created a much larger variance. He gave his poll a large 30% confidence interval, which made some people question the point of the prediction. As it was, he predicted a net gain of 55 seats, the GOP got 63. While off by 8, in a field of 435 elections, that's pretty damn good. Silver is no joke. And your wishful thinking is simply that. He may get it wrong, but he's a pretty good bet.
And like I said earlier, Silver has skin in the game. If he's a bit off, that's fine. If he's way off (and he'd have to be practically dead wrong about everything for Zombie's little fantasy to come true) his career is finished.
Why would it even matter? Are the Obama polls something that can magically sway the election result? If they are giving them to him, and likewise if Romney is, it can only add to the accuracy by widening the polling base.
You realize, right, that you are saying the Obama methodology helped Silver get it right in '08 and will cause him to get it wrong in '12?
Looks like the "Illinois in play" delusion isn't just in Zombie's mind. Ann Coulter just tweeted it. Hell, why not just say California is in play? Go big or go home, right?
I'm not saying that. You are obviously not paying attention. When the do polls they weight them based on previous elections. The 2008 turnout is an anomaly. They are weighting the 2012 based on the 2008 turnout and as a result they are getting bad results except they don't believe the results are bad. So the 2012 polls being done by the Obama team are putting Obama too far ahead of Romney.
While we're at it, why not imagine the Republicans winning 2/3 majorities in both the House and the Senate and winning control of all the statehouses up for grabs so they can pass Constitutional Amendments all willy-nilly. That's not really much more of a stretch. You literally can't place a bet on Obama to win Illinois because there's no one willing to take the other side of the bet at any odds.
The only bet worth taking is which of the FOX Talking Heads will be the first to start shrilling about how "the election was stolen by illegal voters and this is why we need universal photo IDS"?
Get ready to hear about it nonstop. Which will drive more brown people into the arms of the Democrats.
Are you willing to put actual money on this or just quatloos? This is just out of curiosity rather than me wanting to bet, mind.
