Who Will Win the US Presidential Election

[iloveangels]

Well you certainly didn’t address my dismantling of your post.

BTW: all of my colleagues were left-leaning. You will notice that sort of think among those who work with the poor.

Yeah, that’s why if Obama gets re-elected this is going to be as ironic as h***. I wonder how many of these lefties realize they’re voting themselves right out of their desk chairs? ROFLOL

And like I’ve said many times in this awful year, no matter what happens this election, it won’t be all bad. There will be some bright spots come out of it. That’s how it always works when everything is sorted out at the end.

On another note, I love Catholic Charities and would be very pleased to work for them again.

And ma’am, I wasn’t “fired”, I moved.

Well this time, if Obama is re-elected, they’ll be firing. So you can say goodbye to that one.

 

[He_Man]

You may feel differently if you had a Church and it was being threatened.
Either way, I’d watch the smugness. I’ve seen you post in borderline hysterics over bad polls earlier.

If Romney wins tomorrow, or if a Republican wins in 2016, remember your attitude about the sky falling.

 

[JustaServant]

I hear what you are saying… I really do. But my reply is pithy like your origional post

Mexico City Policy.

Yeah, sometimes the shortest responses make the most impact. But a voice has to be given to those who are not on the bandwagon. Apologists here like to say ‘we post for the lurkers’, I guess thats what I’m doing.

 

[He_Man]

Yeah, that’s why if Obama gets re-elected this is going to be as ironic as h***. And like I’ve said many times in this awful year, no matter what happens this election, it won’t be all bad. There will be some bright spots come out of it.

Well this time, if Obama is re-elected, they’ll be firing. So you can say goodbye to that one.

The small part of me wants to see unemployment going up for the next four years. I need to do a better job of not taking comfort in watching Obama voters stay unemployed, I admit. Frankly, it is deserved, but I shouldn’t revel in it. Especially since people who opposed him will be hurt too. Some people need to be taught a lesson about reality. Was one term enough for people to learn basic economics? We’ll see.

 

[ringil]

Yeah, that’s why if Obama gets re-elected this is going to be as ironic as h***. And like I’ve said many times in this awful year, no matter what happens this election, it won’t be all bad. There will be some bright spots come out of it. They always do.

Well this time, if Obama is re-elected, they’ll be firing. So you can say goodbye to that one.

See, like “firing” has a definition having to due with not meeting the professional requirements of the position. I don’t get your meaning in relating that to Obama.

To re-iterate- those who professionally work with the poor, heavily tend to be left-leaning.

Private charity doesn’t cut it, and reducing folk’s taxes is NOT going to mean that these folks are simply going to turn around and give that to helping the poor. That’s nonsense of the utmost degree.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well there are certainly a few posters (not you) who seem to make a job (read employment) out of straight GOP talking points. Linked posts come every 15 mins. all day long. . . . . . . .

That takes some commitment.

Some people are committed. But the people who state most of the points favoring the GOP are “regulars”. I’m talking about the people who came here in 2008 who had no prior posts. They came in groups. Maybe you weren’t here then.

I probably do post too much. I own my own business, as some others do in here, and I direct my own time. Some have mentioned that they are retired.

 

[iloveangels]

The small part of me wants to see unemployment going up for the next four years. I need to do a better job of not taking comfort in watching Obama voters stay unemployed, I admit. Frankly, it is deserved, but I shouldn’t revel in it. Especially since people who opposed him will be hurt too. Some people need to be taught a lesson about reality. Was one term enough for people to learn basic economics? We’ll see.

I can’t help what happens all by myself, He Man. I’d rather it be better and people be smarter about these things. But if it’s going to happen anyway, and I can’t do anything about it, I’m

Maybe this is what people need to see in order to learn their lesson. I’m an old ex-teacher and I’m profoundly on the side of letting people learn their lesson. It can prevent worse things down the road.

People don’t think the Church will take itself and its teaching seriously. Yeah? Really? Just Watch.

 

[ringil]

The small part of me wants to see unemployment going up for the next four years. I need to do a better job of not taking comfort in watching Obama voters stay unemployed, I admit. Frankly, it is deserved, but I shouldn’t revel in it. Especially since people who opposed him will be hurt too. Some people need to be taught a lesson about reality. Was one term enough for people to learn basic economics? We’ll see.

In my field, invariably, GOP policy means less jobs, not more.

There is no love for Social Workers in general, amount the GOP.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m more than a little surprised that the DNC has not had “seminar posters” come in here to flood CAF the way they did in 2008. I’m not sure what that means. Have they just given up on the idea of persuading anybody on CAF to vote for Obama, or are their resources too limited this time to assign people to the task?

yeah, where’s beau? he hasn’t been around for awhile.

 

[Kc906]

I think Romney will get it, but it is all about turnout.

As a relative newcomer to Politics I noticed something about polling that I had never known before, and that is how the pollsters “weigh” the polls. Typically, the Democrats have a better turnout than the Republicans; I believe Democrat participation was around +7/+8 in the 2008 election (tried to confirm this number.) Most of the polls out their in the media have some sort of turnout advantage for the Democrats around +6 to +9, but it appears that the turnout advantage will be much less for the Democrats.

An example, the latest CNN nationwide poll released today shows a +9 Democrat turnout advantage which would be even bigger than the 2008 election; which most people believe is impossible. So for every point that the Democrats actually do not turnout; you can add that to the Romney column. From what I can tell a pretty good estimate for a Democrat advantage would be between +1 and +3 this go around, since the Republicans are more motivated to vote (about 10 point advantage for the R’s on enthusiasm.)

A week ago Romney had between +7 to +20 point advantages in the Independent vote, I believe this has narrowed since the Hurricane though. If he has any sort of advantage like this for the Independents along with the Republican turnout, it’s an easy victory for him. With a +3 turnout advantage for the Dem’s, Romney would beat Obama by 6 points in the CNN poll. It is all about turnout, and the Republicans are more energized to turnout this year.

 

[Ridgerunner]

See, like “firing” has a definition having to due with not meeting the professional requirements of the position. I don’t get your meaning in relating that to Obama.

To re-iterate- those who professionally work with the poor, heavily tend to be left-leaning.

Private charity doesn’t cut it, and reducing folk’s taxes is NOT going to mean that these folks are simply going to turn around and give that to helping the poor. That’s nonsense of the utmost degree.

Not necessarily. Most of the DFS people and people I know, who work with handicapped around here are Republicans. Of course, in this area virtually everyone is a Republican now.

 

[iloveangels]

In my field, invariably, GOP policy means less jobs, not more.

There is no love for Social Workers in general, amount the GOP.

Well, if Obama wins, we’ll see how committed to Catholic social work the Obama administration is, won’t we?

 

[Ridgerunner]

yeah, where’s beau? he hasn’t been around for awhile.

Oh yes! I remember him now that you mention him. Maybe he was disappointed with Obama, as some numbers of his former supporters are. Or maybe he got a job from someone other than the DNC.

 

[estesbob]

Oh yes! I remember him now that you mention him. Maybe he was disappointed with Obama, as some numbers of his former supporters are. Or maybe he got a job from someone other than the DNC.

I beleive he lived in Chicago. Also wonder where Thekla is?

 

[losnlee02]

Asking Cmatt to educate you about Catholicism is probably not the best idea.

Well, He Man, why don’t you try then? I asked why Biden and Pelosi have not been excomminicated from the church as of yet for having such different views than the Church requires us to hold to be Catholic.

 

[oldcelt]

I beleive he lived in Chicago. Also wonder where Thekla is?

Good question…how soon I forget.

John

 

[iloveangels]

I think Romney will get it, but it is all about turnout.

As a relative newcomer to Politics I noticed something about polling that I had never known before, and that is how the pollsters “weigh” the polls. Typically, the Democrats have a better turnout than the Republicans; I believe Democrat participation was around +7/+8 in the 2008 election (tried to confirm this number.) Most of the polls out their in the media have some sort of turnout advantage for the Democrats around +6 to +9, but it appears that the turnout advantage will be much less for the Democrats.

An example, the latest CNN nationwide poll released today shows a +9 Democrat turnout advantage which would be even bigger than the 2008 election; which most people believe is impossible. So for every point that the Democrats actually do not turnout; you can add that to the Romney column. From what I can tell a pretty good estimate for a Democrat advantage would be between +1 and +3 this go around, since the Republicans are more motivated to vote (about 10 point advantage for the R’s on enthusiasm.)

A week ago Romney had between +7 to +20 point advantages in the Independent vote, I believe this has narrowed since the Hurricane though. If he has any sort of advantage like this for the Independents along with the Republican turnout, it’s an easy victory for him. With a +3 turnout advantage for the Dem’s, Romney would beat Obama by 6 points in the CNN poll. It is all about turnout, and the Republicans are more energized to turnout this year.

For a newcomer to politics, you’re pretty good. I’ve watched politics for decades and this part you have nailed. There’s also the margin of error which is +/-1 to +/-5 on most of these polls, depending on sample size.

If you want to see something interesting, go to Gallup and look at their latest polling data. You can see a breakdown for Reps and Dems there, gathered on a large population that was selected for all the other parameters. Gallup’s methodology doesn’t weight party ID. Rather they weight everything else to get their samples and call party ID an outcome because it’s their contention that it floats like choice of candidate does.

It’s enlightening every election year because it helps you find the right D+x number. R and D are sampling about even this year, something like 35% each. What does this mean? You can go into the raw data of the other polls and read the raw numbers straight up. That’s your REAL polling result providing they’ve selected for the other parameters relatively correctly.

It is notable that Gallup has suspended polling, blaming the storm. That’s never happened before in the history of Gallup polling, which is many decades old. I really don’t think it’s the storm because it’s well known that the east coast is very liberal. I think they’re being pushed around by somebody.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Well, He Man, why don’t you try then? I asked why Biden and Pelosi have not been excomminicated from the church as of yet for having such
different views than the Church requires us to hold to be Catholic.

We are not allowed to make such speculations directly (ie, naming names) per CAF rules

 

[ringil]

yeah, where’s beau? he hasn’t been around for awhile.

I seriously miss beau. . . . .

 

[kozlosap]

According to the 538 Blog written by Nate Silver, there is an 87% chance that the President will be re-elected. His analysis is based on mathematical statistics using data from all polls considered valid from the entire country. The main element is the Electorial College, although the national vote is also included. Yes, this is published in the NY Times, BUT, after reading his analysis and protocol, I tend to believe that his method has been validated.

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Yes, I’m a Catholic and voting for Obama/Biden.

(Just my 2 cents worth)