Is The US Media Misrepresenting How Close Romney Is ?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I've done a breakdown of the most recent polls, by state, to show where Obama is in relation to Romney in the Electoral College vote, which is, after all, the only vote which matters.

I've ignored any state with recent polls showing less than an 8% margin of victory, which is a huge error margin to have for statistics. Most statistical sampling allows for an error ratio of 3-4%.

As of the most recent polls, Obama is leading by at least 8% in

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, for a total of 274 electoral college votes (270 needed)

Romney is leading by at least 8% in

Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia, for a total of 145 electoral college votes.

This is completely ignoring any state that hasn't had a recent poll, or in which the margin of votes is less than 8%. These states haven't even been included in this total.

We have to raise the margin of error to 9% for Obama to get less than 270.

My question is, why does it appear that the US media still seems to be portraying Mitt Romney as having a chance in this election?

Even given his debate performance last night, President Obama needs to massively screw up to lose this election. States don't swing 8% in just over a month.
edit on 4-10-2012 by babybunnies because: Added Romney's Stats.




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Becaue the media needs a close race or no one will care.

What will they talk about for the next five weeks if they declare it is over already?

A close race means more people are interested (ironically it is the people who are already firmly decided that get more interested), and they get more ratings/viewers and they get more money.

Obama could be polling to get 290 electoral votes by at 20% margins and the media would still call it a close race.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
Becaue the media needs a close race or no one will care.

What will they talk about for the next five weeks if they declare it is over already?

A close race means more people are interested (ironically it is the people who are already firmly decided that get more interested), and they get more ratings/viewers and they get more money.

Obama could be polling to get 290 electoral votes by at 20% margins and the media would still call it a close race.


Of course, but it's so easy to figure this out, I'm astounded that the average American news junkie - especially those so vehemently supporting Mitt Romney - haven't figured out that the race is pretty much all but over at this point.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Maybe you'd answer your own slanted bias by discarding all polls that over sample democrats by a margin > than 3%

Of course by then you'd have no polls left to manipulate as your list would = ZERO

If sampling was honest I think it'd show exactly the opposite of what you're trying to imply.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Maybe you'd answer your own slanted bias by discarding all polls that over sample democrats by a margin > than 3%

Of course by then you'd have no polls left to manipulate as your list would = ZERO

If sampling was honest I think it'd show exactly the opposite of what you're trying to imply.


Why do you think that the should poll the exact amount of Republicans and Democrats? The Demographics don't lie, if Democrats actually went and voted in every election, they would win the majority of elections in most states.

I'm sure you are fine with the Rasmussen polls that oversample Republicans even though they don't have data to back up that practice.

And besides, most polls don't specifically target Democrats or Republicans. They randomly call people and let them identify themselves. So there is no deliberate "oversampling". It is a random sample and somehow (because it is reality) they keep coming up with almost exactly the same percentages of Dems and Reps.

There is no conspiracy, only desperation.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 



Of course, but it's so easy to figure this out, I'm astounded that the average American news junkie - especially those so vehemently supporting Mitt Romney - haven't figured out that the race is pretty much all but over at this point.


It's easy to figure out if you are honest with yourself.

Unfortunately a lot of people like to lie to themselves to create a false security. For example, the person who just suggested all the polls are fraudulent because Democrats are "oversampled". Completely ignoring demographics data that support the sampling numbers and the fact that these are random samples. But it makes that person feel better. At least for the next five weeks, they can live in a reality where Obama is losing and they are artificially happy.

Then when the polls hold true and Obama wins (barring nothing extreme happens the next five weeks), they will again lie to themselves either claiming the election was fixed, that the Democrats cheated, or some other excuse where they continue to live in their false reality where they are not in the minority.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Maybe you'd answer your own slanted bias by discarding all polls that over sample democrats by a margin > than 3%

Of course by then you'd have no polls left to manipulate as your list would = ZERO

If sampling was honest I think it'd show exactly the opposite of what you're trying to imply.


You're claiming polls are oversampling Democrats by a margin greater than 3%.

Great. My stats allow for an error margin of 8%, almost triple the margin you propose.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by babybunnies
 



Of course, but it's so easy to figure this out, I'm astounded that the average American news junkie - especially those so vehemently supporting Mitt Romney - haven't figured out that the race is pretty much all but over at this point.


It's easy to figure out if you are honest with yourself.

Unfortunately a lot of people like to lie to themselves to create a false security. For example, the person who just suggested all the polls are fraudulent because Democrats are "oversampled". Completely ignoring demographics data that support the sampling numbers and the fact that these are random samples. But it makes that person feel better. At least for the next five weeks, they can live in a reality where Obama is losing and they are artificially happy.

Then when the polls hold true and Obama wins (barring nothing extreme happens the next five weeks), they will again lie to themselves either claiming the election was fixed, that the Democrats cheated, or some other excuse where they continue to live in their false reality where they are not in the minority.


They'll claim that the lack of Voter ID laws allowed Democrats to fraudulently stuff ballots.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Phoenix
Maybe you'd answer your own slanted bias by discarding all polls that over sample democrats by a margin > than 3%

Of course by then you'd have no polls left to manipulate as your list would = ZERO

If sampling was honest I think it'd show exactly the opposite of what you're trying to imply.


You're claiming polls are oversampling Democrats by a margin greater than 3%.

Great. My stats allow for an error margin of 8%, almost triple the margin you propose.


You failed to notice the distinction - yours are results by 8% mine are sampling errors 3% - two differnt things



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


There are no sampling errors, and if there are they exist in Rasmussens sampling (which by the way the unskewed polls use for their weighting).

Rasmussen uses robo calls, Rasmussen doesn't poll cell phones, Rasmussen uses computer scripted calls, Rasmussen does all of it's sampling in a 4 hour _

All of these are horribly unscientific things to do when trying to get a realistic sampling of our population.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by babybunnies
 



Of course, but it's so easy to figure this out, I'm astounded that the average American news junkie - especially those so vehemently supporting Mitt Romney - haven't figured out that the race is pretty much all but over at this point.


It's easy to figure out if you are honest with yourself.

Unfortunately a lot of people like to lie to themselves to create a false security. For example, the person who just suggested all the polls are fraudulent because Democrats are "oversampled". Completely ignoring demographics data that support the sampling numbers and the fact that these are random samples. But it makes that person feel better. At least for the next five weeks, they can live in a reality where Obama is losing and they are artificially happy.

Then when the polls hold true and Obama wins (barring nothing extreme happens the next five weeks), they will again lie to themselves either claiming the election was fixed, that the Democrats cheated, or some other excuse where they continue to live in their false reality where they are not in the minority.



Theres been plenty of discussion on skewed poll sampling of late that flies in the face of your claim of demographics, one of the least biased for you,

Skewed Polling


But it does cast doubt on some of the narratives so far in the election. Earlier, we talked about why some polls are misinterpreted because of a misunderstanding of how statistics work. If polls truly are oversampling Democrats, that's extremely bad news for Democrats.


The false reality may bite you - beware



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


I've explained the polling in two other posts, you have chosen to ignore it.

There is no sampling error, it is a random sample. When random samples keep saying the same thing over and over, then you can be confident of it's results.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 

I would say yes.

Someone else on ATS questioned Obama's debate performance wondering if it was intentionally bad.

I dont doubt it. TPTB want to present the illusion that its a "tight race". In-fact no one gives a crap.

These two are so ideologically similar that it makes no point to replace Obama with a White equivalent.

The time is perfect for a 3rd Party candidate.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I wouldn't count Romney out yet. Yes he says some pretty off the wall stuff, and no I will not be voting for him.... but I think he did an excellent job last night. There were times when I was actually agreeing with what he had to say.... if he keeps this up he may swing a good portion of the undecided voters..... In short, I think he still has a shot, whether I like it or not.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Romney needs what 100 electoral votes to win?

Don't see how he can pick up that many. I really don't.

Unless there there is a massive misinformation campaign going on, and underestimating Romney, and overestimating Obama.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
According to a some polls, 15% of voters are undecided. Another 10% say they are leaning one way or the other and are waiting on the debates. I heard it on talk radio so you decide if it sounds accurate or not.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by Phoenix
 


I've explained the polling in two other posts, you have chosen to ignore it.

There is no sampling error, it is a random sample. When random samples keep saying the same thing over and over, then you can be confident of it's results.



Yes I've chosen to disregard it as wrong info which is my perogitive. You take away what you may but think you will be disappointed after election day.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
I've done a breakdown of the most recent polls, by state, to show where Obama is in relation to Romney in the Electoral College vote, which is, after all, the only vote which matters.

I've ignored any state with recent polls showing less than an 8% margin of victory, which is a huge error margin to have for statistics. Most statistical sampling allows for an error ratio of 3-4%.

As of the most recent polls, Obama is leading by at least 8% in

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, for a total of 274 electoral college votes (270 needed)

Romney is leading by at least 8% in

Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia, for a total of 145 electoral college votes.

This is completely ignoring any state that hasn't had a recent poll, or in which the margin of votes is less than 8%. These states haven't even been included in this total.

We have to raise the margin of error to 9% for Obama to get less than 270.

My question is, why does it appear that the US media still seems to be portraying Mitt Romney as having a chance in this election?

Even given his debate performance last night, President Obama needs to massively screw up to lose this election. States don't swing 8% in just over a month.
edit on 4-10-2012 by babybunnies because: Added Romney's Stats.


Seriously, I know you love Obama, but show me the Poll that has Obama up by MORE than 8% in Ohio right now. Same with Wisconsin.
2012.talkingpointsmemo.com...
That Poll puts it st 3% in WI, Rasmussen is 3% too. Rasmussen is 1% in Ohio. Seriously is your info from polls taken 8 months ago?

ETA: Here is a list of swing states and who leads. NONE of them have an 8% margin. Zero. Most are neck and neck.

www.politico.com...
edit on 9-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Romney needs what 100 electoral votes to win?

Don't see how he can pick up that many. I really don't.

Unless there there is a massive misinformation campaign going on, and underestimating Romney, and overestimating Obama.


Right now Obama is up by 46 on the likely states (237 v 191). Nev, NH, Wis appear to be going Obama, thats 20. Romney has the lead in Fla and NC, thats 44. So 257 to 233 with Obama leading. There are 46 more within 3% of each other. Ohio and Va is 31, and if Romney takes one more state he wins. Add that to the fact that recent polls put Romney even further up than what is listed on this website (WI is now 3% not 6%, and Ohio is now 1% not 3%), Romney can very easilly win.
www.politico.com...
edit on 9-10-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I don't think so. Fact is there are many people who believe there are only two options and the "anyone but Obama" crowd is not small by any means.

Watching some of the post on my facebook makes me sick sometimes. many of these same people don't care for Romney much either, but they are dead set on not wanting to see Obama in Office for another 4 years that they would vote for Hitler if that was the only other option they believe they have.





top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join