Obama vs Romney Gameday Thread

[Atlanta Dan]

Rove Goes Rogue

I switched over to Fox from time to time last night to watch the spinning and sad faces. Little did I know I was going to be entertained by the spectacle of Karl Rove pitching a fit when Fox called Ohio and declared Obama the winner

After billions of dollars of spending, the election was remarkably predictable, and predicted.

But in a bizarre interlude last night, Fox News analyst and GOP rainmaker Karl Rove went to war against the math–his own network’s.

It was an earlier night than expected even by many who thought Obama would win, as NBC and Fox called his re-election at about 11:15 p.m. ET. But after Fox called Ohio and thus the US for the President, Rove immediately began complaining, on Fox’s air, that Fox had called the election too early. “Do you believe that Ohio has been settled?” Chris Wallace asked him. “No, I don’t,” Rove said, adding that he had the director of the Romney Ohio campaign on the phone. “I would be very cautious of intruding in this process.”

But Rove was not cautious of intruding in Fox’s independent election-calling process. Fox, like many networks, keeps a separate “decision desk” of analysts to make calls on states independent of influence by anchors and on-air talent. It’s not unusual to call states, even if there’s only a small gap in the reported vote, on the basis of what they know about the vote yet to come in. (And as it turns out, they were absolutely right.)

What is unusual–really, one of the most spectacular things I have ever seen on cable news–is for one arm of a network to basically turn against itself on-air. “Here’s what we’re going to do!” said anchor Bret Baier. “We’re going to get someone from the decision desk and we’re going to bring them in here and we’re going to have them on air and we’re going to interview them about this decision.”

That’s right: One of you nerds had better get in here and explain yourselves to Karl Rove! You have made an important Republican very upset!

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/1...A+Swampland%29

[youtube]vJg3z5c93zU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[Vis]

Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'



Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his "Unskewed Polling" site, admitted today that his method was flawed.

"Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong," Chambers said in a phone interview.

Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. He thought the electorate would lean more Republican when mainstream pollsters routinely found samples that leaned Democratic.

But as it turned out, the pollsters were right — self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6% in election exit polls.

"I think it was much more in the Democratic direction than most people predicted," Chambers said. "But those assumptions — my assumptions — were wrong."

Chambers' official Electoral College prediction ended up being much more tame than other conservatives, including Dick Morris. Chambers predicted Romney would win 275 electoral votes to Obama's 263.

But he said he probably won't go back to "unskewing" polls next time. He actually thinks conservative-leaning pollsters like Scott Rasmussen have a lot more explaining to do.

"He has lost a lot of credibility, as far as I'm concerned," Chambers said. "He did a lot of surveys. A lot of those surveys were wrong."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/unske...#ixzz2BZhR3beB

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Vis

Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'



Dean Chambers, the man who garnered praise from the right and notoriety on the left for his "Unskewed Polling" site, admitted today that his method was flawed.

"Nate Silver was right, and I was wrong," Chambers said in a phone interview.

Chambers' method of "unskewing" polls involved re-weighting the sample to match what he believed the electorate would look like, in terms of party identification. He thought the electorate would lean more Republican when mainstream pollsters routinely found samples that leaned Democratic.

But as it turned out, the pollsters were right — self-identified Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 6% in election exit polls.

"I think it was much more in the Democratic direction than most people predicted," Chambers said. "But those assumptions — my assumptions — were wrong."

Chambers' official Electoral College prediction ended up being much more tame than other conservatives, including Dick Morris. Chambers predicted Romney would win 275 electoral votes to Obama's 263.

But he said he probably won't go back to "unskewing" polls next time. He actually thinks conservative-leaning pollsters like Scott Rasmussen have a lot more explaining to do.

"He has lost a lot of credibility, as far as I'm concerned," Chambers said. "He did a lot of surveys. A lot of those surveys were wrong."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/unske...#ixzz2BZhR3beB

Props to Mr. Chambers for for manning up and admitting he was incorrect

Let's see if famous pundits like George Will and Peggy Noonan are as candid about admitting they were wrong in their guess a big Romney win was coming.

[cubanstogie]

Originally Posted by Killer

Catholics suck too


Obama wins with the Catholic vote November 7, 2012.

The Catholic vote was divided much as was the rest of the nation’s voters, leaning slightly in favor of Obama. A final Gallup poll, reflecting tracking from Nov. 1 to 4, showed Catholics favoring Obama by 52 to 45 percent.“

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...nt-obama-says/

most hispanics are catholic. Don't know the percentage of hispanics who voted for Obama but I am sure its high.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by cubanstogie

most hispanics are catholic. Don't know the percentage of hispanics who voted for Obama but I am sure its high.

Good call

According to exit polls not yet finalized by Edison Research, Mr. Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote while Mitt Romney won 27 percent. The gap of 44 percentage points was even greater than Mr. Obama’s 36-point advantage over John McCain in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us...luence.html?hp

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

Props to Mr. Chambers for for manning up and admitting he was incorrect

Let's see if famous pundits like George Will and Peggy Noonan are as candid about admitting they were wrong in their guess a big Romney win was coming.

dick morris manned up and was on Fear Factor with bill o'reilly on tonight to eat crow.

i was pretty shocked to learn this was the type of fuzzy math the GOP was using to fudge their numbers instead of the typical raw empirical data from the other side. (not so shocked they accused the other side of fudging their number and the inevitible "media bias") here is morris' prediction of a "landslide" victory for romney the week before-

This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," October 31, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET!


O'REILLY: "Campaign 2012 Segment" tonight, as you may know, Dick Morris predicting a big landslide for Mitt Romney even though, as we mentioned, a "New York Times" poll out today says the President will most likely win in three vital swing state.

Morris, the author of the big new bestseller, "Here Comes the Black Helicopter"; he joins us now Dick Morris from Detroit.

So you, I'm sure, repudiate the "New York Times" poll?

DICK MORRIS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. And let me go through the numbers because it's important for people to get in.

In Florida, the "Times" says Obama is going to win by one. But their sample has seven points more Democrats than Republicans. Pollster John McLaughlin and I went through the actual results of the last four elections and on average the Republicans had one percent more than the Democrats. So that poll is off by a factor of eight. So instead of Obama winning by one, Romney would win Florida by seven.

In Ohio, Obama is shown as winning by five in the "Times" poll. But they had eight points more Democrats than Republicans. And historically there were only two points more D's than R's. So that's 6 points off. So, instead of Romney losing by five, he wins Ohio by one.

And in Virginia they have Obama winning by two. But they have eight points more Democrats than Republicans and historically there is one point more Republican than Democrat. That's off by a factor of 9. Romney wins Virginia by seven.

O'REILLY: All right. That's pretty much what Rove did on his little board.

Now, here's my question. Can a pollster assume that all Democrats and all Republicans are going to vote for whoever is running in their party? Can you assume that --

MORRIS: Yes, you can.

O'REILLY: -- with any certainty.

MORRIS: Yes, you can. You get about 90 percent voting for their party. So you can it's the Independents who split. What the "New York Times" is doing is they are taking a poll that probably is initially accurate. I'll bet that all three of those polls show Romney ahead. Then they are weighting up the number of Democrats.

O'REILLY: You mean Obama ahead.

MORRIS: Excuse me, Obama ahead.

O'REILLY: OK. Because you have to be precise here. Start again. I want to be precise. I don't want to make any mistake. Start again.

MORRIS: I'll bet that all three of those polls when they came out of the field the raw data showed Romney ahead. They are then giving more weight to the Democrats, less to the Republicans in order to mirror the turnout that, in fact, happened in 2008. Because they're assuming it will be the same turnout in '12.

(CROSSTALK)

O'REILLY: All right. So let me stop you. When they call up Hi Mildred, how are you doing? And they take it down. You say that Quinnipiac, which did the polling for the "New York Times", all right, The raw data, without any curve or anything like that, showed Romney winning in all three states -- Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. But then the boys came in and started to weight it up to 2008 levels?

MORRIS: Correct.

O'REILLY: OK.

MORRIS: Correct.

And if we had the same high black and Latino and young person turnout in '12 that we had in '08, those polls would be right.

O'REILLY: OK. But you say --

MORRIS: It's not going to happen.

O'REILLY: Right. All the data says Republicans as we pointed out much more motivated and Obama --

MORRIS: So what I'm doing --

O'REILLY: Go ahead.

MORRIS: So what I'm doing with John McGlocklin is we are not taking the one election of 2008. We are taking four elections -- '04, '06, '08 and '10 and we are averaging them and then we're weighting the data according to that average. And when you do that?

O'REILLY: And that's all on your Web site, right? That's on your Web site?

MORRIS: Yes.

O'REILLY: People can see it on DickMorris.com?

MORRIS: Yes.

O'REILLY: OK.

MORRIS: And when you average those you have Romney winning all three of those states.

O'REILLY: You're standing by -- wait, Morris, wait. I only have a few minutes with you. So you are standing by your prediction of a Romney landslide?

MORRIS: Absolutely. Romney will win this election by 5 to 10 points in the popular vote. And will carry more than 300 electoral votes.

O'REILLY: All right. Now you know, Morris, I have you booked for one week from tonight. One week from tonight.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...#ixzz2BbBm5h6G

-see video in link

[ricardisimo]

Amazing... the incumbent with gajillions in campaign dollars won. Who could have predicted this?

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

Amazing... the incumbent with gajillions in campaign dollars won. Who could have predicted this?

everybody but the out of touch, Grand OLD Party.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

everybody but the out of touch, Grand OLD Party.

What's that you say, sonny?

Get off my lawn!!

[Vis]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...mcreative.com/