The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: Kyle Ricky on July 18, 2012, 10:01:47 PM
-
I was doing some research to find some historic poll date to see the break down for Reagan and Carter, and came across the page below. It like everywhere else is predicting obama to win. It is amazing that these people are giving it to obama before we even have the election. They are also assuming that he will win most of the states he won in 2008. Romney is assumed to win the states that McCain won in 2008.
Here -> http://www.uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2012/pred.php
Here -> http://www.uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php
I can't bring a pic over because the page is interactive. It is a cool page. there is a lot of information on it.
Look how much they are saying that obama will win by. Talk about stupid ...
Edit: In 1980 Reagan had 489 electoral votes and Carter had 49 .... I would love to see Romney get 489.
More info: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980&f=0&off=0&elect=0
-
Wishful thinking. Not that it matters much, but they switched colors. Have Reps. in blue, Dems. in red.
-
Wishful thinking. Not that it matters much, but they switched colors. Have Reps. in blue, Dems. in red.
Here is what he says about that ...
A note about Red and Blue
Note, this site uses Blue for Republicans and Red for Democrats. I know that most media outlets have adopted the opposite color key in recent years (I started building the maps well before the recent "standard"). However, due to the sheer volume of maps on this site, changing them to match the media's recent color choices requires a significant investment in time. The colors are only a key to the candidates that win each state, county or municipality... there is no significance in the color representation for a given party.
Note that R=Blue, D=Red is the more traditional representation: other examples
-
Jeez, we gonna believe these guys predictions when they can't get the colors right?
-
I think it was decided a long time ago that Dems would have blue for the purposes of being taht "true blue" type, (which we know is BS) and Reps would have red for opposite reasons. Blood red, war mongers, etc. Wasn't it the reverse colors at one point in history or am I just a wrong thinker on this one?
-
It doesn't matter. It's dreaming and relying on scientific, accurate polls at this point.
-
I think it was decided a long time ago that Dems would have blue for the purposes of being taht "true blue" type, (which we know is BS) and Reps would have red for opposite reasons. Blood red, war mongers, etc. Wasn't it the reverse colors at one point in history or am I just a wrong thinker on this one?
I say we get the blue & give them pink.
-
Jeez, we gonna believe these guys predictions when they can't get the colors right?
I put a quote about what he says about that colors. He stated that he knows the colors are wrong, and has beeing doing maps since before they decided on the colors, and to change them on the site would too time consuming, as if you look at the site, he has a lot of maps and information on there.
I'm not saying that I believe what he says, but his site is pretty interesting and informative as far as historical data and like the goes.
-
I put a quote about what he says about that colors. He stated that he knows the colors are wrong, and has beeing doing maps since before they decided on the colors, and to change them on the site would too time consuming, as if you look at the site, he has a lot of maps and information on there.
I'm not saying that I believe what he says, but his site is pretty interesting and informative as far as historical data and like the goes.
Yeah, I read that. I was just snarking to show my disdain for their spin.
-
Yeah, I read that. I was just snarking to show my disdain for their spin.
O.k. I misunderstood what you meant. :lmao:
-
I think it was decided a long time ago that Dems would have blue for the purposes of being taht "true blue" type, (which we know is BS) and Reps would have red for opposite reasons. Blood red, war mongers, etc. Wasn't it the reverse colors at one point in history or am I just a wrong thinker on this one?
It wasn't decided a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
-
It wasn't decided a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
2000? Wow, I thought it was longer than that. You learn something new every day.
-
2000? Wow, I thought it was longer than that. You learn something new every day.
I thought that was common knowledge. :shrug:
-
I thought that was common knowledge. :shrug:
I had forgotten when and by whom, but knew it was recent.
-
I thought that was common knowledge. :shrug:
I was thinking it was in the mid to early 90's, or late 80's. But would have never thought that it would have been 2000.
-
I believe no poll until it time (after the election), and then only with skepticism.
-
Most of the polls you see favoring Obama are 'Registered voters,' Romney and Obama are within a point of each other and well inside the typical 3-point margin of error in polls of "Likely voters," Romney being the one who's one point up right now.
Obama has spent $100 Mil of his warchest attacking Romney to achieve this parity, while Romney hasn't really spent much of anything yet to attack the President in ads. It appears the Romney campaign is conserving its resources until after the convention and possibly until after Labor Day when most people will be back in the same rhythm of life that they will be in on Election Day.
-
Most of the polls you see favoring Obama are 'Registered voters,' Romney and Obama are within a point of each other and well inside the typical 3-point margin of error in polls of "Likely voters," Romney being the one who's one point up right now.
Obama has spent $100 Mil of his warchest attacking Romney to achieve this parity, while Romney hasn't really spent much of anything yet to attack the President in ads. It appears the Romney campaign is conserving its resources until after the convention and possibly until after Labor Day when most people will be back in the same rhythm of life that they will be in on Election Day.
Yea, I am thinking after the convention, when Romney is made the official nominee, he will pick up his attacks and really go after obama. At least I hope he does. This game obama is playing is way too childish.
-
Most of the polls you see favoring Obama are 'Registered voters,' Romney and Obama are within a point of each other and well inside the typical 3-point margin of error in polls of "Likely voters," Romney being the one who's one point up right now.
Obama has spent $100 Mil of his warchest attacking Romney to achieve this parity, while Romney hasn't really spent much of anything yet to attack the President in ads. It appears the Romney campaign is conserving its resources until after the convention and possibly until after Labor Day when most people will be back in the same rhythm of life that they will be in on Election Day.
Likely voter polls do tend to be more accurate than registered voter polls. Another point to ponder is For an Incumbent President to be in a statistical dead heat with a challenger doesn't bode well for the incumbent.
-
Edit: In 1980 Reagan had 489 electoral votes and Carter had 49 .... I would love to see Romney get 489.
More info: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980&f=0&off=0&elect=0
I wish but I dont think thats possible with how polarized the states have become now. I think Romney's peak is 337
-
Likely voter polls do tend to be more accurate than registered voter polls. Another point to ponder is For an Incumbent President to be in a statistical dead heat with a challenger doesn't bode well for the incumbent.
Yes it's very bad for Obama, the challenger gets almost all of the undecided vote. If Obama is still around 45-47% in Oct expect a big win for Romney.
-
I believe no poll until it time (after the election), and then only with skepticism.
Same here. Obama is going to get beaten badly.
-
Yes it's very bad for Obama, the challenger gets almost all of the undecided vote. If Obama is still around 45-47% in Oct expect a big win for Romney.
Same here. Obama is going to get beaten badly.
obama getting beat badly would be the highlight of the year.
-
obama getting beat badly would be the highlight of the year.
Michelle's face the night of the election will be priceless. She will no longer be proud of this country.
-
Michelle's face the night of the election will be priceless. She will no longer be proud of this country.
Like she was to begin with. Maybe she can finally get that divorce she wants. She still has the papers, just has to sign them and turn them in.
-
Like she was to begin with. Maybe she can finally get that divorce she wants. She still has the papers, just has to sign them and turn them in.
How long will he take her to eat and vacation her way through half of Obie-won's money???
-
How long will he take her to eat and vacation her way through half of Obie-won's money???
Well concidering that Mooch-elle already spent over $1 million of the tax payers money on trips for her, her kids, and her friends, it wouldn't take her long to go through all of it.
-
How long will he take her to eat and vacation her way through half of Obie-won's money???
IIRC, Obama is worth about $11M, and at the rate Michelle has been spending the tax payer's dollars, half of that would last about 2-3 years.
-
IIRC, Obama is worth about $11M, and at the rate Michelle has been spending the tax payer's dollars, half of that would last about 2-3 years.
Well, if obama would invest that money right, he could be getting $1 million+ a year off of it in interest. So it could last longer than that.
But that is also if he is smart enough, which I doubt he is. Mooch-elle might stay with him as long as the money is flowing, but as soon as it runs out, she is gone and living with the father of her kids, Eric Holder.