Topic: The first presidential debate is tomorrow night!

Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 14 years ago #22,540

Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 8:00pmâ€“9:30pm Central Time.

Will you be watching??? I'm pretty stoked about it myself.

Poll option	Votes	Percentage
Yes.	3	33%
Nah.	4	44%
Statism and Decadence.	2	22%

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #354,117

Barack Obama 48.8%
Mitt Romney 44.3%

Currently tracking 485 polls
Updated 18 minutes ago

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #354,118

supposedly romney is going to own the debates

i didn't watch obama vs mccain is obama any good?

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 37 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #354,119

Conservative Republican Guru Karl Rove
270 Votes required to win the Electoral College

Obama 277

Romney 191

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #354,134

@previous (B)
Deliberate propaganda to keep Democrats at home while motivating card-carrying Republicans to the polls. Don't be so easily coerced.

BTW, most polls are shit now because questions are being tweaked to make people say what they want to hear. Of all the polls going, only 1% are ever within 2% points of the final outcome. Polls of polls are equally worthless. Gore was supposed to waste Bush, remember?

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #354,135

I already know who I want to win. TV is obnoxious and I can wait for the ridiculous highlights on Thursday. How the public views the positions of the candidates is what I find interesting.

No, I won't watch.

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #354,155

@354,134 (D)
Every election people make fun of polls. The one writer with the most accuracy for a long time is
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

2004 and 2008 were predicted with the best accuracy within one point or better, over a broad range of candidates.

The winners the last two elections - Check with Google for proof.

Pew and Rasmussen
http://www.people-press.org/campaign-2012/
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/obama-ahead-with-stronger-support-better-image-and-lead-on-most-issues/

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

They currently differ far more this time then they did in 2008
Rasmussen Obama +1
Pew Obama +8

You can go back 3 decades and view Gallup and Pew

If you are a betting person? This requires a bank account outside the USA.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Barack Obama
74.2%

Mitt Romney
26.2%

The site shows you how accurate they were in on Super Tuesday
http://www.intrade.com/v4/reports/historic/2012-03-07-super-tuesday-2012/
92%

Or you can look at this site where they use fuzzy math and see if you believe this?

http://unskewedpolls.com/dailytrackingpoll.cfm

Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #354,156

@previous (B)
> 538

Yes! Nate Silver is great. He reveals his sources, explains his decisions, and identifies uncertainties. His presentation skills are top notch.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,157

I'd really like to, but don't know how I can.

Let us know how it pans out, 'kay?

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,158

@354,156 (E)
I follow all of this for its entertainment value. I win no matter who gets in office but of course I do want one to win over the other.

Last election all I cared about was who-which polls were the most accurate on the day AFTER the Election

I forgot until just now that CNN really did very well - However even if you go down the list to the least accurate they still picked Obama as the winner.

ADDING that in 2008 Fox used Rasmussen - Not anymore and they have to be super pissed. Current Fox Obama +5 and Rasmussen has him at +1

(Edited 8 minutes later.)

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,159

@previous (B)
Protip: Most any major office suite should be able to import tab delimited text into a table or spreadsheet.

On the off chance you ever need to show people figures that they can read quickly and easily, that little factoid might come in handy.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,160

@previous (G)
Agree and thanks for the reminder.

When I put that data on note pad or whatever - sometimes a sticky. Intended only for my review and never to show anyone.

I was even surprised to see how close the top three pollsters were. Several use radically different methods and yet come so close to the final result.

Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,162

@previous (B)
You might want to check the numbers on those. The Rasmussen numbers seem to be correct, but other results such as the closing Gallup poll numbers, the final Ipsos/McClatchy, and the GWU/Battleground figures don't match up at all.

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,163

@previous (G)

Well maybe Yes or No lets see - My Gallup data is off but the link you provided was
~~Final Presidential Estimate:~~ Obama 55%, McCain 44%

Yea clearly the site I got that from was a bit fucked and thanks - However the link you provided for Gallup is NOT the final post info

I will check Ipos and GWU next - I bet no matter what the outcome will still be Obama Won and McCain didn't lol

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx
Election Polls -- Accuracy Record in Presidential Elections
2008

Crud via Edit I failed to put up the results -----

(Edited 54 seconds later.)

Anonymous B double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,164

So Gallup had both off by - 2 Points so spread remained exactly the same on a quick view

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous B triple-posted this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,165

Out of time tonight - Your Ipos is also a Final Estimate rater then the final result - quick look at GWU is also pre the election but clearly my Gallup number was not what Gallup says for final result -

Now more work then I need on this and maybe someone else will step up to plate and show a link that makes this EASY?

Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,166

Got this all figured OUT - Final numbers vary a bit poll to poll depending on what day after the Election for summation. Looked at three summations and will run with this one and you can see its a little different but not my much.

I agree that its of value to look at the prediction before the last day but bottom line in business is the results - How well did the experts do.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php?nr=1

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/081112%20final%20polls.png

Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,167

@previous (B)
Yeah, most of differences seem to be pretty minor and could be the result of how the final "final" figures were recorded. (e.g. last poll single day figures vs. 2-3 day rolling average for last days)

(Edited 19 seconds later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,168

@previous (G)
Have to thank you a bunch because you made me look hard and
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php?nr=1

I am multitasking re work and have currently a 21 minute gap where I can play and then have to pay close attention for about 11 to 15 minutes with NO distractions. Error can result in $100's of millions of shit.

So I was able to read top to bottom the 2008 report which includes why the report itself can have errors - To soon a snapshot for total accuracy. But accurate enough. Then all the comments at the bottom of the report.

Report points out a few who cheat towards the election to play catch up CBS and
" Pollsters like IBB/TIPP and Zogby are clearly "fudging" to do well on the "final exam". When pollsters are evaluated the transparency of their methods should be examined. Rasmussen and Gallup do well on this point."

CBS of course does not do the polling themselves because that is outsourced to an expert. A few experts worry about how they will look if they do not come out with a good grade re being hired next time.

All this crap about bias when anyone can look back at decades via net real fast and see how accurate re end results.

~~CNN had it right on all the States and won best because they only got one state wrong - "Extra Credit: only got winner wrong in Indiana"~~

OK now I have a final report to write for work and then bed and a party for tomorrow night for the debate - THANKS AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,169

@354,117 (B)
amazing, mittens graph is the exact opposite of obamas at every point on the line

Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,170

@previous (H)
Simple math - amazing

Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 48 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,171

@previous (G)
hell yea brotus

Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,195

gary johnson will be the surprise upset winner

Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,201

@previous (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
Gary Johnson is the most reasonable libertarian I've heard of. I do hope he gets a lot of Romney's votes, of course if he does he'll be railroaded by the media like Ron Paul was. Or maybe not, Ron Paul is pretty fucking extreme.

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,202

@354,195 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)

The secret to humor is surprise.
-Aristotle

Born this Way Thank you for that humor

@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> I do hope he gets a lot of Romney's votes

Just a few would be nice.

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,210

@354,118 (C)
lol Romney can barely talked.

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA replied with this 14 years ago, 21 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,213

@354,201 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
He's suing the Commission on Presidential Debates to get into the debates but I doubt whatever court he sued in will rule in his favor.

Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 46 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,223

@previous (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
Judges rarely rule against the outlined law when in the national spotlight. There is hope for Gary yet. It'd be nice, truly refreshing, to have Gary be a part of the debates.

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,237

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH5hPlMfksQ

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,249

Calling it a "debate" is really a stretch. It's mostly people talking past each other by reciting whatever rhetoric they think will hurt their poll numbers the least.

Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 19 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,256

@previous (L)
lolthis

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,282

@354,249 (L)
50 Million people in USA are expected to be watching. Pressure is on for both. Romney running behind so he has everything to gain and lots more to lose. Find a Youtube with Nixon vs Kennedy. Nixon sweated like a hog and Kennedy was cool as an iceberg.

Anonymous L replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,286

@previous (B)
Yeah I know it's important for the candidate's image, likability rating, etc. It's just not a "debate" in the formal sense of two people with differing viewpoints speaking directly to each other. I don't know why we have such a stupid system. It makes no sense.

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,290

@previous (L)
I am hosting a party. Entertainment thing. Turning it into several games. One requires a guess on how the polls will change 3-5-7 days later. Money prize and looser, hosts the next party for the next debate. Not all invitees have agreed on that game YET.

Anonymous B double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,305

@previous (B)
Just testing. Sorry for bw waste.

Just to fuzzy for a direct view. grrrrrrrrrrr

(Edited 1 minute later.)

beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,313

I signed up to be a poll watcher today, fora. Hopefully they'll send me to an all-black neighborhood!

@354,290 (B)
Did you see http://www.debatedrinking.com/ ?

(Edited 16 seconds later.)

Anonymous M replied with this 14 years ago, 31 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,314

@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Son, I am proud.

Anonymous M double-posted this 14 years ago, 53 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,316

Alsoâ€¦

> implying all attention has not shifted to congressional races in hopes of continuing to get nothing accomplished

beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,318

@354,314 (M)
:)

They're running a slick operation--looking at which precincts had the most irregularities, provisional ballots, etc., in recent years, and targeting those with poll watchers. Early voting too. I'm pretty excited.

Handle !tYHPZ2dvu6 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,319

I think I'm going to watch it.
American politics are so dramatic. It doesn't even matter what the potential presidents (and president) policies are, it's all about the mud slinging.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,320

@354,318 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
what will you be wearing?

Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,321

@354,313 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Cool.
7-11 Stores- MiniMarkets according to a fast read declared Obama the winner - I think by sales of drink cups.

On that note guests are arriving for party. So good night ya all.

(Edited 42 seconds later.)

beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 24 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,322

@354,320 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Business casual.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,323

@previous (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
sounds pretty asexual :[

squeegee !firstkPE1Q double-posted this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,325

maybe dress it up a bit, something small, like a garter-belt, stockings and a skirt that's almost too short.
and heels. nothing says "ready to fuck" like heels.

Anonymous M replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,341

@354,318 (beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc)
Are a bunch of asshole conservatives going to sign up as poll watchers to catch them durn libruls and their durn vote fraud?

Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,349

@354,323 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
lol we cant have a non sexy civil servant! that would be like letting the terrorists win!

beckyderp !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,353

@354,341 (M)
The repugs have been having trouble finding poll watchers, I believe. In my county they're estimating a 10-to-1 ratio between Obama and Romney poll watchers.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,365

@354,349 (J)
i figure she's doing it to meet young black men. i've heard stories about the pole watchers, they have a version of the "mile high club" called the "voting booth maintenance crew," which involves the glory hole behind the ballot box.

Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,367

@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Oh you figured she was volunteering in order to have anonymous sex? Thats interesting.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,374

@previous (J)
well yeah. why else would you volunteer?

Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #354,385

@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
civic pride.

Minichan