Love not surprised by racist mail

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
If Obama comes across in the next two debates

Number of votes changed because of the debates: zero.

Let me kno if Romney comes up with any specifics between now and then.

He hasn't in the last five years.

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Number of votes changed because of the debates: zero.
Let me kno if Romney comes up with any specifics between now and then.
He hasn't in the last five years.

Obama had specifics. He gave taxpayer funds to -

Solyndra Solar-bankrupt
Ener-1-bankrupt
Beacon Power-bankrupt
Abound Solar- bankrupt
Amonix Solar -bankrupt
Spectra Watt- bankrupt
Eastern Energy-bankrupt

You know what they had in common besides going bankrupt?

They were all Obama campaign contributors.

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Number of votes changed because of the debates: zero.
Let me kno if Romney comes up with any specifics between now and then.
He hasn't in the last five years.

Actually before the debate Rasmussen had Florida 49- 47 Obama. After the debate it was 49 -47 Romney which is a four point change. Even a prepared Obama is at a disadvantage because he isn't a good debater and his overall record isn't much to try to promote in the first place.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Also one of the most accurate polling agencies.

No, one of the most inaccurate polling "agencies" and PS: a poll of 500 people isn't a significant poll.

And a one percent lead with a four percent error rate is another way of saying "tie".

PS: The two "independents" in Virgina will draw away Romney support.

NOt a reader, eh?

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually before the debate Rasmussen had Florida 49- 47 Obama

No one changed their vote.

You can stomp your feet all you like.

And now the jobs numbers dropped below 8 percent.

Real news.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually before the debate Rasmussen had Florida 49- 47 Obama. After the debate it was 49 -47 Romney which is a four point change.

Florida '12 Presidential General Election

Rasmussen TODAY:
Barack Obama 49%
Mitt Romney 47%
Undecided 3%

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama had specifics. He gave taxpayer funds to -.

NO one.

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<
They were all Obama campaign contributors.

Ever hear of Enron?

Here's a list of Romney supporters:
Goldman Sachs $891,140
Bank of America $668,139
JPMorgan Chase & Co $663,219
Morgan Stanley $649,847
Credit Suisse Group $554,066
Citigroup Inc $418,263
Wells Fargo $414,750
Barclays $403,800
Kirkland & Ellis $393,667
Deloitte LLP $355,390
HIG Capital $338,000
PricewaterhouseCoopers $333,600
Blackstone Group $308,725
UBS AG $308,130
Elliott Management $281,175
Bain Capital $268,470
EMC Corp $257,250
General Electric $214,450
Ernst & Young $213,525
Sullivan & Cromwell $197,150

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, one of the most inaccurate polling "agencies" and PS: a poll of 500 people isn't a significant poll.
And a one percent lead with a four percent error rate is another way of saying "tie".
PS: The two "independents" in Virgina will draw away Romney support.
NOt a reader, eh?

2004
In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine. Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.

According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever hear of Enron?
Here's a list of Romney supporters:
Goldman Sachs $891,140
Bank of America $668,139
JPMorgan Chase & Co $663,219
Morgan Stanley $649,847
Credit Suisse Group $554,066
Citigroup Inc $418,263
Wells Fargo $414,750
Barclays $403,800
Kirkland & Ellis $393,667
Deloitte LLP $355,390
HIG Capital $338,000
PricewaterhouseCoopers $333,600
Blackstone Group $308,725
UBS AG $308,130
Elliott Management $281,175
Bain Capital $268,470
EMC Corp $257,250
General Electric $214,450
Ernst & Young $213,525
Sullivan & Cromwell $197,150

Not sure what your point is. Did Romney give taxpayer money to those corporations and did they all go bankrupt?

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
NO one.

You mean he kept all that stimulus money ?

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
No one changed their vote.
You can stomp your feet all you like.
And now the jobs numbers dropped below 8 percent.
Real news.

Sure they did. When Obama took office in 2009 ,133.561 million people were working,as of today there are 133.500 million people working meaning after almost four years he hasn't even gotten back to the number he started with.

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Florida '12 Presidential General Election
Rasmussen TODAY:
Barack Obama 49%
Mitt Romney 47%
Undecided 3%

Movement For Romney In Three Key Swing States?
DOUG MATACONIS · FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2012

Next up there are a trio of polls from Rasmussen which show us the following:
Ohio — Obama 50% Romney 49%
Virginia — Romney 49% Obama 48%
Florida — Romney 49% Obama 47%

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/movement-for...

[barefoot2626]

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
2004

2004 was 2004.

"Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly
By NATE SILVER

Every election cycle has its winners and losers: not just the among the candidates, but also the pollsters.

On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.

Other polling firms, like SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University, produced more reliable results in Senate and gubernatorial races. A firm that conducts surveys by Internet, YouGov, also performed relatively well.

What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.

We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.

(clip)

[barefoot2626]

(cont)

The analysis covers all polls issued by firms in the final three weeks of the campaign, even if a company surveyed a particular state multiple times. In our view, this provides for a more comprehensive analysis than focusing solely on a firm’s final poll in each state, since polling has a tendency to converge in the final days of the campaign, perhaps because some firms fear that their results are an outlier and adjust them accordingly.

(After a couple of weeks, when results in all races have been certified, we’ll update our official pollster ratings, which use a more advanced process that attempts to account, for instance, for the degree of difficulty in polling different types of races.)

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.

Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research.(Both sets of surveys used an essentially identical methodology.) Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias.

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

[barefoot2626]

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that its bias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied.

Some of the criticisms have focused on the fact that Mr. Rasmussen is himself a conservative — the same direction in which his polls have generally leaned — although he identifies as an independent rather than Republican. In our view, that is somewhat beside the point. What matters, rather, is that the methodological shortcuts that the firm takes may now be causing it to pay a price in terms of the reliability of its polling.

*-*

The table below presents results for the eight companies in FiveThirtyEight’s database that released at least 10 polls of gubernatorial and Senate contests into the public domain in the final three weeks of the campaign, and which were active in at least two states.

The most accurate surveys were those issued by Quinnipiac University, which missed the final margin between the candidates by 3.3 points, and which showed little overall bias.

[Le Jimbo]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Swallowing contest?
I never entered.

still nothing.....one more point for me.

[Cary L Nickel]

harvey wrote:

<quoted text>
Complete strawman on your part, since your assumption is utterly false and dishonest.

No, it is 100% accurate.

There is no part of an individual's life that modern leftists in our nation wish to leave uncontrolled by government.

You, sir, are the one who is being dishonest.

[barefoot2626]

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>still nothing.....one more point for me.

I'll give you two points - you don't even dribble.

[downhill246]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
2004 was 2004.
"Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly
By NATE SILVER
Every election cycle has its winners and losers: not just the among the candidates, but also the pollsters.
On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.
Other polling firms, like SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University, produced more reliable results in Senate and gubernatorial races. A firm that conducts surveys by Internet, YouGov, also performed relatively well.
What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.
We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.
(clip)

Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance)(11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline [phone])*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D)(10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/gradu...