Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Screw the polls!

I've been following this election campaign since November last year on one medium or another. For a long time everyone had been saying that whoever wins the independents will win the elections. But the moment Romney took a massive lead among independents all of the news media has been quiet on that and has been touting new kinds of polls that mostly show Obama leading.

What the hell happened? What, independents aren't important anymore because if they're considered then the god incarnate (Branco Bamma) doesn't win?

I'm sick and tired of this BS. The media, mostly, in America is extremely biased. There is no news outlet that I can depend on anymore (FOX is great for conservative news but even they are biased toward the right). There is no news outlet that I can depend on for BALANCED and NON BIASED news.

Am I wrong in thinking that independents still matter? Or has the elections all of a sudden changed? If Romney is leading by double digits among the independents of Ohio, how is it that Obama still leads most of the polls?

Somebody please enlighten me!!


Pastorius said...

We're as in the dark as you are, Nico. And, we live here.

I have no idea what is going to happen.

We'll see next week, I guess.

Nicoenarg said...

Thing is, we have corrupt media down here too. Its not really something new or out of the ordinary.

Here though you either have state controlled media (most of the news channels) or anti government media. Now the government is trying to shut down all the anti government media by creating new laws that they say "protect small businesses".

I'm just sick of seeing it happen everywhere.

Anyway, my opinion is that Romney will win with the independents with a huge margin. However I have no idea how that will affect the total since there is no honest reporting anywhere except places like IBA and Breitbart.

Pastorius said...

I guess if I were to attempt to be intelligent about it, I'd say Romney is going to win by 3-4% in the popular vote and he will squeak out a win in the Electoral college.

But, I'd hate to be wrong.

The reason I would guess in the direction I'm guessing is because, from what I read, the polls are overestimating Democratic turnout by about 3 or 4%.

They are estimating Dem turnout to be about the same as last time.

I do not think it will be because I believe that, in general, Democrats are demoralized.

Therefore, I believe Romney would win by about 7%,


for the fact that I also believe phone polls are weighted towards retards and old people.

Only retards and old people answer their phones anymore now that we have Caller ID.

I don't know which there is more of in this country.

Most intelligent people don't even bother with their landline. I have a landline in my home, but I NEVER answer it. It is only there in case of emergencies.

My hunch is there are more old people in this country than retards.

Therefore, I believe the polls might skew Republican a bit.

So, Have to knock 3-4% off Romney.

That's how I arrive at Romney by 3-4% of the popular vote.

It's a very unscientific analysis.


Nicoenarg said...


Well at least your analysis is honest. I'd take honest over the BS the media pull on us any day of the week.

Aren't the old people the ones you can actually count on the most to go out and vote on election day?

And if that is the case, wouldn't that give Romney even more of an edge?

I don't know. You're usually right with your estimates. I just hope you're just generally right in this one AKA Romney wins.

Pastorius said...

No, actually you're right, NIco.

I forgot to take that into account.

These old people answering their phones, THEY WILL VOTE.

Anonymous said...

The blogging Caesar at has a good "unskewed polls" analysis. For some reason, most of the polls use a 2008 turnout model -- ie., the most Democratic election year ever. Using that model again, Obama wins most of the swing states (but Romney still does better than McCain). But, using a 2004 model, Romney would win in a blowout, winning all the tossup states except for barely losing Iowa and Pennsylvania. Keep in mind though, 2004 was not an extraordiarily Republican year either. Dissatisfaction with GWB was already building, and would come to a crescendo in 2006. In 2002, it was a huge Republican year though. 2010 was an even bigger Republican year, the biggest ever. Just based on those factors, it's clear that there is no justification for oversampling Democrats the way the polls do. And, once the sample is corrected, as Blogging Casesar shows, Romney wins handily.

I think we may be looking at an even more Republican year than 2004 though. If we get past the spin the media puts on events, events themselves are terrible for Obama. He's done such a horrible job in so many ways, and really looked small and miserable and greyish/green, with beady little eyes like a gargoyle during the debates. Thoroughly unlikeable. I say the large silent majority of the country who was not enthusiastic about McCain has been biding its time, not picking up the phone when pollsters call anyway, and is just chomping at the bit to get rid of Obama. I think Romney wins all of the swing states, including Fla, Va, Oh, Co, Iowa, Wisconsin, and maybe Nevada, plus he will win New Hampshire and also Pennsylvania.

That's right, you heard me: Romney wins PA. This is because of Obama's mandate on the Catholic church, his contempt for traditional white Americans, his war on coal, and his having taken that state for granted and not spent much money there. PA was considered a huge tossup state in 2000 and 2004, and both Bush and Kerry spent heavily there. Romney should dump his entire sizeable war chest into Pennsylvania now, and just swamp it with advertising.

Here is unskewed polls page:

Epaminondas said...

There is no doubt in my mind some polls are hiding behind population voting models to warp the outcome of the election in the mind of low information voters.

Maybe in both directions.