Purdy Colors .... Red vs Blue

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 9:02 PM GMT
    IF this holds true.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 9:43 PM GMT
    I think the race would be closer than this unless the economy plummets. Then this scenario may be possible. If the economy climbs upwards, Obama may be able to squeak by.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 10:26 PM GMT
    First of all the Washington Examiner is a biased right-wing rag known for publishing outright lies.

    Second of all this is a skewed and deceptive analysis.

    You don't determine which state is going to go for Obama based on his job approval rating in that state.

    You determine it by looking at whether or not Obama is leading the Repub presidential nominees in a head to head match-up in that state.

    OBVIOUSLY.

    What's important is measuring which specific candidate gets the support of the most voters in each state.

    Given the fact that the Repubs don't have an appealing likeable candidate to offer as an alternative to President Obama its likely that President Obama will be reelected.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 01, 2012 10:46 PM GMT
    Southbeach, the rest of what Rick Rick said is true.

    It is a HUGE, incorrect jump to make such a correlation between approval rating and how the public will vote when the second, competing party isn't even taken into account..


    It's like saying "The public doesn't like asparagus! Look at these approval ratings for asaparagus!! Asparagus will lose in an election vs an unnamed food."

    Then that unnamed food ends up being haggis...

    Silly correlation and you know it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 10:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 saidFirst of all the Washington Examiner is a biased right-wing rag known for publishing outright lies.

    Second of all this is a skewed and deceptive analysis.


    RickRick,

    It's Gallup that put together the numbers (yes, THEY are also biased and skewed, known for publishing right-wing lies). icon_rolleyes.gif

    Screen%20shot%202012-02-01%20at%209.41.2



    Giggles yet one is sure he reads the New York Times, and takes it in as gospel; icon_lol.gif
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 01, 2012 10:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    nanidesukedo saidSouthbeach, the rest of what Rick Rick said is true.

    It is a HUGE, incorrect jump to make such a correlation between approval rating and how the public will vote when the second, competing party isn't even taken into account..


    It's like saying "The public doesn't like asparagus! Look at these approval ratings for asaparagus!! Asparagus will lose in an election vs an unnamed food."

    Then that unnamed food ends up being haggis...

    Silly correlation and you know it.


    Not silly at all. If the map was all blue, RickRick would be crowing all about it!

    crowing_rooster.jpg



    And I'd still step in and say it's a silly correlation. To make such a huge jump based solely off approval numbers is an incorrect leap by all means.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 11:14 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    southbeach1500 said
    nanidesukedo saidSouthbeach, the rest of what Rick Rick said is true.

    It is a HUGE, incorrect jump to make such a correlation between approval rating and how the public will vote when the second, competing party isn't even taken into account..


    It's like saying "The public doesn't like asparagus! Look at these approval ratings for asaparagus!! Asparagus will lose in an election vs an unnamed food."

    Then that unnamed food ends up being haggis...

    Silly correlation and you know it.


    Not silly at all. If the map was all blue, RickRick would be crowing all about it!

    crowing_rooster.jpg



    And I'd still step in and say it's a silly correlation. To make such a huge jump based solely off approval numbers is an incorrect leap by all means.






    Indeed.

    The Gallup statistic is fundamentally flawed and illogical.

    As any informed intelligent person could see.

    And my mentioning the extreme bias of the Washington Examiner was AN ASIDE.

    I wasn't implying that they were citing an unreliable pollster in this particular case.
    I was merely stating the fact the WE is well known for it's bias.

    [url]http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153915/right-wing_lunacy%3A_the_shameless_lies_conservative_media_tell_their_audience[/url]

    And the fact that the WE would cite this misleading and flawed info from Gallup further illustrates the lack of credibility of the WE.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 01, 2012 11:18 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    nanidesukedo said
    southbeach1500 said
    nanidesukedo saidSouthbeach, the rest of what Rick Rick said is true.

    It is a HUGE, incorrect jump to make such a correlation between approval rating and how the public will vote when the second, competing party isn't even taken into account..


    It's like saying "The public doesn't like asparagus! Look at these approval ratings for asaparagus!! Asparagus will lose in an election vs an unnamed food."

    Then that unnamed food ends up being haggis...

    Silly correlation and you know it.


    Not silly at all. If the map was all blue, RickRick would be crowing all about it!

    crowing_rooster.jpg



    And I'd still step in and say it's a silly correlation. To make such a huge jump based solely off approval numbers is an incorrect leap by all means.






    Indeed.

    The Gallup statistic is fundamentally flawed and illogical.

    As any informed intelligent person could see.

    And my mentioning the extreme bias of the Washington Examiner was AN ASIDE.

    I wasn't implying that they were citing an unreliable pollster in this particular case.
    I was merely stating the fact the WE is well known for it's bias.

    [url]http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153915/right-wing_lunacy%3A_the_shameless_lies_conservative_media_tell_their_audience[/url]

    And the fact that the WE would cite this misleading and flawed info from Gallup further illustrates the lack of credibility of the WE.


    No, no...gallup's numbers for approval rating are fine...There is no problem with them. It's trying to correlate them with voting behavior when you don't take into context any other issues (like the fact that there are two people to consider in an election and not just one) that is wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 11:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    And the fact that the WE would cite this misleading and flawed info from Gallup further illustrates the lack of credibility of the WE.


    RickRick,

    This information from Gallup is not "misleading and flawed."






    YES it is.

    JOB approval numbers should never be used to imply which candidate will win a state.

    Just because voters may not approve of Obama's job performance does in no way mean that they'd choose to vote for an alternative candidate.

    Especially when the alternative Repub candidates are so repellent!

    If you're suggesting that the map shown in the Gallup link represents how America will vote - YOU'RE NUTS.

    It is in fact "misleading and flawed".
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 01, 2012 11:28 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    And the fact that the WE would cite this misleading and flawed info from Gallup further illustrates the lack of credibility of the WE.


    RickRick,

    This information from Gallup is not "misleading and flawed."






    YES it is.

    JOB approval numbers should never be used to imply which candidate will win a state.

    Just because voters may not approve of Obama's job performance does in no way mean that they'd choose to vote for an alternative candidate.

    Especially when the alternative Repub candidates are so repellent!

    If you're suggesting that the map shown in the Gallup link represents how America will vote - YOU'RE NUTS.

    It is in fact "misleading and flawed".


    Just clearing this up - that's what the guy who posted on washington examiner used those numbers to make...Gallup itself just made the poll and didn't make that correlation itself (because they know it's stupid). Someone took the information and then decided to have a derp moment and use that info and stats to make a correlation where there is none.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 11:34 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    RickRick91 said
    southbeach1500 said
    RickRick91 said
    And the fact that the WE would cite this misleading and flawed info from Gallup further illustrates the lack of credibility of the WE.


    RickRick,

    This information from Gallup is not "misleading and flawed."






    YES it is.

    JOB approval numbers should never be used to imply which candidate will win a state.

    Just because voters may not approve of Obama's job performance does in no way mean that they'd choose to vote for an alternative candidate.

    Especially when the alternative Repub candidates are so repellent!

    If you're suggesting that the map shown in the Gallup link represents how America will vote - YOU'RE NUTS.

    It is in fact "misleading and flawed".


    Just clearing this up - that's what the guy who posted on washington examiner used those numbers to make...Gallup itself just made the poll and didn't make that correlation itself (because they know it's stupid). Someone took the information and then decided to have a derp moment and use that info and stats to make a correlation where there is none.






    That makes sense.

    It would've been a real low moment for Gallup if they'd been the one trying to make the bullshit claim evidenced in that map.

    But just look at how the irrational desperate Repubs lapped this bullshit up!

    The Repub propaganda machine has shaved many points off the IQ's of Repub partisans.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 02, 2012 1:12 AM GMT
    If Virginia goes Red, it will be a landslide. But I think Virginia will go blue.

  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 02, 2012 1:47 AM GMT
    musclmed saidIf Virginia goes Red, it will be a landslide. But I think Virginia will go blue.



    I don't know...Virginia is having a bit of a red resurgence at this point...It, I honestly believe, depends on how our republican everything deals with things in the near future...

    If things go south for us (no pun intended), I think there will be a backlash and that we could go blue...