http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again Economics Job Market Rumors Topic: Libtards are you IRATE? Romney crushes Obama in the Gallup tracker again. en-US Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:45:47 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.econjobrumors.com/search.php http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again/page/2#post-378184 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:57:48 +0000 Economist 378184@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>Are the people who proclaim the uselessness of polls the same who assert the superiority of empirical over theoretical work? I suspect so. </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again/page/2#post-378089 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:03:57 +0000 Economist 378089@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>OP is an idiot for listening to polls. prediction markets much better. </p> <p><a href="http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_PRES12_WTA.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_PRES12_WTA.cfm</a> </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again/page/2#post-378043 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:57:57 +0000 Economist 378043@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>OP, are you irate that Gallup tracker has been completely contradicted by several subsequent polls, including the usually leaning Reptile Rasmussen. Nice try. </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377789 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:51:30 +0000 Economist 377789@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>Libtards, are you IRATE? Electoral polls have sampling error again. </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377774 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:23:36 +0000 Economist 377774@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>Is it really the bookmakers that are betting against the public here, or are the odds established by supply and demand from the public? I could see even a large share of the public holding biased beliefs in this case, since the election is so politicized. Normally, in the economic environment we're in, there is no question that the incumbent has the slimmest of chances.<br /> &lt;Bookmakers are rarely substantially wrong about this sort of thing and the odds vastly favor Obama. I would go with them personally<br /> <a href="http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winning-party" rel="nofollow">http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winning-party</a> </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377744 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:45:41 +0000 Economist 377744@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p><a href="http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/05/25/do-early-polls-predict-anything/" rel="nofollow">http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/05/25/do-early-polls-predict-anything/</a> </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377742 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:45:17 +0000 Economist 377742@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <blockquote><p>Gingrich's my guy, now that Santorum has dropped out, but any given GOP candidate will crush Obama, given that in 2008, he outspent McCain 3 to 1 and only beat him by 6% in the popular vote. The GOP nominee will probably beat Obama in campaign fund-raising this year, because of the defection of former Obama supporters who thought the guy was a moderate. Romney alone is out-raising Obama on Wall Street, and for a while, Mittens was sharing the stage with other GOP candidates who were also getting Wall Street money. An electoral vote landslide (&gt;10% margin of victory in electoral votes) is a given - the only question is the magnitude. And that will depend on Romney choosing a solid conservative as veep.</blockquote> Bookmakers are rarely substantially wrong about this sort of thing and the odds vastly favor Obama. I would go with them personally</p> <p><a href="http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winning-party" rel="nofollow">http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winning-party</a> </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377717 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:14:58 +0000 Economist 377717@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>Hahahahah, you have no idea how HUGE 6% is. </p> <blockquote><p>Gingrich's my guy, now that Santorum has dropped out, but any given GOP candidate will crush Obama, given that in 2008, he outspent McCain 3 to 1 and only beat him by 6% in the popular vote. The GOP nominee will probably beat Obama in campaign fund-raising this year, because of the defection of former Obama supporters who thought the guy was a moderate. Romney alone is out-raising Obama on Wall Street, and for a while, Mittens was sharing the stage with other GOP candidates who were also getting Wall Street money. An electoral vote landslide (&gt;10% margin of victory in electoral votes) is a given - the only question is the magnitude. And that will depend on Romney choosing a solid conservative as veep.</p></blockquote> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377652 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:48:11 +0000 Economist 377652@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>04/18/2012 05:47 AM EST</p> <p><a href="http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326" rel="nofollow">http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326</a></p> <p>Event: 2012 Presidential Election Winner (Individual)</p> <p>Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012: 60.6%</p> <p>Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012: 37.6% </p> http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/libtards-are-you-irate-romney-crushes-obama-in-the-gallup-tracker-again#post-377650 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:40:53 +0000 Economist 377650@http://www.econjobrumors.com/ <p>In all of those incorrect cases, the incumbent president was ahead. It is very unusual for the incumbent to be behind at this stage. If the poll is correct (and that is a big if, see the CNN poll), this is very bad news for the President (and our country).</p> <blockquote><p>Was 47-45 yesterday, today it was 48-43. Unprecedented this far out, not since Gerald Ford has an incumbent been behind at this point.<br /> OP idiot. See Gallup website:<br /> "History shows that the candidates' positioning in the spring of an election year is not necessarily good at forecasting the election outcomes. For example, in an April 20-22, 1992, Gallup poll, incumbent President George H.W. Bush was ahead with 41% of the vote, compared with 26% for Bill Clinton and 25% for Ross Perot. And in an April 11-14, 1980, poll, incumbent President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan by 42% to 34%, with John Anderson receiving 18% support. Both Bush and Carter, of course, ultimately lost their re-election bids."</p></blockquote>