OT: How's Colorado looking for the election

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The article was in the Denver Post, originally.



Rasmussen was the most accurate poll, during the last election.





Learn some respect, you'll be glad you did.

So link to the original article.

Actually, the most accurate poll in the last election was the one put together with a combination of polling data and mathematics by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com. He missed by something like one (1) electoral vote.

I don't respect people who post things which are short on facts. I also don't respect people who, in the face of notification that all campaigns use door-to-door get out the vote workers, responds with "DURRRRRR OBAMA DOOR TO DOOR GUY GOT ARRESTED" as if it has anything to do with anything.

Do try again though.

[Mecklomaniac]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

I heard that Colorado is #1 in campaign ads. I feel for you guys. It's ALMOST over...

I live in Washington, a non competitive deep blue state. Neither Romney or Obama hold campaign events here. The only stop in once a month to gather more money from their millionaire/billionaire donors. The average guy gets to spend an extra hour in the notorious Seattle traffic waiting on shut down freeways, while the millionaires wine and dine with the candidates.

Other than that though not too bad. Only local campaign ads. I was visiting family in Colorado in 2008. The ads were bad but even worse were the get out the vote phone calls. After the 20th or so call on election day, I got a laugh when my Dad unplugged his phone.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

So link to the original article.

Actually, the most accurate poll in the last election was the one put together with a combination of polling data and mathematics by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com. He missed by something like one (1) electoral vote.

I don't respect people who post things which are short on facts. I also don't respect people who, in the face of notification that all campaigns use door-to-door get out the vote workers, responds with "DURRRRRR OBAMA DOOR TO DOOR GUY GOT ARRESTED" as if it has anything to do with anything.

Do try again though.

Silver got 49 of 50 states correct. Indiana was his only miss (it went to Obama instead of McCain). He also got all the Senate races correct:

Final projections of 2008 election

In the final update of his presidential forecast model at midday of November 4, 2008, Silver projected a popular vote victory by 6.1 percentage points for Barack Obama and electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state).[27]. Obama won with 365 electoral college votes, Silver's predictions matching the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state. His projected national popular vote differential was below the actual figure of 7.2 points.

The forecasts for the Senate proved to be correct for every race. But the near stalemate in Minnesota led to a recount that was settled only on June 30, 2009. In Alaska, after a protracted counting of ballots, on November 19 Republican incumbent Ted Stevens conceded the seat to Democrat Mark Begich, an outcome that Silver had forecast on election day.[28] And in Georgia, a run-off election on December 2 led to the re-election of Republican Saxby Chambliss, a result that was also consistent with Silver's original projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton

...

That's why Silver predicted only a 30% chance that Republicans would pick up 50 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010.

...they picked up 63.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by pricejj

That's why Silver predicted only a 30% chance that Republicans would pick up 50 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010.

...they picked up 63.

Don't know where you are getting that number from. Silver predicted a 55 seat gain for Republicans (see bolded below). Considering how hard it is to handicap House races, that ain't bad, and I challenge you to find anyone more accurate:

U.S. House of Representatives

The model for projecting the outcome of the House of Representatives was more complicated than those for the Senate and governorships. For one thing, House races are more subject to the force of national trends and events than are the other two. One way to account for this was to take into account trends in the "generic Congressional ballot."[96] Use of such a macrolevel indicator, as well as macroeconomic indicators, is a common approach taken by political scientists to project House elections.[97]

Furthermore, there was much less available public polling for individual House districts than there is for Senate or gubernatorial races. By the end of the 2010 election season, public polls were available for only about 25% of the districts. This is one reason why some analysts rely principally on making global or macro-level projections of the number of seats to be won by each party rather than trying to forecast the outcome in every individual district. Silver's FiveThirtyEight model, however, while weighting the generic partisan division as one factor, focused on developing estimates for each district. For this purpose he used information on past voting in the district (the Cook PVI), the quality of the candidates (in particular whether one was an incumbent), fundraising by each candidate, "expert ratings" of the races,[98] public polls of the given race (if they were available), and, in the absence of public polls a cautious use of private polls (i.e., polls conducted by or for partisan organizations or a candidate's own campaign organization).

In response to some concerns that he was hedging his projection, Silver contended that in his model the uncertainty of the outcome was a feature, not a flaw.[99] In comparison with previous Congressional elections, a far larger number of seats were being contested or were "in play" in 2010. While his model, which relied on simulating the election outcomes 100,000 times generated a projected "most likely" net gain of 53 seats by the Republicans (two days before the election), he emphasized that the 95% confidence interval was ± 29–30: "Tonight, our forecast shows Republicans gaining 53 seats – the same as in recent days, and exactly the same answer you get if you plug the generic ballot average into the simple formula. Our model also thinks the spread of potential outcomes is exceptionally wide: its 95 percent confidence interval runs from a 23-seat Republican gain to an 81-seat one".[100][101]

On election eve, he reported his final forecast as follows:

Our forecasting model, which is based on a consensus of indicators including generic ballot polling, polling of local districts, expert forecasts, and fund-raising data, now predicts an average Republican net gain of 54 seats (up one from 53 seats in last night's forecast), and a median net Republican gain of 55 seats. These figures would exceed the 52 seats that Republicans won from Democrats in the 1994 midterms

In final vote tallys as of December 10, 2010, the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House, 8 more than the total predicted on election eve though still within the reported confidence interval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Don't know where you are getting that number from. Silver predicted a 55 seat gain for Republicans. Considering how hard it is to handicap House races, that ain't bad, and I challenge you to find anyone more accurate:

U.S. House of Representatives

The model for projecting the outcome of the House of Representatives was more complicated than those for the Senate and governorships. For one thing, House races are more subject to the force of national trends and events than are the other two. One way to account for this was to take into account trends in the "generic Congressional ballot."[96] Use of such a macrolevel indicator, as well as macroeconomic indicators, is a common approach taken by political scientists to project House elections.[97]

Furthermore, there was much less available public polling for individual House districts than there is for Senate or gubernatorial races. By the end of the 2010 election season, public polls were available for only about 25% of the districts. This is one reason why some analysts rely principally on making global or macro-level projections of the number of seats to be won by each party rather than trying to forecast the outcome in every individual district. Silver's FiveThirtyEight model, however, while weighting the generic partisan division as one factor, focused on developing estimates for each district. For this purpose he used information on past voting in the district (the Cook PVI), the quality of the candidates (in particular whether one was an incumbent), fundraising by each candidate, "expert ratings" of the races,[98] public polls of the given race (if they were available), and, in the absence of public polls a cautious use of private polls (i.e., polls conducted by or for partisan organizations or a candidate's own campaign organization).

In response to some concerns that he was hedging his projection, Silver contended that in his model the uncertainty of the outcome was a feature, not a flaw.[99] In comparison with previous Congressional elections, a far larger number of seats were being contested or were "in play" in 2010. While his model, which relied on simulating the election outcomes 100,000 times generated a projected "most likely" net gain of 53 seats by the Republicans (two days before the election), he emphasized that the 95% confidence interval was ± 29–30: "Tonight, our forecast shows Republicans gaining 53 seats – the same as in recent days, and exactly the same answer you get if you plug the generic ballot average into the simple formula. Our model also thinks the spread of potential outcomes is exceptionally wide: its 95 percent confidence interval runs from a 23-seat Republican gain to an 81-seat one".[100][101]

On election eve, he reported his final forecast as follows:


In final vote tallys as of December 10, 2010, the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House, 8 more than the total predicted on election eve though still within the reported confidence interval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

pricejj is wrong again? "I am shocked!" said nobody.

[ColoradoDarin]

Nate Silver.... we will see if he is just a one hit wonder. (warning RedState.com link)

Obama’s on track to lose independents by double digits nationally, and the last three candidates to do that were Dukakis, Mondale and Carter in 1980.

Yeah, that's not good.

Nate is, in fact, not the first poll-reader to get 49 states right: RedState’s own Gerry Daly did the same thing in 2004, missing only Wisconsin (which Bush lost by half a point) in his Election Day forecast, and Gerry did this through careful common-sense reading of the state-by-state polls checked against the national polls, not through a model that purported to do his thinking for him. (As it happened, the RCP averages at the end of the cycle did the same thing, as they did in 2008.) I’m inclined to listen to guys like Gerry who have been doing this for years and have not only recounted the numbers from past elections but lived through the reading of polls while they were happening. In 2010, the 538 model fared well – but no better than the poll averages at RCP.

I do miss the old Dalythoughts.com Gerry ran, best site in the 04 election.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by ColoradoDarin

Nate Silver.... we will see if he is just a one hit wonder. (warning RedState.com link)



Yeah, that's not good.



I do miss the old Dalythoughts.com Gerry ran, best site in the 04 election.

We'll see. Silver's method's haven't failed him yet.

Also, from your quote:

Nate is, in fact, not the first poll-reader to get 49 states right: RedState’s own Gerry Daly did the same thing in 2004, missing only Wisconsin (which Bush lost by half a point) in his Election Day forecast, and Gerry did this through careful common-sense reading of the state-by-state polls checked against the national polls, not through a model that purported to do his thinking for him. (As it happened, the RCP averages at the end of the cycle did the same thing, as they did in 2008.) I’m inclined to listen to guys like Gerry who have been doing this for years and have not only recounted the numbers from past elections but lived through

RCP average currently has Obama up 290-248 in the electoral college.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._toss_ups.html

[ColoradoDarin]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

We'll see. Silver's method's haven't failed him yet.

Also, from your quote:



RCP average currently has Obama up 290-248 in the electoral college.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._toss_ups.html

Yeah, I just don't know what to make of the polls this year, I think we're going to see something we've never seen before. Pollsters have reported only around a 9% response rate, can you get an accurate poll if 91% of the people you call won't even give you the time of day? A few % points shift either way would make a major shift in the polls. 2nd, if you separate the polls by the more respondents (Gallup at the most, I think CBS/NyT at the bottom, but this isn't linear) you get a higher % for Romney. Does that mean something? What is the D/R/I turnout going to be?

How are the polls matching up with the early vote "totals" (we don't know the totals, but can assume that R's vote R 90% and D's vote D 90% and compare to 2008). For instance in Ohio, the early voting looks evenly matched (McCain won the election day vote, but was so far behind in the early/absentee vote that he lost the state overall). That doesn't bode well for the President, and if he loses Ohio, there really isn't a path for him to win (Romney OTOH doesn't need Ohio to win, but it's more difficult).

This WaPo article shows Obama losing 16% of his 2008 vote (13% to R/R; 3% to stay home), if that happens then Romney wins.

We will see and as a political junkie, I love this stuff.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Don't know where you are getting that number from. Silver predicted a 55 seat gain for Republicans (see bolded below). Considering how hard it is to handicap House races, that ain't bad, and I challenge you to find anyone more accurate

Actually, Silver gave Republicans a ~35% chance of picking up more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010...they picked up 63.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

RCP average currently has Obama up 290-248 in the electoral college.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._toss_ups.html

RCP is using the same Democrat turnout model from 2008 (D+8)...which is HIGHLY unlikely.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

Growing up in Colorado, it was always a red state. Now there are so many assclowns who live in Colorado (mainly from assclown states like CA) that it sucks. I mean it really sucks.

Don't move to Wyoming you assclowns! I left because of you assclowns. And you know who you are!

Whats funny is the way those people voted the main reason they had to leave CA. A welfare state with red tape for business through your ying yang and out your pie hole.

One thing though is CA could open a huge rare earth mine soon. Its been closed for awhile. Once Mountain Pass back up CA will really be helping the whole country. We need those rare earths because China playing games with them and the world gets it all from them.

For national security, for our economy, we need this bad. Not sure what the hold up is, if its environmental, or just it takes a long time to get up and running, but hopefully soon.

I read it could supply 35% of the earths need for rare earths. That will take a bit out of Chinas monopoly, lower the cost of wind turbines, electric cars, solar panels, and on and on.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by Mecklomaniac

... I was visiting family in Colorado in 2008. The ads were bad but even worse were the get out the vote phone calls. After the 20th or so call on election day, I got a laugh when my Dad unplugged his phone.

I'd say it's slightly worse this year. My wife and I are unaffiliated. We get an average of between 3 and 4 calls a day. About a third of those are for the presidential race, the rest for everything else, ranging from senate seats to RTD commisioners to pollsters. 90% of these are robo calls and I hang up on them within just a few seconds.

Our mailbox has been jammed with all kinds of political junk mail. In addition to the usual fliers, we've even gotten packaged brochures and CDs. (Mostly from PAC committees). These all go straight to the trash.

We've had 3 door to door solicitations in October. One from a statehouse candidate, one from the spouse of a statehouse candidate, and one from an Obama worker. Unlike the robo calls and junk mail, I actually took the time to talk to these folks and listened to what they had to say.

My recollection is that the whole thing is up about 10-20% from 2008.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Greatspirits

Thank goodness! I wish you could take all the other Rethugs with you! Us real natives are trying to wipe that nasty Red out of our state for good!!

I seriously doubt your a Colorado native. You are too stupid.

I was 3rd generation until I had to leave because of morons like you.

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

I seriously doubt your a Colorado native. You are too stupid.

I was 3rd generation until I had to leave because of morons like you.

It's ironic, I'm a 2nd generation native and I left because of morons like you.

Maybe I should go back.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by NFLBRONCO

I'm voting for Manning screw these clowns. Both stink

GOOOD FOR YOU YES FINALLY SOMEONE HAS GOT IT!!!!!
this is the ORANGE MANE right
what does the OM talk about mostly?
THE DENVER BRONCOS !!!!!
whos the current QB
PEYTON frikkien MANNING !!!!
so logically speaking who should we be talking about here
THE DENVER BRONCOS
who should be president
JOHN ELWAY or PEYTON MANNING
and where should the capital of the USA be
in DENVER MILE HIGH STADIUM !!!!!!
if anoyone i mean anyone dares to contradict what im saying and say Romney Obama should be president we should kick them out of Colorado lol

[strafen]

Originally Posted by Greatspirits

That's clever! How long did it take you to come up with that?!!

Thank you, I 'ppreciate that...
I'd wish I could take credit for that, but it was not mine.
Saw it on a poster.
Thought you'd like it

[Mr.Meanie]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

I'd say it's slightly worse this year. My wife and I are unaffiliated. We get an average of between 3 and 4 calls a day. About a third of those are for the presidential race, the rest for everything else, ranging from senate seats to RTD commisioners to pollsters. 90% of these are robo calls and I hang up on them within just a few seconds.

Our mailbox has been jammed with all kinds of political junk mail. In addition to the usual fliers, we've even gotten packaged brochures and CDs. (Mostly from PAC committees). These all go straight to the trash.

We've had 3 door to door solicitations in October. One from a statehouse candidate, one from the spouse of a statehouse candidate, and one from an Obama worker. Unlike the robo calls and junk mail, I actually took the time to talk to these folks and listened to what they had to say.

My recollection is that the whole thing is up about 10-20% from 2008.

Wow, that sounds annoying. It's actually nice not to live in a swing state during these things.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by bowtown

It's ironic, I'm a 2nd generation native and I left because of morons like you.

Maybe I should go back.

No, stay where you belong!

[Vegas_Bronco]

Colorado needs to get behind it's true leaders:

Peyton Manning
Tim Tebow
Jake Plummer
John Elway

....ALL vote for Romney.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Originally Posted by Vegas_Bronco

Colorado needs to get behind it's true leaders:

Peyton Manning
Tim Tebow
Jake Plummer
John Elway

....ALL vote for Romney.

dont tell anyone this its a secret but.....
i voted for Romney
some people might get a bit upset if they find out i voted for him

[ColoradoDarin]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

I'd say it's slightly worse this year. My wife and I are unaffiliated. We get an average of between 3 and 4 calls a day. About a third of those are for the presidential race, the rest for everything else, ranging from senate seats to RTD commisioners to pollsters. 90% of these are robo calls and I hang up on them within just a few seconds.

Our mailbox has been jammed with all kinds of political junk mail. In addition to the usual fliers, we've even gotten packaged brochures and CDs. (Mostly from PAC committees). These all go straight to the trash.

We've had 3 door to door solicitations in October. One from a statehouse candidate, one from the spouse of a statehouse candidate, and one from an Obama worker. Unlike the robo calls and junk mail, I actually took the time to talk to these folks and listened to what they had to say.

My recollection is that the whole thing is up about 10-20% from 2008.

Face to face contact is the best way to turn out voters for a candidate, especially in local races - I went through some campaign training overview earlier this year, just to get a feel for it, I don't ever want to run, but I might manage a small race (statehouse/state senate) someday. I met our congressional candidate a couple of times and meeting someone really does work over TV/radio/mail.

Living in Florida, we've been inundated with ads and it's way past annoying. I think I get 5-10 pieces of junk mail every day the last 2 weeks. Right into the trash. I don't really watch live TV so I get to skip all that (and the ads have been lessening because FL is trending Romney for a while now). I really just want it to be over.

[Vegas_Bronco]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

No, stay where you belong!

Tetons are my favorite...Hiking in the back side up to hurricane pass, paintbrush divide and down through Jenny's Lake saying high to the healthy granola women along the way. Keep those outsider lowlanders out of the sanctuary!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bowtown

My contree is gettin overtakin by teh gayz, soshilustz, and browniez.

L0L!

What would these rednecks do w/o people from CA to serve as scapegoats for every problem in their lives?

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Obummer needs just 4 more years just 4 more years to screw this country up but this time he cant blame bush who can he blame maybe Hillary did a great job getting that poor dumb broad of taking the fall for Benghazi . yeah shes the go to gal when the democrats need a favor.
Bill gets a hummer Hillary is pissed .*
democrats promised her something .
probably the chance to become president by making her a senator first.
2008 comes around everyone thinks Hillary will be the democratic nominee .
some unheard of guy by the name of Obama shows up hes black democrats never had a black so he gets to be the nominee.
Hillary gets shafted by the democrats again .
but to make her happy they give her a job as a state dept spokesperson.
Benghazi debacle happens.
what to do what to do?
surely Obama cant be the one to take the blame ,oh no not the anointed one
who can take the fall for this who can be soo damn stupid to volunteer to be a good soldier and fall on the sword for Obama .
hey Hillary you looking so damn great today look the democrats and Obama need a favor from you.
oh gosh are the left people gonna gets all angry ats me
well golly gee im sorry the truth hurts!
Deal with it its my opinion i seen lot worst from you people

* the hummer part isnt that big of a deal if Hillary wants to let bill get his wiener sucked by every chick he comes across fine with me if she dont want to stand up for her self