A walk down Memory Lane

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
The Media

Romney Landslide: Here Are the Biggest Names Predicting It & How It Will Happen

Poll: Romney Leaps Ahead of Obama in the Swing States

Bump Goes Bust. Romney Back in Lead after Obama's Short Convention Bounce

Romney Wins in a Landslide -- Las Vegas Oddsmaker Doubles Down on Prediction

In a Post-Convention Bump, Romney Draws Huge Crowds in Cincinnati

JPP

"I will take that action all day long! I smell a landslide, Romney will take it easily...300 to 238 or there abouts,and I also think he will win the popular vote too."

"Anyone want to bet how many libs commit suicide on Wednesday?"

"Mark my Words Romney 52% Obama 47% final"

"If the momentum continues to build for Romney the way it has over the past week, this election isn't going to be close at all. Romney by a fucking landslide, mother fuckers!"

"Why I think Romney will win in a landslide"

"A couple months ago, I said it would be Romney by 10 points, and some liberal busted a gut laughing. I think they bookmarked the thread, so I expect to see it posted if Romney doesn't win by 10, but that was my prediction and I am sticking to it... I think he wins by 10 or possibly more."
 
Though polling is often unreliable during the convention period, four polls released over the weekend suggest that Mrs. Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump has evaporated entirely. Live-interview phone polls from CBS and CNN showed Mr. Trump leading Mrs. Clinton by one and three percentage points, while a poll from Morning Consult, an internet polling firm, has Mr. Trump up by four points, an increase of six points from the pollster’s result last week. Lastly, Gravis Marketing has Mr. Trump up by two.

As a result, The Upshot’s presidential forecast model now shows Mrs. Clinton with a 69 percent chance of becoming president, down from 76 percent last week. Her chances have also declined in the other election forecasting models we’re tracking, though to very different degrees.

Numbers from PredictWise — based on betting markets — and the Princeton Election Consortium have remained roughly flat, while Mrs. Clinton’s chances in the FiveThirtyEight model have plummeted. At least three big choices affect the poll-based models. Which polls count? How many polls should you average together? Our model is focused on a long-term trend. As much as a third of the national average is made up of polls that are more than two weeks old. History suggests that, before the conventions are finished, you’re better off focusing on a two-month average than a two-week average. While the past four election polls may have shown Mr. Trump in the lead, our model has not seen enough evidence to assign him the lead just yet — it still shows Mrs. Clinton up by 2.3 points. (Contrast this with the Times’s unadjusted polling average, which currently shows Mrs. Clinton up by 0.3 points.)

FiveThirtyEight weights polls based on judgments of pollster quality; The Upshot’s model does not. How should you interpret polls around conventions? Candidates often receive a bounce around their party convention. But the idea behind a bounce is that what bounces comes down — they are temporary. Adjusting for a convention bounce means you are subtracting points from a candidate’s polling average. It is a penalty. The size of the penalty at its peak ranges from about three to four points in the FiveThirtyEight model — to nothing at all in P.E.C. estimates. It’s too early to know what the right adjustment is this year. Our model is about two points at its peak. Whether the recent changes in polling represent a true long-term shift in the state of the race will be clearer in a few weeks.

How valuable are state polls? Our model cares more about state polling than national polling. If there is a discrepancy between the national average and what we’d expect the national popular vote to be based on the state averages, the model adjusts the state polls slightly. Currently, national polls are about 1 point more favorable to Mr. Trump than might be expected based on state polls. Other models make different choices. The Princeton model relies solely on state polling. The most important thing to remember is that polling between the conventions is extremely volatile. Polling now is the least informative it has been for a few months. Polling two to three weeks from now, once the convention bounces have stabilized, should be far more predictive. The model will be in wait-and-see mode for a few weeks, but history suggests uncertainty will decrease rapidly once the convention period ends and parties begin to coalesce (or not) around their respective candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/u...del-still-has-hillary-clinton-ahead.html?_r=0
 
I was disappointed that Pastor PiMPle's precipitate polling prediction was not among your artifacts from 2008. :(
 
fnc-greta-20121104-morrislandslide.jpg
 
Trumps bounce can evaporate in a minute and it goes without saying.

That said, comparing this particular bounce to recent elections doesn't mean much. The DNC wasn't in disarray in '08 or '12 and Obama was anything but damaged goods in either election. In fact, it was just the opposite: the '08 Obama coalition was still very much intact in 2012.

With Hillary, I'm not even sure what the analogy would be lol. Maybe Nixon trying to get re-elected, post Watergate?

Then there's Trump. He's the wild card. The man is *consistently* under estimated by the political commentariat. It's like they're incapable of learning---I've never seen anything like it.

The past won't predict the future on this one. It all goes out the window. This is virgin territory.
 
I bet if this board existed in 2000 & 2004 you'd have plenty of posts from liberals predicting Democratic victories.

Spoiler alert, partisans generally/always think their side will win each election.

People on the right have predicted Trump will win on this board. People on the left have predicted Hillary will win. As is always the case one 'side' will be wrong.
 
I remember Peggy Noonan being convinced that Romney was going to win because Obama looked a little down at a big dinner, and she saw more "Romney" road signs.

Always so much wishful thinking.
 
cawacko said:
I bet if this board existed in 2000 & 2004 you'd have plenty of posts from liberals predicting Democratic victories.

Spoiler alert, partisans generally/always think their side will win each election.

People on the right have predicted Trump will win on this board. People on the left have predicted Hillary will win. As is always the case one 'side' will be wrong.
Click to expand...

People not only thought Romney would win but win in a landslide. And they didn't have much to base that prediction on.
 
Loyal Lapdoggy Hack Hussein said:
Then there's Trump. He's the wild card. The man is *consistently* under estimated by the political commentariat. It's like they're incapable of learning---I've never seen anything like it.
Click to expand...

Little loyal lapdoggy has learned a new word from the right-wing blogosphere. I predict he will bark it in heavy rotation, lol.

I visualize his master doing this when little loyal lapdoggy ceaselessly yips his excited admiration:


1_RAU6.gif
 
Is Leon in this thread? He predicted Hillary would win all 50 states. That was pretty aggressive.
 
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.".....Hillary Clinton

“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” Hillary Clinton


I like to remember the good old days much as Christiefan.....
 
NOVA said:
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.".....Hillary Clinton

“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” Hillary Clinton

I like to remember the good old days much as Christiefan.....
Click to expand...

As usual you moved the goalposts. What do your comments have to do with predictions that Rmoney would win in a landslide?
 
christiefan915 said:
As usual you moved the goalposts. What do your comments have to do with predictions that Rmoney would win in a landslide?
Click to expand...

Just strolling down memory lane like your post says.....

I usually don't give a shit about predictions....except for the more ridiculous ones....



  1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
  4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
  6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
  9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
  11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
  13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top