Posted on 10/18/2012 7:32:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Obama's odds of winning re-election have climbed back to 65%-70% since the second debate, according to three sources we're tracking:
First, Nate Silver of the New York Times now gives Obama 66% chance of reelection. That's up from a post-first-debate low of ~60% a few days ago. And Silver says the impact of Obama's strong performance in the second debate hasn't yet factored into the polls he looks at.
|
|
On Intrade, meanwhile, Obama's odds have climbed back to 65% from a post-debate low in the high 50s.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
What were the odds this last weekend that the 49ers were going to beat the Giants at SF?
If these data were reversed we’d be cheering the brilliance of Nate Silver.
Sure. The unemployment numbers are fudged. Obama’s a liar.
But there are certainly 47% at a minimum out there who STILL THINK OBAMA IS DOING THE RIGHT THINGS.
And a lot of the “53%” is locked up in solid, big southern states. The remainder of battleground states are razor thin.
If Obama wins Ohio and Wisconsin by 0.1% then he wins the election. That’s it.
I stopped reading when I saw the source.
History is NOT on Obama’s side. His numbers right now across the board are devastating for an incumbent. Name me one trend that points towards Obama winning re-election?
Fixed!
I absolutely agree. There are a lot of good signs in Romney's favor these days, however, we cannot afford to get complacent at this critical stage of the campaign. I do not know who Nate Silver is, but we should not abitrarily dismiss people like him, or assume any poll favoring Obama is biased, and therefore inaccurate. We need to treat this as a very close election (as it very well could be) and leave nothing to chance. We need to fight hard for every vote right up until the polls close on election day.
There’s 100% chance that Nate Silver is the creepiest person I have ever seen in my entire life. The first and only time I stumbled across him while channel surfing I had to immediately change the station. The few seconds I saw of him were very uncomfortable to watch.
Clearly, with Romney up 2 in Rasmussen today and up 6 yesterday in Gallup, he has no chance of winning.
Nate Silver writes for a liberal audience for a liberal rag that only liberals read. His #1 objective is readership, not the truth. The truth won’t be out until a day or two before the election and until then he needs as many readers as he can get reading his blog.
RE: Sure. The unemployment numbers are fudged. Obama’s a liar.
California, a high unemployment state, screwed up the numbers last week.
Notice that first time jobless claims were 339,000 last week and then suddenly swung wildly back to 388,000 today. Why? California decided to report their numbers again ( unlike last week ).
I think I would trust these gentlemen over Nate “the flake” Silver:
I love Nate Silver. He is is good with probabilities and all that. He has a method for weighting the value of polls based on some criteria he has. His presentation of the data is near perfection.
But he cannot give up using garbage for data and it will all come crashing down on him when the data starts to get real in the next 3 weeks.
And it will be popcorn time watching the disintegration of Nate Silver and his followers in the days just before and after the election.
Just as a reminder... in 2008, my fellow FReepers were posting as to why Nate Silver was full of crap in his predictions. Just as I see on this thread. Hey, he may be full of crap, but he just plugs in numbers and reports.
It could happen. This isn’t over. Those on food stamps, disability payments, section 8 housing, those making calls on Obamaphones, etc. will show up to vote for a continuance of their benefits. Liberals and black voters (some overlap) will show up to vote for Zero. It will be an uphill battle until the end.
It isn’t over. There are dirty tricks to come.
This could be named the Baghdad Bob Poll.
47% of likely voters either believe that this unmitigated disaster deserves another chance to turn things around, -or-, they think that Obama is actually making progress toward destroying our country because they, too, hate everything it stands for.
Even if Romney manages to prevail in a "landslide" these people will not "self-deport."
I'd rather have every single one of 12 million illegal aliens than any one of American Democrats voting for Obama....because from a standing start, not being indoctrinated by our leftist school system, the illegals have a higher chance of becoming productive Americans than the twisted "educated" occutard types.
How does ethanol affect the price of Diesel?
Here is a thing. It may be small, or it may be key:
These are limited access funds, moved by investment.
Soros announced to the best of my knowledge about one or two months ago, he would spend upwards of a million dollars to re-elect Obama.
It is my feeling “Obama” money has flooded the intrade accounts, distorting the percentages in Obama’s favor.
Since the market is limited, a relatively small amount spent can result in a very visible change.
If I were a customer, I would bet against that.
Just saying...
Sure.
the money quote from the article is “the polls he (Silver) looks at”....another words he looks at polls that suit his agenda...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.