Quantcast
Election time, who did you vote for?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Election time, who did you vote for?

Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

Barack Obama 356 55.97%
 
Mitt Romney 137 21.54%
 
Gary Johnson 38 5.97%
 
Jill Stein 15 2.36%
 
Somebody else 87 13.68%
 
Total:633
dsgrue3 said:
GameOver22 said:

I think your using the term feasible (i mean possible/capable) differently from me. They might be statistical outliers(you are dealing with a very small sample size though), but that doesn't make them meaningless or inconsequential. I would also include the 1824 election in this discussion although its a bit more complicated.

Point is, they are outcomes that occur in the real world, and there is no reason to assume it cannot happen in this election. Statisically speaking, the winner of the popular vote and the electoral college are usually the same, but this is far from a necessary result. Essentially, and this has been my point all along, there is no causal connection between the popular vote and electoral victory, and I'll reiterate, this is why candidates focus on battleground states. They don't care about winning the popular vote because it doesn't determine electoral victory.

In all truthfulness, the fact that the popular vote and electoral victory usually coincide is nothing more than a statistical artifact and has zero explanatory power. You say you can predict 27/30 (don't know where 30 came from) electoral winners by using the popular vote. Well, I can predict 30/30 using the electoral college. Point is, why use the popular vote to determine the electoral winner when there is a much better method available, namely, using the electoral college, since, you know, the electoral college actually determines the winner? There's a reason why people are focusing on the polls in swing states rather than the national polls.


I chose 30 to represent common era.  It was somewhat arbitrary. Could be expanded or contracted. 30 out of 56 elections isn't a small sample size when polling services' sample sizes are about 1000 people out of 300 million. THAT's a small sample.

1824 I didn't include because it was decided by the House.

If your argument is that it is possible to win the popular and lose the electoral, then I agree. That's indisputable. If that was your only point, why didn't you say so instead of continuing with this idea that the popular vote isn't a determination of anything?

"why use the popular vote to determine the electoral winner when there is a much better method available, namely, using the electoral college"

True enough, but I would argue that it's easier to poll nationally than electorally.

Because it isn't a determinant of anything. The electoral college, not the popular vote, determines the winner. That's been my point all along, and I've been consistent with that argument. This was my whole point about causal and explanatory power. If you are determining what causes electoral victory, it is not the popular vote.



Around the Network
GameOver22 said:

Because it isn't a determinant of anything. The electoral college, not the popular vote, determines the winner. That's been my point all along, and I've been consistent with that argument. This was my whole point about causal and explanatory power. If you are determining what causes electoral victory, it is not the popular vote.

I know what determines the winner. My point is that winning the popular vote nearly guarantees an electoral win as well, as I've shown through historical elections.



to those of you arguing about polls and the legitimacy of those polls. I would just like to note that polls can be a good barometer of where an election is at, but hardly a good predictor of where an election will go.

For example, look at the 1980 election, a week before the election most polls had the race relatively tied or Reagan losing, I think there was actually only one poll that showed him winning by the large margins he actually did win by. People complained about that polls inaccuracy at the time, but it ended up being the most accurate.

So basically, take all these polls with a grain of salt, the election is close enough and polling is inaccurate enough that it could go either way.



Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:
@gergroy

I agree, this year none of the 3rd party candidates have a chance to win. But why do you think that is? A defeatist attitude has a little to do with it, but it's much more problematic than that. Think about the one and only time that a 3rd party candidate was allowed into the presidential debate. It was Ross Perot, the billionaire. If you can BUY yourself into the election then you have a chance. What does that say about the top two, who will only allow you to compete on the main stage if you're one of the richest 1%? What does that say about most of the country that votes for one of those two people? It shows a lack of credibility, honesty, and wisdom. I'll let you think about who owns each of those attributes.


To be fair.. Ross Perot was alowed into the debate because at one point he was actually freaking leading the national polls.


That's why he was allowed into the debates.


Yes, he was doing that well in the polls.  And what set him apart from any other 3rd party candidate since then?  Maybe it was the fact that he was a billionaire and was able to use that money to become publicly visible.  Money buys advertising, TV, and radio time.  Name one poor person (not raised poor, but poor during election time) that was in the running for president in U.S. history.  Elections = money.

that would make sense if that is what Perot did.  At the end of the day, perot only used about 12 million of his own money.  Perot was a popular candidate who aquired the support based on his own ideas and platform.  


Uh huh... so he just had good ideas and word got around?  Oh wait, it must have been the internet.  Oh wait, when you're a billionaire you can spend millions, and better yet have political connections.  Whether or not you know this, rich people have rich friends, and most people in politics are rich.  You can buy connections.  And I like how you said he "only" spent $12M of his own money.  That's $12M more than everyone else.  Anyway, when you have big money connections you don't have to spend all the money yourself.


More or less... his campaign was actually pretty cheap and he polled really high before he ever even entered the race.

Ross Perot was popular because he more or less played to the middle and the "common man."

Essentially he targeted Libretarians, balancing the budget, Union Democrats and the anti-free trade vote in general.

Clinton and Bush both being Free Trade at a time when everyone was afraid Japan was going to buy the country... part of stealing Perot's momentum was Clinton making some anti free trade promises he later disregarded.

 

He didn't really start spending his own money until after he reentered the race after he left because "Republicans had compromising pictures of his daughter and threatened to release them if he didn't drop out."

He actually thought spending money on advertising was a huge waste of time when he could just give interviews to tv shows.

 

"Evening up" foreign trade, balancing the budget, simplifying taxes.  These are all themes that both parties still pay lip service too because of how powerul those positions resonate.

 

Strengthening the war on drugs and electronic town hall voting on all issues i'm guessing haven't held up as well.

 

You obviously haven't been paying attention.  I like how you're just making stuff up.

 

GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Kasz216 said:
TheShape31 said:

Seems that Perot ended up spending $26 of his own money in the first two weeks of October alone ($46 million as of Oct. 14). He also said he expected to spend $60 millions. Its also important to remember that election were much different back then (much less money). Just for reference, Clinton and Bush each accepted public funding and were limited to $55 million. Granted, they also had the parties raising money for them as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/24/us/1992-campaign-campaign-finances-despite-economy-clinton-sets-record-for-funds.html

I think this shows that Perot's viability was largely a product of his ability to spend money. I mean he single-handedly was able to outspend the public funding Clinton and Bush received. Finally, I want to emphasize that campaign spending has only increased since then. If Perot tried to run a campaign by spending $60 million today, he would likely be overshadowed by the big guns. Also, even with all that spending, Perot wasn't able to win any electoral votes even with 19% of the vote (kind of shows the importance of campaign strategy).

KInd of gives an idea of the increase campaign spending http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008


I don't think I'm the one not paying attention or the one making stuff up.

If you scroll back up and look at the graph you quoted... you would note that October of 1992 is listed in that graph as "Re-Entry".

Also, that this was in fact his lowest time in the polling, where he was simply trying to gain back support for dropping out which made Ross Perot look erratic.

Before he started spending all kinds of money he polled extremely high.  39% at it's height, with Clinton and Bush 25% a piece.  (rest undecided.)

He pulled well quite a bit before the graph starts as well.  It just starts where it does because it's focusing on when he officially entered the race.

Perot was popular well before he committed.

So yeah.....

might want to look into a mirror on that one.


In the end, I think you must be right.  Only a billionaire can come from nothing and speak to the heart of the average American.  It is the perfect representation of grassroots politics.  Man, all those non-billionaire 3rd party candidates must be complete idiots, void of great ideas.



gergroy said:
to those of you arguing about polls and the legitimacy of those polls. I would just like to note that polls can be a good barometer of where an election is at, but hardly a good predictor of where an election will go.

For example, look at the 1980 election, a week before the election most polls had the race relatively tied or Reagan losing, I think there was actually only one poll that showed him winning by the large margins he actually did win by. People complained about that polls inaccuracy at the time, but it ended up being the most accurate.

So basically, take all these polls with a grain of salt, the election is close enough and polling is inaccurate enough that it could go either way.

While I agree with your main point, on average, Reagan was actually ahead in the polls over the final weeks. The margin of victory definitely increased over the final couple days (a lot of short-term factors). Interesting thing about the 1980 election, is most people forget that Anderson had a pretty significant third-party showing.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/



Around the Network
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
to those of you arguing about polls and the legitimacy of those polls. I would just like to note that polls can be a good barometer of where an election is at, but hardly a good predictor of where an election will go.

For example, look at the 1980 election, a week before the election most polls had the race relatively tied or Reagan losing, I think there was actually only one poll that showed him winning by the large margins he actually did win by. People complained about that polls inaccuracy at the time, but it ended up being the most accurate.

So basically, take all these polls with a grain of salt, the election is close enough and polling is inaccurate enough that it could go either way.

While I agree with your main point, on average, Reagan was actually ahead in the polls over the final weeks. The margin of victory definitely increased over the final couple days (a lot of short-term factors). Interesting thing about the 1980 election, is most people forget that Anderson had a pretty significant third-party showing.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


yeah, my point was that most polls had it a lot closer then what actually happened in the end.  



Eh fine. Keep ignoring the fact that Ross Perot was one of very few "moderate" third party candidates... and that every other one paints themselves as to the right, or to the left of the other guy... and the fact that Ross Perot became super popular without spending any money.

I mean... name another moderate third party candidate.



gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
to those of you arguing about polls and the legitimacy of those polls. I would just like to note that polls can be a good barometer of where an election is at, but hardly a good predictor of where an election will go.

For example, look at the 1980 election, a week before the election most polls had the race relatively tied or Reagan losing, I think there was actually only one poll that showed him winning by the large margins he actually did win by. People complained about that polls inaccuracy at the time, but it ended up being the most accurate.

So basically, take all these polls with a grain of salt, the election is close enough and polling is inaccurate enough that it could go either way.

While I agree with your main point, on average, Reagan was actually ahead in the polls over the final weeks. The margin of victory definitely increased over the final couple days (a lot of short-term factors). Interesting thing about the 1980 election, is most people forget that Anderson had a pretty significant third-party showing.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


yeah, my point was that most polls had it a lot closer then what actually happened in the end.  

Thats true, but you can also see the polls starting to pick up that movement. In addition, as I mentioned, Anderson played a significant role in the election, and while I don't have the info for this election, people often overreport that they intend to vote for a third-party candidate. I know this happened in 2000. People reported they were going to vote for Nader, then voted for Gore. This is why polls tended to under-predict Gore's share of the popular vote.



So, I voted earlier this week and this is who I voted for

President
I voted Mitt Romney

Governor of utah (r) gary herbert, (d) peter cooke
I voted for gary herbert

Utah congressional district 4 (r) mia love, (d) jim matheson
I voted jim matheson

Senate (r) orrin hatch, (d) scott howell
I voted scott howell



I have been waiting for a thread worth posting this stuff in.

For those who do not know , Romney was making this claim in Ohio so Donald decided to tweet it. Ralph  Gilles is currently the President and CEO of the SRT Brand and Senior Vice President of Design at Chrysler Group LLC.

Oh, and I voted for the Obamanator.