dsgrue3 said:
I posted straight from the site, dude. The polls are from the 24th. Stop being such a pedant, that's the information they have. I didn't DISCLUDE information, I included what they had. Real Clear Politics isn't remotely conservative either. It assembles almost all the polls, which would sway it liberal if anything. Swing state polls clearly show the same race since the first debate, which is momemtum for Romney. Any other notion is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Your bias and obtuseness to facts is astouding. Keep dreaming.
It isn't feasible to lose the popular vote and win the election. There are only 3 such situations in history where this occurred. Those are statistical outliers. Citing 3 such situations out of probably 30 modern era elections is not supporting your claim at all. Winning the popular vote nearly guarantees you win the election. That is the counter to your point. This is the case in the other cases of modern era elections. Put it simply, you: 3/30 me 27/30. Which is more likely to occur? =/ |
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.
