Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

cheeba wrote:More jobs created yet higher unemployment. Even the statistics are torn!

That's not necessarily true. Population expands. More people come of age to work than leave the work pool.

http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm" target="_blank

The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually.

It sounds like we would have to have shy of 210,000 jobs added every month to keep up with population growth.

What I've seen in articles is that ~125K new jobs are needed to keep up with workforce growth.

Wouldn't the right numbers be the number of people entering working-age (18 or 22 or thereabouts) plus immigration minus emigration and retirements? Anyone know what those numbers would be?

It looks like the long term growth of the workforce will be ~0.6%

All this means the workforce will expand 0.6 percent annually for the next 40 years, down sharply from 2 percent between 1950 and 1985, according to the bureau.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-3 ... years.html" target="_blank

With the workforce at ~150M, that means just under 1 million new jobs a year to account for growth, or about 85K new jobs, if my numbers and math are right.

YellowKing wrote:I'd prefer we actually move forward.

Paging MSDs clipboard...

Nate Silver: The Simple Case for Saying Obama Is the Favorite

What I find confounding about this is that the argument we’re making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:

Obama’s ahead in Ohio.

A somewhat-more-complicated version:

Mr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.

...the simplest analysis of the polls would argue that Mr. Obama is winning. He’s been ahead in the vast majority of polls in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and all the other states where the Democrat normally wins. These states add up to more than 270 electoral votes. It isn’t complicated. To argue that Mr. Romney is ahead, or that the election is a “tossup,” requires that you disbelieve the polls, or that you engage in some complicated interpretation of them. The FiveThirtyEight model represents a complicated analysis of the polls, but simplicity is on its side, in this case.

OK, but how accurate are the polls, generally? He says "if you don't believe that, then you don't believe the polls", which to my mind, is not a hard thing to do! Are they so accurate year in and out that it's all over but for the button pushing at this time?

Maybe they are, and I am not aware.

I can't believe that the election is on Tuesday. By now it feels like this eternal process that has always been going on, and will always go on.

Only 732 days until midterm elections!

Defiant wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

cheeba wrote:More jobs created yet higher unemployment. Even the statistics are torn!

That's not necessarily true. Population expands. More people come of age to work than leave the work pool.

http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm" target="_blank

The U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually.

It sounds like we would have to have shy of 210,000 jobs added every month to keep up with population growth.

What I've seen in articles is that ~125K new jobs are needed to keep up with workforce growth.

Wouldn't the right numbers be the number of people entering working-age (18 or 22 or thereabouts) plus immigration minus emigration and retirements? Anyone know what those numbers would be?

I was just looking at growth because it sort of implies emigration and retirement/death along with immigration and coming of age to enter the work force.

OK, but how accurate are the polls, generally? He says "if you don't believe that, then you don't believe the polls", which to my mind, is not a hard thing to do! Are they so accurate year in and out that it's all over but for the button pushing at this time?

This is the real crux of the issue.

It's all going to depend on turnout. Since a poll can't accurately predict true turnout, they have to base it off a combination of historical data and "how likely are you to vote this year" type polls.

The Democrats think the 2012 electorate looks a lot like the 2008 electorate (or where Obama is deficient, he has made ground among other demographics), so Obama is going to win in a landslide.

The Republicans think the 2012 electorate looks nothing like the 2008 electorate, and that highly motivated Republican turnout is going to crush a depressed Democratic turnout. This groundswell is what they believe the polls are not capturing.

I'm sure Nate lies somewhere in the middle - he believes his data accurately projects the likely voter turnout and that these show Obama as the favorite.

Personally I believe the polls are underestimating Republican turnout, but I don't know if it's going to matter when all is said and done.

Carpet_pissr wrote:OK, but how accurate are the polls, generally? He says "if you don't believe that, then you don't believe the polls", which to my mind, is not a hard thing to do!

It's not hard to do - but that doesn't change the reality that they are the only data point. If you disbelieve the polls, and instead believe something else, you're generally just making that something else up, in most cases to allow you to believe what you want to believe. Which is everyone's right I suppose. But it's hard to argue against the guy that is looking at the actual data, when (the collective) you is just making shit up that you want to hear.

Are the pollsters right? I don't know. They're a helluva lot better at constructing an interpreting polls than anyone here is though. Or Dick Morris.

Nate has already said that if turnout is like elections prior to 2008 the results are the same with his model.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:OK, but how accurate are the polls, generally? He says "if you don't believe that, then you don't believe the polls", which to my mind, is not a hard thing to do!

It's not hard to do - but that doesn't change the reality that they are the only data point. If you disbelieve the polls, and instead believe something else, you're generally just making that something else up, in most cases to allow you to believe what you want to believe. Which is everyone's right I suppose. But it's hard to argue against the guy that is looking at the actual data, when (the collective) you is just making shit up that you want to hear.

Are the pollsters right? I don't know. They're a helluva lot better at constructing an interpreting polls than anyone here is though. Or Dick Morris.

Sorry, poor word choice on my part...I meant that "disbelieving the polls" is not hard to do if you listen to someone tear all the various ones apart...how Poll X skews this way or that, etc.

Maybe it's not possible to do this, but can't we take a quantifiable "x in time" (like "one week out", "one month out"), for the past 4 elections, let's say, compare all polling data, and see how many were right? If you can find some kind of analysis like that, and it shows that 1/3 of the polls were wrong....Imma stop there because I can see how my request is problematic. Still, would be nice to have that data if you could figure out a way to do it.

And good point, if you DON'T believe the polling, or rather, the pollsters, what else you got? OTOH, until I can see some kind of data on how accurate these have been IN THE PAST, your gut may or may not outperform the pollsters. I guess I want some proof that polls are indeed better than my gut instinct (which is obviously worthless).

As an example, YK believes that the polls are underestimating Republican turnout. And maybe he's right (how the F would I know?). But from here, my obvious question would be - what is each poll using as it's basis for Republican turnout? All the pollsters I've read about have indicated that their turnout models aren't based on 2008. Most of the Republicans (or conservative-leaning folks I talk to) seem convinced that the pollsters are basing their turnout models on 2008. Who is right? How do conservatives know this, when the pollsters themselves are saying it isn't true?

YK believes that they are underestimating Republican turnout. How much Republican turnout are the polls currently estimating? Where did he get that info? What is his hunch based on that it will be greater?

I don't understand how anyone can know any of this shit. I think that most people want a particular outcome, and have found a way to convince themselves that it can happen. Some will be right accidentally I guess.

I'll say it again...and again, and again. I think maybe the most important question concerns the nature of the people answering the polls (excluding exit polls), and how representative, or not, they are wrt to most voters.

What subset of the population:
1. Still has a landline and
2. Doesn't have caller ID and
3. Still picks up the phone every time it rings?

With the massive amount of robocalling, soliciting, etc. going on these days, I have to think that is a very specific type of person, or subset of the population. If I had to venture a guess, I would say seniors would make up a large majority there. So could we say (with proper data to back it up) that the polls are skewed 80% towards seniors, for example, just by the very nature of telephone polling?

RunningMn9 wrote:Are the pollsters right? I don't know. They're a helluva lot better at constructing an interpreting polls than anyone here is though.

Aw, that a dig at me? How cute .

Of course I've constructed and interpreted polls professionally for nearly 20 years. While the vast majority of my survey research is in the private sector, primarily automotive, I have worked for several political campaigns.

Constructing a survey is about as basic as it can get and anyone here could do it easily. Hell most, if not all, of the questions can be copy/pasted from other/previous surveys. Anyone here could go to SurveyMonkey and create a survey as good as any used by Gallup or any other organization within 30 minutes.

Interpreting the survey is nearly as easy. How many people said Romney? How many said Obama? As Nate Silver says, it ain't rocket science here.

The problem is that surveys are very brief snapshots in time and are increasingly fallible. People lie. For example, if you ask 2 questions:
1. On a 1-10 scale, how ready are you to have an African American serve as President?
2. On a 1-10 scale, how ready is the country to have an African American serve as President?

I guarantee in every survey those 2 questions are asked, you will get a MUCH higher response on Q1 than Q2. People inflate themselves. This problem is not represented in the margin of error.

So to sum up, polls are fine for what they are, but Nate Silver doesn't know a thing that anyone here doesn't know. The polls show that Obama is more likely than not to win, so that's the statistically safe bet.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I'll say it again...and again, and again. I think maybe the most important question concerns the nature of the people answering the polls (excluding exit polls), and how representative, or not, they are wrt to most voters.

What subset of the population:
1. Still has a landline and
2. Doesn't have caller ID and
3. Still picks up the phone every time it rings?

With the massive amount of robocalling, soliciting, etc. going on these days, I have to think that is a very specific type of person, or subset of the population. If I had to venture a guess, I would say seniors would make up a large majority there. So can we say that the polls are skewed 80% towards seniors, just by the very nature of telephone polling?

It also discriminates against people like me who think poll taking is just marginally above telemarketing in the scum of the earth business category. If I did anything it would be to troll them.

RunningMn9 wrote:As an example, YK believes that the polls are underestimating Republican turnout. And maybe he's right (how the F would I know?). But from here, my obvious question would be - what is each poll using as it's basis for Republican turnout? All the pollsters I've read about have indicated that their turnout models aren't based on 2008. Most of the Republicans (or conservative-leaning folks I talk to) seem convinced that the pollsters are basing their turnout models on 2008. Who is right? How do conservatives know this, when the pollsters themselves are saying it isn't true?

YK believes that they are underestimating Republican turnout. How much Republican turnout are the polls currently estimating? Where did he get that info? What is his hunch based on that it will be greater?

I don't understand how anyone can know any of this shit. I think that most people want a particular outcome, and have found a way to convince themselves that it can happen. Some will be right accidentally I guess.

Yeah, it's called motivated reasoning.

Individual state polls can err substantially sometimes, but apparently averaging state polls is historically a highly accurate indicator of election results. And most polling done now don't "weigh" their samples. They take the party-ID offered by each participant in random sample of their survey. Obama's lead is almost always larger in registered voters compared to likely voters, because those who favor Obama are apparently less reliable voters. But the RV number is much more objective than the LV number, simply because the pollsters projection of who will turn out is how they determine the LV number. Different pollsters have different ways of doing this, but when 95% of pollsters are seeing an edge in Ohio for Obama even among LV, well, it's a pretty good bet that Obama is ahead in Ohio. And I recently saw a piece about Obamas lead in Ohio being larger by polling firms that included cell phone sampling, which speaks to Carpet-pisser's point.

Yellowking wrote:The Democrats think the 2012 electorate looks a lot like the 2008 electorate (or where Obama is deficient, he has made ground among other demographics), so Obama is going to win in a landslide.

Who the heck is saying that? At best, some might think that the gap between RV and LV is too stark and that a good GOTV effort can narrow it, but I don't see anyone predicting a landslide (especially not in the popular vote).

cheeba wrote:Aw, that a dig at me? How cute .

You're so vain, you probably thought my post was about you. It wasn't, and I have no idea why you think it would be.

If you say so, pumpkin.

cheeba wrote:If you say so, pumpkin.

I do.

Rip wrote: It also discriminates against people like me who think poll taking is just marginally above telemarketing in the scum of the earth business category. If I did anything it would be to troll them.

I understand the hate for political ads, I understand the hate for telemarketing, and I understand the hate for manipulative partisan push-polling, but what's wrong with genuine public opinion research by legitimate outfits?

I believe the phrase it "tarred with the same brush." Or perhaps "baby out with the bathwater?" There's some pithy phrase somewhere that describes their fight against those that have co-opted their industry.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote: It also discriminates against people like me who think poll taking is just marginally above telemarketing in the scum of the earth business category. If I did anything it would be to troll them.

I understand the hate for political ads, I understand the hate for telemarketing, and I understand the hate for manipulative partisan push-polling, but what's wrong with genuine public opinion research by legitimate outfits?

For me personally, nothing, and if I could clearly see that it was a known polling organization, I would probably pick up the phone.

BUT, in the cel phone culture we live in, I am automatically suspicious of any call coming into what used to be our land line number (now using VOIP more or less, via Ooma, but basically the same thing since number is the same) 99% of it is trash...spam, robots...so I am automatically inclined to not even look at the Caller ID when it rings but instead just let them go to voice mail. So ironically, even though I would be happy to participate in an actual poll, if it were non-partisan, the culture we live in, and the damage done by the telemarketers who exploited the lack of privacy laws, makes it highly unlikely they would ever get to me.

RunningMn9 wrote:

cheeba wrote:If you say so, pumpkin.

I do.

get a room

It's understandable. I spent something like 4 weeks on the phone to learn my position. Oof. And this was before cell phones were everywhere. Surveys tend to be pushy. If you call someone and say, "Hey I'm from this research firm and we're taking a survey, do you have 5 minutes?" they are likely to say no. If you don't ask permission and go right into the survey, you get more completes.

The people who call on the surveys are typically of the education level of a fast food worker. And because you want the survey to be the same across all respondents, there's little room for interaction with the person on the phone. You ask the questions and get to the next person. And of course the best time to call people is when they're home and before 10pm, so you're very likely to hit them during dinner.

So yeah, it's not a pleasant experience on either side of the phone, lol.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote: It also discriminates against people like me who think poll taking is just marginally above telemarketing in the scum of the earth business category. If I did anything it would be to troll them.

I understand the hate for political ads, I understand the hate for telemarketing, and I understand the hate for manipulative partisan push-polling, but what's wrong with genuine public opinion research by legitimate outfits?

Define genuine. These polls are always in support of whoever is paying for it. Any polls that aren't are thrown away.

Impartiality is a myth.

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote: It also discriminates against people like me who think poll taking is just marginally above telemarketing in the scum of the earth business category. If I did anything it would be to troll them.

I understand the hate for political ads, I understand the hate for telemarketing, and I understand the hate for manipulative partisan push-polling, but what's wrong with genuine public opinion research by legitimate outfits?

Define genuine. These polls are always in support of whoever is paying for it. Any polls that aren't are thrown away.

Impartiality is a myth.

Some are biased, sure, but do you really think (e.g.) Pew and Gallup cook the books? These do research on a lot more than politics, and if they ever acquired a reputation for bias or slack methods then their whole enterprise would suffer. They have strong market incentives towards impartiality.

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:

Rip wrote: It also discriminates against people like me who think poll taking is just marginally above telemarketing in the scum of the earth business category. If I did anything it would be to troll them.

I understand the hate for political ads, I understand the hate for telemarketing, and I understand the hate for manipulative partisan push-polling, but what's wrong with genuine public opinion research by legitimate outfits?

Define genuine. These polls are always in support of whoever is paying for it. Any polls that aren't are thrown away.

Impartiality is a myth.

Some are biased, sure, but do you really think (e.g.) Pew and Gallup cook the books? These do research on a lot more than politics, and if they ever acquired a reputation for bias then their whole enterprise would suffer. They have incentives towards impartiality.

Baloney. They have an interest in appearing impartial, just like network news, the judiciary, and law enforcement. Guess what....none of them are.

This dynamic infographic is excellent. Click buttons at the top to decide states you think you can call, and then mouse over the resulting branches.

Grundbegriff wrote:This dynamic infographic is excellent. Click buttons at the top to decide states you think you can call, and then mouse over the resulting branches.

That's really great. It also makes it clear why Romney is still campaigning hard in Florida.

Holman wrote:

Teggy wrote:Blacks should vote for Republicans because Lincoln freed the slaves

No words.

They're going to lose a lot of Red states with this one.

They're also being misleading about the vote regarding the Civil Rights Act.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:This dynamic infographic is excellent. Click buttons at the top to decide states you think you can call, and then mouse over the resulting branches.

That's really great. It also makes it clear why Romney is still campaigning hard in Florida.

Well, I am getting a lot of robocalls, but the one time I got a real person it went very nearly just like this:
"Hello?"
"Hello, sir, I'm calling from the Republican whatever and I hope Mitt Romney can count on your vote this year!"
"You know... I'm not entirely sure yet..?"
Scorn. "Oh, that's surprising, since the election is so close!"
"Yeah, right?"
"Well, have a nice day!"
"Oh.. You, too."
<click>

I was kinda ready to talk family values..?

A few weeks ago an Elizabeth Warren supporter came to my door and, upon hearing that I was undecided, commenced trying to wrestle me to the ground. She was taller than me and younger and prettier, but I had the weight advantage and sent her packing.

She impressed me with her command of the talking points, but not so much with her kool-aid enhanced eyes.

Scott Brown showed me naked pictures of himself and bragged about his truck, but I told him I wasn't even registered in Massachusetts. He said that was fine because he wasn't even really a Republican.

Fox and Friends puts on the red tinged paranoid glasses: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/fox_att ... y_concert/

“Is it a hurricane benefit or a concert for Obama?” Doocy followed up, despite sounding like he’s already made his mind up. “I don’t know,” Bolling responded woefully

tapatalkin'

Speaking of fox...
Interesting study from pew about the media coverage of this election cycle. Not surprisingly it is overwhelmingly negative for both candidates.

The interesting part is how partisan Fox and MSNBC truly are.

The study also reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative.

Those are not news channels any more. I know it is common knowledge that they are very partisan but to see it put in numbers like that still shocks me.

Chrisoc13 wrote:Speaking of fox...
Interesting study from pew about the media coverage of this election cycle. Not surprisingly it is overwhelmingly negative for both candidates.

The interesting part is how partisan Fox and MSNBC truly are.

The study also reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative.

Those are not news channels any more. I know it is common knowledge that they are very partisan but to see it put in numbers like that still shocks me.

It's unpleasant.

I can't imagine living in the days of completely partisan newspapers.

Pyperkub wrote:Fox and Friends puts on the red tinged paranoid glasses: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/fox_att ... y_concert/

tapatalkin'

"Puts on"?!


Sent from mobile

Stealing this as a last ditch effort before I start dumping friends.

Pyperkub wrote:Fox and Friends puts on the red tinged paranoid glasses: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/fox_att ... y_concert/

“Is it a hurricane benefit or a concert for Obama?” Doocy followed up, despite sounding like he’s already made his mind up. “I don’t know,” Bolling responded woefully

tapatalkin'

Doocy asked earnestly, ”Where are the conservative performers?”

Good question.

Ale