Active Users:1169 Time:22/11/2024 11:39:17 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you wadsy Send a noteboard - 05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM
Seriously, 6.47% mormon in Nevada, Colorado 2.78% New Mexico 3.21%. You're calling that Heavily Mormon?

Pews polling shows the NV Mormon population at just over twice that, plus the combination of their strong preference for Romney and high turnout, makes NV almost impossible for Obama. The 7% of margin of error in that poll is significant, and LDS estimates of their numbers are close to those you cite (http://www.allaboutmormons.com/number_of_mormons.php) but 11% explains the NV GOP caucus results a lot better than 6.5% does.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/what-we-learned-from-nevada/


No no no! How frustrating. Firstly a 7% margin of error is massive.

Secondly
In 2008, the GOP counted 44,324 votes. If current calculations hold, that would mean there were about 10,000 fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008, which is almost half the amount Nevada GOP Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian predicted.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/05/nevada-caucuses-suffer-low-turnout-surly-confrontations/

You do not need to have 11% mormons in a state to have an outsize impact in a low turnout race. Mormons are more likely to be republican voters.

Romney won by 20% even though he only had an 8% lead among non-Mormons—because he won NINETY percent of Mormons, who were a big chunk of the total. Do the math; 0.38x+0.9y=0.5(x+y) so Mormons were 30% of the total, and breaking 90% for Romney gave him a majority in a four man race.


so what? Again a minority group can have an outsized impact in a low turnout race. you are trying to project from a low turnout caucus to statewide. It's flawed. You can't do it. Statistically invalid.

The proportion of Mormons within the republican party in Nevada is significantly higher than what it is statewide. Significantly. That said only about 40-50 thousand people voted. If the mormons are turning out for Romney in such huge numbers why was turnout down compared to 2008? Why did Romney get even less votes.

Your argument is flawed and if you can't see it now then somehow I don't think that anything I or anyone else tells you will make you see the light.



Colarado is not much better; the Mormon population may not be as high, but there is a very good reason I do not talk politics on the Denver Broncos forum I frequent.


As for Colorado the total amount of mormons is less than half what it is in Nevada.

Hispanic population is 26.5% in Nevada, Colarado 20.7% New Mexico 46.3% and back in 2008 Obama got 67% of the hispanic vote. Considering that Romney's immigration stances I really don't see him improving markedly on McCain's performance. The polling thus far has not shown much of a shift at all for who hispanics will vote for. Furthermore the percentage of hispanics in those states would almost certainly have grown since 2008, I don't think the percentage of mormons would have grown. and Obama also had some very impressive winning percentages in those states in 2008. Every reason to believe he has a chance. In fact he seems to be the slight favourite in New Mexico. Wouldn't call it safe but it's leaning that way. I wouldn't bother counting Arizona as even remotely in play not unless Obama wins in a landslide.

Back in 2008 Obama got 53% of the national vote, but the next election is in 2012. Regardless, 3% of AMERICAS hispanic population is there illegally and thus not voting (despite GOP claims to the contrary.) LULAC says hispanic turnout in 2008 was half again that in 2004, but that 11 million was less than 10% of the 130 million people who voted and, once again, Obama was far more popular in 2004 than now.


You're making a few mistakes here.

Firstly we are talking statewide but you are projecting nationally.

Statewide totals in Nevada, New Mexico and Colarado would be higher than the 11% you quote. All projections are for an increased turnout from minority groups including hispanics this year. Show me the data that suggests they are staying home and that they wont vote for Obama or that they will vote for Romney.

It doesn't exist at the moment.

Try this

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/05/gop-hopefuls-losing-ground-to-obama-among-latinos-poll-says/

http://lulac.org/news/pr/historic_turnout/

I would not assume the Mormon population has not grown relative to others; from its very origin, the Mormon church has actively promoted both proselytizing and reproduction to increase numbers, and thus influence. I am sure Obama remains far more popular than Romney with hispanic voters, but whether that makes a pivotal difference in the Southwest or nationally depends on how many there are, how many can vote for him and how many actually do. The second two are almost given for Romney with Mormons, whose numbers are large throughout the Southwest. I think Obama will hold NM, but that is about it.


where's the proof that the mormon population has grown massively? Even a 10% increase over two years would make it about 7% of the statewide population in Nevada and that's extremely unlikely. Not a big deal.

As for the rest I wont go into any long discussion here but polls in Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina etc suggest that those states are in play. Here is the state of the map that most people would go by. You might quibble around the margins but it's like the current map in this thread. People aren't seeing anything in the polls that suggests that there is a big movement one way or another. Obama is damaged but so is Romney who is proving to be a mediocre candidate but the best of a bad lot.

http://cookpolitical.com/charts/president/ev_scorecard_2012-02-23_07-56-34.php

I just cannot imagine Romney SO damaged Obama can improve on his 2004 performance anywhere, and polling supports that: NO state McCain won is rated a tossup, by anyone. That means every state Obama narrowly won will be a big challenge for him to win again (hence Cook rates IN Likely Rep. and NH Leans Rep.) It also means NC (which Obama won by 1%) is virtually hopeless. It is far more significant that NV, a state Obama won by 12% when running against neighboring Senator McCain in 2004, is now rated a toss up. Either large Mormon turnout is expected in NV, Obama is MUCH weaker now, or both, which makes the Southwest tough sledding for Obama.


No, it doesn't mean any such thing. Polling suggests Obama is still in the race. Obama is less popular that's true but then Romney is damaged goods as well. Where is your evidence that North Carolina is anything less than a toss up apart from Obama being less popular? Find me a poll. Gut feeling and supposed logic isn't proof.

North Carolina is still in play and both sides will be fighting hard for it. No team would even think of wasting money on it unless they thought that it was genuinely in play.

The Cook ratings show 195 EVs as Lean Republican or better. There is no way a much weaker Obama holds a NC he won by a single point in '04, so we can add 15 more to get 210. The Mormon population that elected both Mormon NV Senators take its 6 EVs off the table, too, so that is 216. With 29 EVs in FL and 18 more in OH, that would be 263, meaning the only other Toss Up Obama could afford to lose is IA (6,) and none of the leaners will flip given the lack of enthusiasm for both nominees. Neither nominee can win without FL and/or OH, whatever happens in the popular vote.


No you can't you have no proof of anything. Obama is weaker yes, but how much weaker will he be on election day? How much weaker will Romney be by then? Will either of them be stronger? what will the state of the economy be?

Nevada is not taken off the table. Either nominee can win without them it is possible. If they win however more than likely they will win with either of them.

Whoever wins the popular vote will more than likely win nationwide unless it is really close within a percentage point.
Reply to message
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President! Joel - 29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM 1246 Views
I agree Romney will be the candidate. Tom - 29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM 642 Views
I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way. Joel - 01/03/2012 03:37:52 PM 692 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College. Tim - 29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM 693 Views
You don't think like a politician then Isaac - 01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM 734 Views
I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM* Ghavrel - 01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM 311 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate. Joel - 01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM 620 Views
what about one vote one value? wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:51:32 PM 703 Views
That has not really changed. Joel - 03/03/2012 03:30:34 AM 885 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM 662 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus Isaac - 03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM 677 Views
I have a couple quibbles. Joel - 03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM 703 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded Isaac - 03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM 668 Views
I hate when people do that. Joel - 05/03/2012 09:49:36 AM 647 Views
What a bunch of waffle! wadsy - 03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM 803 Views
First you complain of simplicity then of my lack of brevity? Isaac - 03/03/2012 11:18:11 AM 598 Views
A simplistic argument doesn't mean it's brief *NM* wadsy - 03/03/2012 09:55:51 PM 330 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters Isaac - 03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM 823 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. Joel - 03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM 624 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. Isaac - 03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM 661 Views
*is learning* Joel - 04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM 653 Views
Re: *is learning* Isaac - 04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM 665 Views
To the extent I can (yet again) claim to speak for Europeans... Legolas - 04/03/2012 10:33:01 PM 641 Views
I've fairly limited exposure and that from some years back Isaac - 04/03/2012 11:35:12 PM 701 Views
Re: *is learning* Joel - 05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM 703 Views
You could imitate the French. Legolas - 07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM 635 Views
That seems... unlikely.... Joel - 08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM 637 Views
It does, doesn't it? Legolas - 08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM 834 Views
After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect. Joel - 08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM 615 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed. Legolas - 08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM 592 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet. Joel - 09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM 670 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong. Legolas - 03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM 672 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please? Joel - 03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM 555 Views
Sure. Legolas - 03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM 728 Views
Guess we did not read far enough. Joel - 03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM 671 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... Legolas - 03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM 874 Views
Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING! Joel - 04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM 894 Views
Re: Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING! Legolas - 05/03/2012 11:14:42 PM 1207 Views
Re: Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING! Joel - 08/03/2012 02:56:02 PM 728 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... DomA - 05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM 675 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest Joel - 05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM 626 Views
Fascinating. Legolas - 05/03/2012 10:52:32 PM 655 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... Macharius - 08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM 625 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited. Joel - 02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM 772 Views
Most states are ignored anyway wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM 850 Views
Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves. Joel - 03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM 697 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM* callandor1000 - 05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM 366 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore? beetnemesis - 01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM 614 Views
Nothing has shut him up yet, why should this? *NM* Dannymac - 01/03/2012 05:27:30 PM 349 Views
Maybe he'll pull a Palin and go touring around the country *NM* beetnemesis - 01/03/2012 07:06:02 PM 319 Views
No, it probably means we will get more and worse than ever. Joel - 01/03/2012 11:25:25 PM 794 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM* Hieshyn - 02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM 440 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other. Joel - 02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM 596 Views
Couldn't agree more *NM* Hieshyn - 02/03/2012 06:52:51 PM 358 Views
It reminds me of when Denver backed into the NFL playoffs. Joel - 02/03/2012 09:36:13 PM 584 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM 589 Views
Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.) Joel - 03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM 608 Views
Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates. Joel - 02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM 699 Views
Romney is damaged wadsy - 02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM 607 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again. Joel - 03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM 711 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter Isaac - 03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM 596 Views
You should put that on your license plates. Joel - 03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM 720 Views
Re: You should put that on your license plates. Isaac - 03/03/2012 06:51:00 AM 665 Views
Ax murderers are people, too! Joel - 04/03/2012 08:23:41 PM 616 Views
And what are you basing all of this on? wadsy - 03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM 707 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors. Joel - 03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM 659 Views
Wrong wadsy - 04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM 782 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect. Joel - 04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM 819 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you wadsy - 05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM 724 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact. Joel - 07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM 561 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all? wadsy - 07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM 721 Views
I hate this message board wadsy - 07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM 516 Views
It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back? Legolas - 07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM 632 Views
Some, though it is far from exhaustive. Joel - 08/03/2012 02:29:06 PM 700 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes