<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 24 2008, 10:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look at posts 22 and 23. It was YOU who was using the Rasmussen electoral prediction. I pointed out that Ohio isn't actually leaning Democrat, as McCain is ahead in the polls. At most, it's a tossup. I stand by what I wrote. It comes down to three states: PA, OH, and FLA, and the winner of 2 of those 3 wins the election. That's because I am counting the electoral votes and looking at the individual state polls. BTW, Obama has only a slight lead in Iowa. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Leans Democratic: Iowa (7), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), and Wisconsin (10)</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows Democrats with a 284 to 229 lead in the Electoral College.</div> There are 535 electoral votes (one per senator, one per congressman) and another 5 or so for places like Guam and Puerto Rico. 271 votes are needed. 284+229 is not enough electoral votes, because they're not counting the tossups. Subtract OH 20 from the Dems and they have 264. And that IS how it would end up on election night if OH goes for McCain. </div> And I used that information because i felt your own source was not backing up your statements. "This Calculator provides a daily update of Electoral College projections by aggregating data from a variety of sources including the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in a state (not just there polls), an average of the latest polling from other firms, Rasmussen Markets data, Intrade market data, analyst ratings and more."
"Rasmussen Markets data, Intrade market data" - these are games, not polls. People in New York and California are influencing how Florida leans, when it should only be determined by polls of florida voters (which I'm pointing out over and over). McCain is up in Wisconson, too, which "leans Democrat" because of the Markets data. The Markets data shouldn't influence the predictions, get it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 24 2008, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>"Rasmussen Markets data, Intrade market data" - these are games, not polls. People in New York and California are influencing how Florida leans, when it should only be determined by polls of florida voters (which I'm pointing out over and over). McCain is up in Wisconson, too, which "leans Democrat" because of the Markets data. The Markets data shouldn't influence the predictions, get it?</div> But it's not just market data is it? Why is Rasmussen the best anyway? I'm curious. "an average of the latest polling from other firms"
Rasmussen uses recordings and automatic calling systems to poll people. They can truly randomize the order questions are asked, and the recorded questions don't likely influence people like a partisan pollster/caller might. Rasmussen has been remarkably accurate the last 3 election cycles. If they weren't accurate, I'd be looking at some other pollster's site. I used to look at Zogby's site, as he was accurate in 2000 - but he's not been very accurate since. EDIT: Also, I'm looking for polling data FOR Florida, FOR Ohio, FOR PA, FOR Minnesota, and so on. Rasmussen has those polls on his site. That's the only way you can get the current sense of how the electoral college is going to go.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (L @ Feb 24 2008, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>My head hurts from the previous couple of posts.</div> Seconded. I try to follow these threads, but man it gets confusing at times.
I'll try to simplify it. 270 electoral votes are needed. You look at the individual state polls to see who's ahead and score that state's electoral for the guy in front. Add 'em up and see if one gets the 270.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 24 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Rasmussen uses recordings and automatic calling systems to poll people. They can truly randomize the order questions are asked, and the recorded questions don't likely influence people like a partisan pollster/caller might. Rasmussen has been remarkably accurate the last 3 election cycles. If they weren't accurate, I'd be looking at some other pollster's site. I used to look at Zogby's site, as he was accurate in 2000 - but he's not been very accurate since. EDIT: Also, I'm looking for polling data FOR Florida, FOR Ohio, FOR PA, FOR Minnesota, and so on. Rasmussen has those polls on his site. That's the only way you can get the current sense of how the electoral college is going to go.</div> Denny based on my analysis, I would conclude that it's a dead heat. I've seen recent polls online/tv/etc. be accurate. I would not use a single source to determine anything. And yes, part of the calculator is that market garbage you spoke of, but not all of it. Once it is pointed out that McCain lied and the like, I could easily see him losing ground (since his surge seems to be due to the NY times article, correct?). It's just too close to call. Republicans not going out to vote is another intangible since I can't mention enough how they're getting whooped in the primaries. Even you did not seem to fully account for that. Most intangibles seem dead against you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 24 2008, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama distorting Hillary's record? Lol you can't be serious. With her universal health care, the cost for young people to get insured would sky rocket, not even including the subsidizing they already do for old people. That's laughable, if anything her comments have been distorting. He "leaves out" 15 million. Both their plans have the same goal, they just go about it in different fashions.</div> I'm sorry I should've been much clearer. I was implying that Hillary has stated that Obama misrepresented her comments. And not that he in fact DID misrepresent her comments.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Feb 24 2008, 11:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 24 2008, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama distorting Hillary's record? Lol you can't be serious. With her universal health care, the cost for young people to get insured would sky rocket, not even including the subsidizing they already do for old people. That's laughable, if anything her comments have been distorting. He "leaves out" 15 million. Both their plans have the same goal, they just go about it in different fashions.</div> I'm sorry I should've been much clearer. I was implying that Hillary has stated that Obama misrepresented her comments. And not that he in fact DID misrepresent her comments. </div> The pejorative effect should be negligible Real, due to this being a bit late in the game to make a comeback.
I read all the posts, but there's just so many numbers being thrown around I don't know what to say. But yeah, one thing about healthcare -- mandating health care would cause the amount of providers to go up, therefore making more competition and causing the price to lower. It's the essence of capitalism and a free market. Making health care universal will cause the American taxpayers to save $77 billion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (adisodes @ Feb 25 2008, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I read all the posts, but there's just so many numbers being thrown around I don't know what to say. But yeah, one thing about healthcare -- mandating health care would cause the amount of providers to go up, therefore making more competition and causing the price to lower. It's the essence of capitalism and a free market. Making health care universal will cause the American taxpayers to save $77 billion.</div> Hillary's plan has it's benefits of course, but it's the subtle differences like what I alluded to that make her plan not as efficient. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Newsweek: Clinton's Plan "Would Do Nearly As Well" As Obama's In Per Family Savings, But Not Quite. Newsweek reported, "For instance, the mailer says Obama's plan will save the average family $2,500 per year. That estimate comes from several Harvard professors who examined the plan at the Obama campaign's request. But Clinton says the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, estimates her plan would do nearly as well, saving about $2,200 per year per family." [Newsweek, 2/4/08] Reich: Obama's Health Care Plan Would Cover "More People" Than Hillary's. "I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help ?€“ including all children and young adults up to 25 years old?€?In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people." [Robert Reich,formerly of Bill Clinton's cabinet 12/3/07] Obama Health Care Plan Saves $2500 For the Typical Family. A memo from David Blumenthal, David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman analyzing Obama's health care plan, wrote, "Combining all of these effects ?€“ from improved health IT, better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care -- under our 'best-guess' assumptions, we estimate that businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums. The typical family will save $2500 per year."</div> http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/secon...ealth-care-plan I think it's quite fair to bring up bad aspects of Hillary's plan. Even more so if she continues this "15 million people" verbal flourish. The mailer was sent out because the bitch kept attacking him, it would seem only just for him to retort and let the great American people decide.
For your entertainment: <div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EdDzvmY1XPo&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EdDzvmY1XPo&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div> You don't have to pay attention to any of the Republican bashing, just how misleading Billary/Hillary/it has been throughout this election.
Some sources have now stated that Obama raised over 50 million dollars in February, Compared to Hillary's 35.
obama has this locked and loaded, hilary just quit, your last crying act killed whatever little chance you had
Obama's average margin of victory has increased over half a percentage point in a couple of days. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html
