Au Contraire... You have quoted FNC many times to make a point..

So, apparently, you agree with FNC at least SOME of the time..

I am just curious why you think FNC is wrong about Obama not sending aid to Benghazi..

Especially in light of the fact that you disputed FNC's contention that there was no protest going on.. You were wrong then..

Why do you think you are right now??

Michale

So, apparently, you think Fox is correct some of the time..

Why are they wrong here???

Michale.....

Yea..... You said the same thing when Fox News reported that they had intelligence that there was NO protest..

Fox News was right then... They're right now...

No matter how you try to spin it, Obama scrooed the pooch by letting our fellow Americans die w/o lifting a finger...

Michale.....

Yes, shockingly, the Fox News headline does not look good for Obama lol.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AV58j9Kp

Yep, it's not looking good for Team Obama....

Michale.....

WHY did Obama decide not to send assistance into Benghazi that would have saved lives???

This is the question that Americans will be taking into the voting booth with them in 10 days...

Michale

The problem is Democrats see Republicans as inherently evil and that they (Democrats) are the saviors of the Republic...

In other words, DEMOCRATS think they are god's chosen ones...

Of course, Republicans see themselves the same way...

The fact is that BOTH Partys are corrupt and have only THEIR best interests at heart, instead of the best interest of the country...

The idea that one Party is "gooder" than the other is laughable and has absolutely NO SUPPORTING evidence whatsoever...

Michale......

I think the first time I heard the phrase "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" it was uttered in relation to a Democrat losing an election he should have won.

Misunderestimating, indeed. Sigh.

-CW

It will almost certainly be possible in 2014, though, and probably several more off-year elections beyond.

Let's see, the annual death rate for age 65 is 1.7%, and for age 51 is 0.5%. There are 52 days left until the electors meet. So, assuming electors can't vote for someone who's already dead, a rough estimate would be 52/365 * 0.005 * 0.017 = 1.2 * 10^(-5).

How about:
OH: O 50% R 46%
CO: O 47% R 46%
IA: O 50% R 46%
NH: O 49% R 46%

Cherry picking polls is fun.

In all seriousness, it looks like the only 2 battlegrounds Romney is ahead in are NC and FL just now. That must be pretty worrying for him...

This era of unipolar politics and Zeno's compromise can't go on forever, can it? The Republican Party can't keep getting more and more extreme, more and more anti-intellectual, more and more dependent on a narrow demographic base, can it? Don't they eventually run out of farther-right to go? Won't the Democratic party eventually get tired of following them, and draw the line somewhere?

FL: R 51% O 46%...

R 51% O 46%...

R 50% O 47%...

R 49% O 48%...

No one worried yet??? :D

Bullshit...... :D

Michale.....

I like to tweak the noses of the Hysterical Left/Bush Lied crowd... But it's obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Obama doesn't have a passing association with the facts...

But what is REALLY damning, what Obama (and ya'all) simply CANNOT defend is that Obama et al watched the attack in REAL time and did not send help...

THAT is simply unforgivable....

Michale......

Noonan is not always right...

But when she is, she is devastating....

Michale.....

This 1000%. I see people looking at 1 poll or 1 site and panicking/celebrating. The reality is that there is so much variance in polling and any methods of determining an election that 1 source is laughable.

This is why I think Intrade is (even today) still overpricing Romney. The people there, who don't understand polling, are putting far too much value on the national polls (or too much value on RCP and missing the polls that RCP ignores). 36.4% is still too high for Romney as things stand, 25% is probably more accurate...

From an analytical standpoint, the lack of viable state markets on Intrade and similar outfits seems mostly rational...but I have to do make some adjustments for analytical purposes. NY traded at .5 for quite a while, on the basis of a few shares plunked down by some poor soul. For modeling purposes, I just give the tiny markets a 1 or 0 based on conventional wisdom.

"Nate posted a very good article on why campaigns might consider manipulating Intrade."

Yes, but he was focused on manipulation for momentary gain, that is, betting with an expectation of making more money, on average, than you lose.

If you trade on Intrade for the purposes of its value as a form advertising, then you can accept your losses as a cost of doing business. Other investors will make money from you, but you really don't care who cashes the checks if you believe you are getting the value you are paying for.

The market will chase you down, and your costs will probably rise, so the longer you play this gambit, the more expensive it becomes. Still, it seems cheap compared to TV time, and might focus well on a relatively sophisticated target audience with some powerful connections and clout.

Timing would be important, and frankly the Intrade bomb, coming just as the Romney momentum seems to have actually stalled, was noticed in Democratic circles and likely contributed to the general Dem panic of a few days back. It got my attention, believe you me.

Moral of the story, never focus too long on any one metric...it's like staring at the sun, it'll fry your vision.

Michale,
Looks like I stand to make a fortune with my Intrade investment.

I hope you didn't invest too much!

Did you really make investments? I finally jumped into Intrade this week (after all 3 debates) and put in about $1.6k. I sold Romney shares at $4.10 (so 41%). Also bought shares in Demo Pres + Demo Senate + Repub House for $5.49 (so 54.9%). Both of those deals are now worth $64 in profit if I were to cash out today (both up around $3 per share)... I am certainly not as I think I got good prices (the latter trade being much closer).

Stig
Intrade is currently low end outlier trending 3:2.

Intrade is amazing, Romney was so over-priced for days although he is falling back down closer to more 'realistic' odds now... Because it is human priced, you can get some great prices. It would be like playing chess against a human (Intrade) as opposed to a computer (most other gambling sites)...

Usually the sum is pretty close to one, but lately the sum is seem substantially higher, especially at Intrade. One or both sides is too optimistic. I haven't done a formal analysis to see if the trend is real, but could this be another sign of deliberate manipulation?

Intrade has a market on 'anyone other than the two main party candidates to win'. It is currently at 0.1% which is pretty insane that anyone would bet anything on this! The problem is to short-sell it you have to put enough money aside to pay off your winnings. So to make $100 you'd have to hold up $100k of your money!! I think you'd probably get better interest just leaving your money in a bank account for 10 days!

Thanx for the advice, Michty...

Not only is Romney looking more and more assured, but I made a bundle.. :D

Michale.....

Basically not much change since the 15th, Blue crosses the line to a victory, Red doesn't. Situation looks like early summer.

Ohio and Iowa still lean pretty strongly to Obama, roughly 70% chance of a win, or better, in each state. In many meta polls with Strong, Lean and Tossup bins, this is close enough to cause them to burble between categories, but this seems mostly noise to me. Noise that can be disconcerting when you check the news with your coffee.

Tracking my six offshore "prediction markets" has been interesting this week. Obama fell quite a bit off on average, but he positively tanked at Intrade. At one point I saw Obama briefly hit the low 50% range. There was one large trade that strongly affected the market, which was noted/speculated upon by Nate Silver, Sam Wang and others, as possible market manipulation.

I've hypothesized that spiking a prominent market, like Intrade, could be a cost effective form of persuasive advertising directed at a relatively sophisticated and influential market. Creating a sustained bump would be expensive, but a short spike, no. Think pundit manipulation...and close to the end of the campaign. It's hard for me to believe somebody out there in politico land hasn't tried this.

Anyhow, most of those actually willing to give odds are still giving Obama the advantage at roughly 2:1 to 3:1. Sam Wang is my high end outlier with 9:1 odds, Intrade is currently low end outlier trending 3:2.

Here's a wonkish little nugget. The prediction markets always run paired markets: one for Obama victory, one for Romney victory. In theory, the sum off of the two victory probabilities should equal 1.0, it's a zero sum game. Usually the sum is pretty close to one, but lately the sum is seem substantially higher, especially at Intrade. One or both sides is too optimistic. I haven't done a formal analysis to see if the trend is real, but could this be another sign of deliberate manipulation?

A good pollster will produce all 3 types of polls. So when a Democratic leaning pollster (eg. PPP) shows a 'good' Romney poll then this is just a sign that they are a normal pollster with normal type 1-3 polls.

The point most people miss is that type 1 or 2 could be a 'tied' poll. So lets say you have O+2, O+5, Tied. Then this stretch of polls indicates that Tied is type (1), O+5 type (2) and O+2 type (3). This race is almost certainly not tied. There can be pretty big variances (deviations) due to the margins of error used. So you could see a Tied, R+4, O+2 type scenario which would indicate something close to a R+0-1 overall margin (where the national polls are today).

Where you should be really worried is where 1 pollster is extremely consistent in only showing 1 type of poll (cough Rasmussen) with very consistent results. This indicates that, since their polls do not show normal variance or deviation, they are highly skewed towards one candidate. Polls, by their very nature given their margin of error, should not be extremely consistent - this is the first indication of polls being fudged.

I just asked, and that's precisely the reasoning my gut used.

:-)

-CW

Tonight, I promise!

-CW

Since I watch one other polling question, check out RCP's average for Obama's approval rating. He got a significant bump out of the third debate, here.

As for media and data, my rule of thumb is to try to at least be consistent inside of the same article. I'm more partial to saying "data are" than "media are" but I try to use the correct terms when I have enough time for good editing.

-CW

Substitutions are allowed right up until midnight, right before Election Day.

-CW

This is true but consider the following:
- Romney has not held a lead in a single poll from Nevada since April... of 2011. No, I am not exaggerating, check out RCP!
- Of the 50-100 or so Wisconsin polls performed, only 3 have shown Romney leading at all. 2 of these were right after the Ryan announcement; 2 of these were also Rasmussen.

The nature of polling margins of error are such that if a race truly is close you will see polls on either side, even as high as +3 for each. This is why averaging polls, like the RCP average works. If a race is really at 0% it would not be surprising to see +3%, +2% or +1% polls; but if every single poll is leaning one way, even if marginally, then the real standing for that race is towards this candidate.

So, having said this, I think you have it backwards and that Wisconsin and Nevada are more in the bag than Ohio. These 2 would put Obama on 253 EV which means he can win with Ohio or any other combination of the remaining battlegrounds that gets him 17 EV (eg. IA + CO + NH, VA + another, OH). It obviously goes without saying that if Romney loses Florida the election is over...

ohio goes without saying. but i disagree with CW on Wisconsin and Nevada - although the obama polling lead has withstood romney's post-debate bounce, they're notoriously unpredictable, so in my view romney still has a solid chance in both.

~joshua

For the sake of the Republic, we have to hope "not so much."

Yeh but the race was close (and under-polled) so this is likely (as in Missouri) to tip it Democrat. Especially when the Republican Presidential candidate has to release a nation-wide statement distancing them from your comments. At the rate tea-party-nut-jobs are throwing away Senate seats Democrats might actually expand their Senate majority...

I've noticed that CBS is usually the first of the Big Three to be shamed (by Fox) into covering an Obama-unflattering story. So the other two will have to start falling into line soon.

What, you think they don't know they have a Taliban candidate? You think they care?

But, since, e.g., the latest NBC/WSJ poll yesterday had the presidential race deadlocked 47-47 among likely voters, but gave Obama a comfortable 49-44 lead among registered voters., it's really time to start focusing on the ground games on both side: early voting, suppression / anti-suppression, canvassing. For that, for both side, the closer the media keep the race, the better.

Re: the European Union, michty6, I sense we can have a decent (if tedious to others) debate on the EU. For me, it is a major US economic security issue. But now's not the time; maybe in a couple weeks.

Grammatical off-topic. Originally, I wrote "the media keeps the race..." Media, like data, is a ninja plural; nobody would write "the mediums keeps the race..." Nobody should write the "the data is wrong," and nobody would write "the datums is wrong."

But we're close to making media and data both de facto singulars. And, know what? I'm not sure we shouldn't, given the context in which they is both used.

http://rt.com/usa/news/third-party-debate-us-election-094/

There-in lies the problem for Romney in the Electoral College. With Obama's safe + likely at 237 with PA and MI (neither campaign is spending a penny there, which tells you all you need to know about how 'close' they are) Obama can win with Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio - all of which he currently has around a 2-3 point lead. And this 2-3 point lead is down from 6+ point leads he had before the 1st debate. So even with his abnormal 1st debate bounce Romney could not turn these into his column. This it is still Obama's election to lose.

This election will almost certainly be about Ohio. And post debate 1, of the 19 Ohio polls Romney has led in only 3 (all 3 right leaning pollsters of course) and even then only by 1 point. Obama has led in 16/19 polls which indicates a very clear lead there.

Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated

I have to admit to more than a little surprise that CBS would air this story..

Maybe Obama's press honeymoon is FINALLY over....

Michale.....

“The debates — especially the first one — destroyed the Obama crew’s strategy of disqualification,” said Republican pollster Mike McKenna. “Six months of work and $400 million of ad buys went up in smoke in about 10 days. With less than 340 hours to go, they are having real trouble with their footing.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/23/debates-deliver-favorability-edge-romney/#ixzz2AD2mxpsE

Almost a half a BILLION dollars worth of negative ads by Team Obama...

And Romney rendered them moot in less than two hours...

Now THAT'S what I call 'leadership'... :D

Michale.....

This is a follow-up to CB's story in the previous commentary...

Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/?tag=AverageMixRelated

This is going to sink Obama.. His re-election chances just fell to ZERO...

Zilch.... Nada..... None.....

Liz,

I fully expect to be pleasantly surprised by the lopsided outcome of this election.

You will be, I guarantee.. :D Romney's gonna win by a landslide...

"YOU DID IT KID!!! YOU WON BY A LANDSLIDE!!!"
-Phil, HERCULES

:D

Michale......

I really like your bottom line!

Now, THAT's what I call a case of classic serendipity!

Did you play with the pollsters like I think many Americans are doing which is the only way I can explain what's been happening with the polls ...?

I fully expect to be pleasantly surprised by the lopsided outcome of this election. Still a cockeyed optimist, despite everything.

Today will be a somewhat-abbreviated column, due to staying up late with debate night (and baseball) excitement last night.

What!? Don't tell me you were in the Eastern time zone again! :)