Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2010, 01:59 PM
 
Location: South Fla
9,644 posts, read 9,846,025 times
Reputation: 1942

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Of course this is all off Rasmussen polls, other pollsters have showed different results in some of these race. This article also including match ups against candidates who haven't even signaled any intention of running (Pataki)

How close was Rasmussen with Obama and McCain in their final polling
Final results

Obama 52.9
McCain 45.6

Rasmussen results

Obama 52
McCain 46

Yeah lets not listen to Rasmussen they dont have a clue what they are talking about
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2010, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadex View Post
How close was Rasmussen with Obama and McCain in their final polling
Final results

Obama 52.9
McCain 45.6

Rasmussen results

Obama 52
McCain 46

Yeah lets not listen to Rasmussen they dont have a clue what they are talking about
Rasmussen is decent when they are in close to an election, however the fact they are no where near any other pollster is telling, especially since these other pollsters were also very strong in 2008. I think part of the reason Rasmussen is far away from everyone else is the likely voter scenario. Its all well and good to use a likely voter screen in close to an election, but when you are this far out, getting an accurate likely voter model is basically impossible. The other issue is the article itself, and how it makes it seem like all of the match ups they have are certain to take place, and the GOP candidates they have are certain. For example Hoeven in North Dakota, the article makes it seem like he is running. At this point we do not know if he will run or not, so the article should state that.

Pataki here in NY for one, all indications are that Pataki is NOT going to run, so why include him?? The latest news here in NY is Congressman Peter King (who is my Rep btw) is thinking about getting back into the race, he is getting destroyed in every poll. Why doesn't the Times article refer to King??? Especially considering while he might not run, his chances of running are far greater than Pataki....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Inland Empire, Calif
2,884 posts, read 5,641,468 times
Reputation: 2803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61 View Post
Do you bother to read the boards before you start new threads?

Also, love how you just slap a link up without bothering to put any of your own commentary with it.

And also love that the link is to the Moonie Times.

jill, you are so coool.! you have me captivated... I love you so, but you are so misinformed.... we need to talk, I can help you.. no need to suffer like you do...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Massachusetts
142 posts, read 358,321 times
Reputation: 113
The truth is .. more Republicans have announced retirements than Democrats.

In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are "dropping like flies"?

In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?

Among governors, several incumbents in both parties are term-limited and prevented from running again, but only three Democrats who can seek re-election -- Parkinson in Kansas, Doyle in Wisconsin, and Ritter in Colorado -- have chosen not to. For Republicans, the number is four -- Douglas in Vermont, Rell in Connecticut, Crist in Florida, and Pawlenty in Minnesota. (Update: the GOP number is five if we include Palin in Alaska.)

So, to review, Republican retirements outnumber Democratic retirements in the House, in the Senate, and among governors. The preferred Republican/media meme of the day doesn't match up well against reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
My God, they're falling like flies!

The writing is on the wall for Democrats.

Will liberals finally admit they screwed up with this over-reaching Agenda they've been pushing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:04 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 5,861,291 times
Reputation: 967
Why is it that all the Dems who know they won't be re-elected because of the stealth care they are cramming down our throats have decided not to seek another term?? Do they know they don't stand a chance at being re-elected? I guess they are finally doing something smart that will be good for the country!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
Dodd was and always will be a loser. Throw him under the bus. Great way to keep Schiff from getting the nomination, considering that his replacement will have a clean slate to work with and CT voters will want a "sure bet" rather than a long shot. Dodd staying on would've been the best bet for CT voters.
Schiff never had a chance in hell of getting the nomination anyway. Simmons is the clear favorite followed by McMahon. If anything this might give a Schiff a better chance of the nomination, as its possible Simmons and McMahon will bow out. Of course the reason being no Republican has a chance in hell of even coming remotely close now that Blumenthal has entered the race.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okiegirlfriend View Post
Why is it that all the Dems who know they won't be re-elected because of the stealth care they are cramming down our throats have decided not to seek another term?? Do they know they don't stand a chance at being re-elected? I guess they are finally doing something smart that will be good for the country!
Why does this have to be repeated over and over again?? More Republicans are retiring than Democrats..... Why is this so hard to grasp???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777 View Post
As the Pendulum swings..........................................
Nothing changes.... The GOP now has a good chance of picking up ND, but they no longer have a decent chance of picking up CT. In fact the chances of the GOP picking up CT is ZERO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:30 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,624,265 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Why does this have to be repeated over and over again?? More Republicans are retiring than Democrats..... Why is this so hard to grasp???
Because who they have coming in, are the for sure vote. Another Republican, is leading the polls by long shots in those districts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Because who they have coming in, are the for sure vote. Another Republican, is leading the polls by long shots in those districts.
Some of them? Yes, but not all of them. In fact taking a look at the districts that Republicans are stepping down in that aren't GOP leaning or solid districts is pretty much even with Dems stepping down that aren't in Dem leaning are solid districts. In fact looking at the Senate, the GOP has several more Senators retiring from states that are marginal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top