Rasmussen explains
Rasmussen Reports, the prolific automated pollster whose projections fell far from the mark Tuesday, explains what went wrong:
Our final daily presidential tracking poll showed Romney at 49% and Obama at 48%. Instead, the president got 50% of the vote and Romney 48%. We were disappointed that our final results were not as close to the final result as they had been in preceding elections. There was a similar pattern in the state polls. For example, in Ohio we projected a tie at 49% but the president reached 50% of the vote and the challenger got just 48%. Although every individual result in the battleground states was within the margin of error, the numbers we projected were consistently a bit more favorable for Romney than the actual results.
A preliminary review indicates that one reason for this is that we underestimated the minority share of the electorate. In 2008, 26% of voters were non-white. We expected that to remain relatively constant. However, in 2012, 28% of voters were non-white. That was exactly the share projected by the Obama campaign. It is not clear at the moment whether minority turnout increased nationally, white turnout decreased, or if it was a combination of both. The increase in minority turnout has a significant impact on the final projections since Romney won nearly 60% of white votes while Obama won an even larger share of the minority vote.
Another factor may be related to the generation gap. It is interesting to note that the share of seniors who showed up to vote was down slightly from 2008 while the number of young voters was up slightly. Pre-election data suggested that voters over 65 were more enthusiastic about voting than they had been four years earlier so the decline bears further examination.
As mea culpas go, this one is a little thin. While Rasmussen wasn't alone in misreading the composition of the 2012 electorate and it's true that all the firm's battleground state polls were within the 4-point margin of error, there are a few clunkers in there. In Wisconsin, for example, Rasmussen was the only public pollster reporting a 49-49 tie -- in the final two weeks, the five other pollsters in the field there pegged Obama's lead between 3 and 9 percentage points. The actual result was a 53-46 Obama win.
Colorado was similarly errant. In the final round of polls, Rasmussen was the one reporting the biggest Romney lead -- 50-47 – but the outcome was 51-46 Obama.
Rasmussen got a few states right – placing Obama in the lead in Nevada and New Hampshire and Romney ahead in North Carolina – but simply getting the winner correct in 3 of 9 battleground states isn't going to win over the many detractors who regularly dismiss the firm's polls for their often overly rosy GOP predictions.
Here is Dick Morris, Fox News commentator and one of several conservative pundits who predicted a landslide for Romney, basically admitting that he was simply trying to psych up a dispirited Republican base of Romney supporters with his forecast. Another evidence that Fox News right wing predictions, statistics, and "realities" are not mistakes but strategic, deliberate efforts go against objective poll numbers in order to pump up a Republican base/audience unsold on Romney's electoral viability.Dick Morris Admits That He Is A Partisan Hack
FOLLOW:When last we left Dick Morris, he was pretending to pen a mea culpa about how he had gotten his ornate prediction of a Mitt Romney landslide wrong. Today, we pick up that story anew, with Morris essentially admitting that he is huge partisan hack, and that both his prediction of a Romney landslide and the ensuing mea culpa in which he tried, in fits and starts, to reckon with the reality into which his prediction collided, were both examples of election-year cruft that should be hurled down the garbage disposal.
Here's Morris explaining to Sean Hannity why he predicted a gigantic Romney win in the face of all evidence to the contrary:
Sean, I hope people aren't mad at me about it … I spoke about what I believed and I think that there was a period of time when the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was a chance of victory and I felt that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said. And at the time that I said it, I believe I was right.Right, so keep in mind that Morris' prediction is not a part of the "Romney campaign was completely blindsided by the facts" genre of post-election recriminations. Rather, the idea here is that Morris perceived that the Romney campaign was hitting a particularly rough patch, in terms of pessimism, and so he went out like a good soldier and tried to stoke a little positivity by publicly proclaiming that Romney was going to run roughshod over Obama on election night. This isn't entirely stupid -- at the time, there was reason to believe that the Romney campaign writ large was playing the traditional "bluffer's game" in the campaign's final weeks, on the theory that lots of undecided voters simply want to align themselves with campaigns that are winning. But the trick to bluffing is to make your bluff seem plausible, and not, say ...predict that Oregon and New Jersey are on the verge of turning into red states.
I suppose one can see where Morris got the idea that a crazily optimistic prediction would help Romney by looking at the way The New York Times' Nate Silver was constantly being characterized as the guy who liberals turned to to bolster their spirits. Silver may have been a source of totemic reassurance for Democrats during the campaign season, but this is still a broad misconception of what Silver actually does: he works with data to rationalize outcomes and their probabilities, as opposed to working backwards from a desired outcome to cherrypick data that supports it. It's possible that this won't be clear to everybody until Silver gets to work a presidential election in which the GOP contender is much stronger than the Democrat, and we find out that he doesn't actually dress up the math to make liberals feel good about things.
Obviously, Morris' admission raises some interesting questions. For instance, if the whole point of his prediction was to provide strategic assistance to Romney, then why did he bother to write a post-election column about what he got wrong and why? But more importantly: do we actually live in a world where more than five human beings derive a sense of optimism about the future based upon the things that Dick Morris says? Because that is potentially sad and/or terrifying.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Anunoby, Ogugua <AnunobyO@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
--U.S. elections have implications for Africa and Africans too. Many forum participants of African descent live in the U.S. They are citizens of the U.S. They pay taxes here. They have and raise their children here. They cannot rightly be oblivious of political events here. Does anyone know of the number of African-Africans maimed or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Does anyone want another war of choice? Does anyone want their child/children sent to such wars? Elections have consequences.
It is not for Obama or indeed any foreign leader or people to advance human development in Africa. They may support it but Africa and Africans must lead the effort. I dare to suggest that the lead in advancing human development in Africa is best done by Africans living and working in Africa. The most Africans living outside Africa can do is support such leadership with ideas and material resources. China and India are present day examples. China is a powerhouse economy of the world today. China's political leadership started China's economic transition a few decades ago. Expatriate Chinese supported them with ideas and material resources. The rest is history.
Then again symbols are important. Obama is arguably the most admired national leader in the world today. There are those who believe that he is a gift to today's world. African-Americans should rightly be proud of him.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John MBAKU
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:53 AM
To: alukome@gmail.com; usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
Dear M. Aluko:
You will agree that there has been significant bashing of President Obama on this forum of late. My view is that such is not constructive dialogue, not of the type that would advance human development in Africa. Yes, the re-election of the President has significant implications for Africa and Africans. Nevertheless, what are we, Africa's best and brightest, doing to harness the opportunities made possible by that re-election to enhance constructive change in the continent?
So far, on this forum, I have not seen such a positive step. Perhaps, I am wrong.
Stay well.JOHN MUKUM MBAKU, ESQ.
J.D. (Law), Ph.D. (Economics)
Graduate Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Attorney & Counselor at Law (Licensed in Utah)
Presidential Distinguished Professor of Economics & Willard L. Eccles Professor of Economics and John S. Hinckley Fellow
Department of Economics
Weber State University
3807 University Circle
Ogden, UT 84408-3807, USA
(801) 626-7442 Phone
(801) 626-7423 Fax
>>> Mobolaji Aluko 11/13/12 3:51 AM >>>
John Mbaku:
It is NOT an obsession with the Obama Administration, even though it looks to you that way. I may even look guilty! :-)
But this listserve is called USAAfricaDialogue, and a very significant matter that has just been completed within the past week - after many months of pulsating political theater - is the (re)election of a President (who happens to be African-American) of one-half of that listserve's name (USA) by (mainly) African scholars and other types. These individuals have at the back of their minds the impact of that re-election on Africans (both Continental and American) in America and in Africa.
What we need to remember is that the USA is more than the presidency, and Africa more than its leadership, and expand the dialogue to be among the PEOPLES of the USA and Africa, for the dialogue to impact their health and wealth. That should be the main purpose of our listserve.
And there you have it.
Bolaji Aluko
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:18 PM, John MBAKU <jmbaku@weber.edu> wrote:
This obsession with the Obama administration is not healthy for us. This is not constructive engagement at all. At a time when Africa badly needs our united efforts, we are here squandering our time, efforts, and intellectual capital on things we cannot change. Assume that a black person is appointed the next CIA director. How will that advance the struggle for human development in the continent?
JOHN MUKUM MBAKU, ESQ.
J.D. (Law), Ph.D. (Economics)
Graduate Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resources Law
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Attorney & Counselor at Law (Licensed in Utah)
Presidential Distinguished Professor of Economics & Willard L. Eccles Professor of Economics and John S. Hinckley Fellow
Department of Economics
Weber State University
3807 University Circle
Ogden, UT 84408-3807, USA
(801) 626-7442 Phone
(801) 626-7423 Fax
>>> "Anunoby, Ogugua" 11/12/12 2:15 PM >>>Whose list is in issue? I do not know that it is Obama?s list. Why one of ?our people? for the job of CIA director? Is there anyone who believes that the position has been filled? Is that all Obama has to do to dilute the vitriol poured on him by some? He is not even into his second term yet? One would have thought that a few appropriate lessons should have been learned after the events of the last week. Lord have mercy. Give the man a chance.
oa
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abdul Bangura
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:04 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com; usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
Mwalimu Wassa Fatti, why wait for four years? Just look at his list for CIA chief replacement and tell me if anything has changed as far as marginalizing our people. The guy is NO good for us, period!
----- Original Message -----
From: Wassa Fatti
Sent: 11/11/2012 8:57:05 AM
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
Bro. Kwaku,
We must not be harsh on Bangura at this stage. He is not alone in wishing Obama bad luck. Many of my African Americans friends could not hide their anger and frustration towards Obama in turning out to be a more refined stooge than Bill Clinton More dangerous than George Bush. They can not understand why Obama is being celebrated in Africa.
Let us wait for the next four years to assess Bangura in relations to the performance and actions of Obama. Just check few key areas for the next four years: a) Israel will take over more Palestinian lands with impunity; b) there will be more sanctions against Iran, which has already started; c) there will more US military presence, more military bases and secret service (CIA) activities in Africa; d) the US may attack another third world country to impose US will; e) More Pakistani villages will be bombed and villagers killed; f) there will be more drone attacks in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
For the worst part: Iran may be attacked, which I doubt. North Africa may finally cut off from the rest of Africa and be part of the Middle East or the European Union. This will open the rest of the continent for recolonization to control natural resources in defiance of China. The process has already started in the Arab world discreetly and in Africa the land grabbing and the increase in poverty is something to pay attention to. The US imperialism will become more aggressive and Africans will pay price for that. The fear that China will become the world's biggest economy in few years time is a nightmare to the West. Do we know what they are working on secretly? We should therefore sense why an African, Obama, is needed by co-perate America to lead the "free world" at this time. The continent is being looted so aggressively that African governments do not even know how natural resources in their countries are leaving their shores. Gaddafi was one leader who was in control of his country. Obama's true colour will come to light in this process and Bangura can be judged. We are part of a continent that has no leader, but "yes sir men and a woman". The calibres of Nkrumah, Lumumba, Biko, Toure, Nzinga, Asante-wa, Malcolm X are no more and we are not producing them or the type of natural resource nationalists Latin America is producing.
Wassa
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
From: dehasnem@uic.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:25:08 +0000
Wassa
Believe me that I am also disappointed in some of the president's actions and inactions. Elections present choices and I happen to prefer the president to the alternative.
Kwaku
Chicago.Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: Wassa Fatti <wassafatti@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:19:11 +0000
ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
Bro. Mensah,
Mr. Bangura is angry about the USA's role in Libya. He was right to wish for Obama's demise. I wished for the same thing anyway; but not at the door of Romney. Whatever the case, I do not like Obama. SIMPLE!
From: dehasnem@uic.edu
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:45:22 -0600
Hi All,
In my view we should sentence Alhaji Bangura to read all columns written by Nate Silver. That will be the equivalence of being sent to a re-education camp to retool his intellect towards rational reasoning. He is a well- accomplished scholar in all respects. But why was he so wrong for so long? His hatred and disappointment in Barack clouded his rational thinking faculty. Most people on this forum were also disappointed in some of the president?s decisions, indecisions, and occasional timidity. But we could look at the bigger picture and decide that the alternative was worse for all progressives. Bangura needs to be re-educated to differentiate between blatant falsehood and scientific polling. Nate Silver will do the trick, if some of us are to be saved from having nightmares like Emeritus Professor Assensoh just experienced.
Kwaku
Chicago
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Moses Ebe Ochonu
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:21 AM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
THU NOV 08, 2012 AT 08:05 AM PST
The 2012 polling hall of shame
5
attribution: Media Matters
So funny how they pretend.
Few things annoy me more in political analysis than the cherry-picking of favorable polls. That's why, with few exceptions, I dealt mostly in polling aggregates. But there's no doubt that my own assessment of the race was colored by which pollsters were saying what.
I obviously trust PPP. SUSA is good for the toplines, less good at crosstabs. Marist, CBS/NYT and ABC/WaPo are pretty solid. The internet pollsters?YouGov and Ipsos?were a curious (and ultimately successful) experiment. Pew is the gold standard, even when it's off. TIPP was a disaster in 2008, but it appeared more stable this time around. Some states have local pollsters so good they trump everything else, like Field in California and Selzer in Iowa. A few others were mildly interesting.
But there was a class of pollster that was so patently bad, they made me assume the whatever their results said, the opposite was actually true. So follow me below for a tour of this year's polling suck.
Steve Singiser's First Rule of Polling is, "If a poll doesn't look like the rest, it's likely wrong," and Gallup lived this mantra all cycle. While most polling showed a tight national race, Gallup consistently gave Romney 5-7-point leads.
Yet its long and storied history continued to give it credibility despite a disastrous recent track record. In 2010, Gallup claimed Republicans would win the Congressional national vote by 15 points. It was seven. In 2008, Gallup claimed President Barack Obama would win by 11. He won by seven. So how did Gallup save face? It used Hurricane Sandy as an excuse to quit polling for nearly a week, then delivered a late poll that showed Romney +1. No other pollster saw a major Romney erosion that week, and certainly not four points.
But even its last minute recalibration didn't save it, as its results put it 24 of 28 in accuracy. Below Rasmussen.
Quite the nice way to destroy their legacy.
These Republican hack pollsters single-handedly convinced Republicans, and some in the media, that Pennsylvania was a battleground state that Mitt Romney could win. At a time when the polling consensus was 7-8 points, they were claiming that Obama's lead was around two.
Their last poll this week had the race tied 47-47. Obama won by more than five.
Who can forget this highlight of the 2012 campaign?
?I think in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, we?ve already painted those red, we?re not polling any of those states again,? [Suffolk University polling director David] Paleologos said Tuesday night on Fox?s "The O?Reilly Factor." ?We?re focusing on the remaining states.?
Funny thing was, Suffolk's own polling showed Obama in the lead! Yet he claimed that Obama was toast because undecideds would go to Romney. That kind of mistake might be understandable for those who haven't spent much time looking at polling data. Truth is, the 50 percent rule doesn't apply in presidential races. Someone who makes a living generating polling data should know better. As Armando wrote, Paleologos just ignored his own polling.
On 9/30, UNH had had Carol Shea-Porter up 46-35 in New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District. A week later, on 10/6, her opponent Frank Guinta was up 38-36. There was nothing in between to account for a one-week 13-point swing.
On election eve, 11/4, UNH had the race tied 43-43. Shea-Porter won comfortably by four. Such wild, unexplained swings (a hallmark of UNH results) are a mark of shoddy quality control.
Nate Silver ranked them the least accurate of 2010, and they'll likely earn the same this year:
In Colorado, Rasmussen polled at 50%-47% for Romney. The actual result was 51%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Florida, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-49% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Iowa, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll, doubled.
In New Hampshire, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Ohio, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, a two-point swing.
In Virginia, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Wisconsin, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 52-47% for Obama, a six-point swing.
What's more, these final numbers were actually closer than some of their mid-year results, which were clearly designed to impact the polling aggregator numbers (and RCP, in particular) and to try and craft a "Romney is winning" narrative. This led, in a hilarious twist, tocondemnation from the infamous "unskewing" guy:
[H]e said he probably won't go back to "unskewing" polls next time. He actually thinks conservative-leaning pollsters like Scott Rasmussen have a lot more explaining to do.
"He has lost a lot of credibility, as far as I'm concerned," [Dean] Chambers said. "He did a lot of surveys. A lot of those surveys were wrong."
M-D is a long-time respected member of the polling community. So what the hell happened to them in 2012?
They had Romney winning Florida 51-45. Obama won it by a point. They had the Republicans taking the Montana governorship 49-46. The Democrats took it by two.
They had Jim Matheson losing his congressional seat in Utah 50-43. He hung on by one. They had Republicans taking the North Dakota Senate seat by two. Democrats won it by one.
They had Claire McCaskill winning her Senate seat by two. She won it by 15. They had the Minnesota gay marriage ban pass by one point. It failed by almost 4.
In fact, it's hard to find any race of particular note that they got right.
No one knows where these jokers came from, but they spent October telling us how Romney was going to win Michigan. In fact, their election eve poll had it Romney 46.92-46.56. Any pollsters that reports results to a single decimal are suspect. Two? Pure wankery. Polling has inherent inaccuracies?hence the "margin of error". Pretending that results are so precise as to require multiple decimal points is simply inaccurate.
But aside from the decimals, their numbers were comical. Obama won Michigan by over eight points?a nine-point miss. They had Sen. Debbie Stabenow winning by just 50-43 (sorry, 50.06-43.45). Stabenow won 58-38. They even ventured into Florida to tell us that Romney led 54-40. They were laughed out of the state, never to return.
There were other crappy pollsters like Gravis, Zogby and ARG, and of course even the good ones had misses here or there. By definition, five out of every 100 polls will be off. But the pollsters above deserve every bit of scorn we can send their way, and then more.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All:
If Rasmussen's analyses were indeed as follows:
QUOTE
Nationally, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48%. The actual result was (so far) 50%-49% Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Colorado, Rasmussen polled at 50%-47% for Romney. The actual result was 51%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Florida, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-49% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Iowa, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll, doubled.
In New Hampshire, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Ohio, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, a two-point swing.
In Virginia, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Wisconsin, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 52-47% for Obama, a six-point swing
UNQUOTE
Then its Election Prediction Index (for these 8 states) is [(4+3) +(0+2)+(3+4)+(2+1)+(4+2)+(4+3)+(1+1)+(2+2)+(3+2)) = 41. A Perfect EPI would be zero (exact modulo tallies between prediction and actual results).
What is Nate Silver's EPI? Or his aggregation of polls does not count?
Well, for Yougov.com, (see http://cdn.yougov.com/r/1/2012%20Election%20results%20table%20YouGovLV%20ONLY.pdf) final polls were:
Colorado 48-47 Obama 3+0
Florida 48-47 Romney 1+3
Iowa 48-47 Obama 4+0
New Hampshre 47-43 Obama 5+4
Ohio 49-46 Obama 1+2
Virginia 48-46 Obama 2+2
Wisconsin 50-46 Obama 2+1
YouGov's EPI would therefore be 29, much better than Rasmussen's.
Bolaji Aluko
PS: I could not lay my hands on how Fordham U. calculated its poll accuracy below...
WED NOV 07, 2012 AT 10:15 AM PST
PPP poll for Daily Kos/SEIU was the most accurate of 2012
bykos
From Fordham University's Costas Panagopoulos, director of the university's Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy.
"For all the ridicule directed towards pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not far off from the actual nationwide vote shares for the two candidates," said Dr. Panagopoulos.
On average, pre-election polls from 28 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 1.07 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 0.63 percentage points away from the current estimate of a 1.7-point Obama margin in the national popular vote. [...]
1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfKHa ha, look at Gallup way at the bottom, even below Rasmussen. But let's focus on the positive?PPP took top honors with a two-way tie for first place. Both their tracking poll and their weekly poll for Daily Kos/SEIU ended up with the same 50-48 margin. The final result? Obama 51.1-48.9?a 2.2-point margin.
PPP is a robo-pollster that doesn't call cell phones, which was supposedly a cardinal sin?particularly when their numbers weren't looking so hot for Obama post-first debate. But there's a reason we've worked with them the past year?because their track record is the best in the biz.
So thanks to PPP for making us look good, and thanks to SEIU for sponsoring our weekly State of the Nation poll for the past two years. It's been an awesome ride.
One last point?YouGov and Ipsos/Reuters were both internet polls. YouGov has now been pretty good two elections in a row. With cell phones becoming a bigger and bigger issue every year, it seems clear that the internet is the future of polling. I'm glad someone is figuring it out.
But let's be clear, you have to go down to number six on the list to get to someone who called cell phones. And Gallup called 50 percent cell phones and they were a laughingstock this cycle.
UNQUOTE
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Edward Mensah <dehasnem@uic.edu> wrote:
Mr Bangura,
You know Rasmussen has always been wrong in its forecasting of election results. But your hatred for Obama blinded your reasoning to the point where you believed racist whites will make the difference. The so-called Wider effect did not materialize. Now I have the bridge that you promised to buy if you lost the election. Well, I am waiting for you to pick up the bridge from Gary Indiana. How can a scholar like you rely on none pollster with an agenda for your political guidance? Beats me!
Kwaku
Chicago
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ZALANGA SAMUEL
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:00 PM
To: USAAFRICA DIALOGUE
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
The lesson here is that we scholars must be very careful in assessing and using the sources of our data. The mistake of Rasmussen Poll are so high that one wonders what is happening and why the poll was able to convince gullible people. Yes, as scholars we have to ask tough questions about our sources of data, otherwise we could be misled. I believe that is why Romney did not prepare a concession speech because he was confident he will win based on those polls.
Integrity in scholarship and any kind of work is very important. And the demographic analysis or projections of the future look dismal for the Republican party. I just finished teaching Huntington's "Who Are We?" where he expresses his fear about the changing nature of American national identity. Too bad. Well, unless the Republican party or any organization for that matter begin to transform themselves, they will be left behind. With every election, the percentage of White voters is reducing and in the next 10 to 15 years, it will be very spectacular. For many Republicans, WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) is the default core American identity. Obama with about 40% of White voters and a coalition of minorities defeated the Republican candidate. And if it were not for some mistakes, the margin would even be higher.
For me the lesson is also useful for us in Africa. Across Africa, how can we create societies that are more inclusive of all the diverse people in the country. Even when looks the convention of the two parties, the Democratic party has more diverse faces, and one may say that minorities are deceiving themselves by supporting one party, but they are not stupid. To live in a party where certain slogans are used deliberately as proxy for race or strategies to exclude some Americans is terrible. It is so embarrassing to support a policy that is aimed at denying people the opportunity to freely cast their vote even though officially it framed as something else. In one assessment I came across, even Brazil has a more efficient arrangement to make people cast their votes than the U.S. where some have to wait two or three hours to cast their votes.Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 09:47:06 -0600
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
From: meochonu@gmail.com
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
For me, the winner of last night's election is polling guru, Nate Silver, who called the election with deadly accuracy. He got all fifty states and the popular vote margin right. Again! The loser? Rasmussen. As the results below illustrate, Rasmussen got it completely wrong, as it did in previous elections, where it also overestimated Republican performance. This should completely discredit that Republican polling organization and banish it from the polling mainstream. And hopefully Bangura will not inflict that name on this list in future elections.
Rasmussen exposed as Republican shill
75
Not much of a diary, I know, but I'm about to pass out from exhaustion. Happy exhaustion!
But let it be known: Rasmussen polling is a fraud that exists to prop up Republican candidates. Oh, sure, we all knew that... but the actual numbers prove it beyond doubt.
Nationally, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48%. The actual result was (so far) 50%-49% Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Colorado, Rasmussen polled at 50%-47% for Romney. The actual result was 51%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Florida, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-49% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Iowa, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll, doubled.
In New Hampshire, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Ohio, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, a two-point swing.
In Virginia, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Wisconsin, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 52-47% for Obama, a six-point swing.
In other words, in all the races that mattered, Rasmussen got it egregiously wrong. They didn't call a single battleground state right except for North Carolina, and even there it appears that they overestimated the margin of Romney's win.
Rasmussen was consistently, egregiously biased in favor of the Republican nominee. We have the proof.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:40 AM, <shina73_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is Prof. Bangura in shock?
Well, I don't care. All I want now is for him to take a honourable step and redeem his bet with me. And I stated from the onset that I don't want a smelly camel (even though the prospect of frying camel meat and soaking it with garri). What I want is my cow, or the cash equivalent. And I warned Prof earlier that cow don cost for Naija (Boko Haram factor).
Adeshina AfolayanSent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
From: "La Vonda R. Staples" <lrstaples@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 00:17:31 -0600
ReplyTo: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - RE: ABDUL BANGURA
The only thing that happened in this election is that a lot of folks sold wolf tickets. They growled and they snarled and their mouths spewed venom. But in the end, the went into those booths and turned Brother Romney back to Utah.
Please. Abortion doesn't work to get votes. Gay marriage doesn't work to get votes. Hinting at war only scares mothers with sons. Threatening to end contraception, some forms, doesn't win elections.
Romney followed Bush II's playbook and it was simply an exercise of going to the well one too many times.
The religious right did Romney in. Americans who are out of work do not care what you do within your bedroom as long as both people are grown and give consent. The states can no longer afford to house a man who got caught with ten dollars worth of weed on Saturday night.
And, if I'm honest with myself, I will concede that Brother Barry won many votes by default. Romney turned them off so badly and there was no other viable candidate. Republicans should have NEVER run this man in the first place. Americans have a prejudice, a Roman empire prejudice, against secret religions.
La Vonda R. Staples
PS In case anyone wants to know I apologized to Dr. Bangura weeks ago. I trusted him as my teacher and I should have had enough respect for him to let him have his own opinion. He made his choice. I made my mine. "nuff said.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Akurang-Parry, Kwabena <KAParr@ship.edu> wrote:
Ah! Mercy to Papa Abdul Bangura! Ah! Mercy for Papa Abdul Bangura. Before we accept Papa Abdul Bangura's plea for mercy, he must submit the blood of a young stone to pacify the gods/goddesses of USAAfricaDialogue.
Kwabena
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Nnaemeka, Obioma G [nnaemeka@iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:25 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - ABDUL BANGURAThe moment Barack Obama scaled the 270 electoral votes hurdle, two words popped out of my mouth: ABDUL BANGURA! In anticipation of the fireworks that will explode on this list, I come with a plea: Brothers and Sisters, please show mercy J
Obioma Nnaemeka, PhD
Chancellor's Distinguished Professor
President, Association of African Women Scholars (AAWS)
Dept. of World Languages & Cultures Phone: 317-278-2038 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 317-278-2038 end_of_the_skype_highlighting; 317-274-0062 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 317-274-0062 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (messages)
Cavanaugh Hall 543A Fax: 317-278-7375Indiana University E-mail: nnaemeka@iupui.edu
425 University BoulevardIndianapolis, IN 46202 USA
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
La Vonda R. Staples, Writer
BA Psychology 2005 and MA European History 2009
?If your dreams do not scare you, they are not big enough.?
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, This Child Will Be Great; Memoir of a Remarkable Life by Africa's First Woman President.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
There is enough in the world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.
---Mohandas Gandhi
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment