Christine O'Donnell Defeats Mike Castle

[Boris Godunov]

Also, I'd like to point out that 50% of the population works for the government and is therefore married to entitlements while the other 50% of the population pays for those entitlements.

Are you insane or just an idiot? Nowhere near 50% of the population works for the government.

[DriXnaK]

Ah, I know what it was. It was that a majority of union members are now government employees. I guess that's not a big surprise since unions are essentially gateways to communism. Either way, the public sector is overly large and overly inefficient and wasteful. Not to mention corrupt. Anyone working in the private sector should be absolutely outraged at the wages and benefits paid to the communists working for the government. A lower percentage just makes it easier for us in the end when there's finally a violent backlash against it all.

[GePap]

I think what's more scary is that someone like you can even exist in this country Gepap. You are the poster child for what is wrong with the academic system. We should simply abolish 90% of the academic system, leaving only what is truly useful which is science. Science and the other technical areas are the only worthwhile pursuit in academia, the rest of you should be working toll booths, which is about all you're really capable of.

How cute, it speaks. Too bad it doesn't have the ability to think.

[GePap]

Are you insane or just an idiot? Nowhere near 50% of the population works for the government.

Really Boris, does that question need to be asked even rhetorically?

[Berzerker]

but if 25% works for govt and is married, they'd account for over 50% of the population

I'd suspect its more like 8-10% actually working for govt with around 20% attached directly or indirectly to a govt paycheck

and as I recall, the payroll tax ballooned under Reagan to pay for more SS

[GePap]

but if 25% works for govt and is married, they'd account for over 50% of the population

I'd suspect its more like 8-10% actually working for govt with around 20% attached directly or indirectly to a govt paycheck

And then you have all the private companies, like most of the defense industry, that live on government money, so you have that group of Americans "on the dole", and of course, you also have the banks, who have an open window to get money at the Fed (which makes sense, since the Government is the sole source of US dollars [counterfeiters don't make that much of a difference]), which now means everyone who uses a bank is getting government money. Wait, so who is left?

FYI, government outlays account for around 22% of GDP.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/03/federal-outlays-as-percentage-of-gdp.html (note that its from an economic conservative)

[Berzerker]

could be a coincidence, but my 20% estimate is close to that 22%... Maybe the govt bite from gdp roughly correlates to the % of the population dependent on the govt payroll.

[Ben Kenobi]

So will it be Delaware Senate, straight up, or are you surrendering? Man up or shut up

You willing to give me proper odds? 5:1. Buck buck buck buck buckawk!

Yet again you're a dolt who can't comprehend a simple argument. I said nothing about her actually winning. You do know what it means to be a spoiler, right?

Yep, still not seeing it happening. You aren't willing to bet on Miller victory even up with DE, so you are just talking ****

relying on the average of all pollsters is much more accurate.

Rasmussen was spot on their election call. So relying on the average would introduce error.

First of all, Obama does not have a "supermajority" in either chamber right now. Quit using words when you don't know what they mean.

True because his own party breaks with him. Signs you suck as a president.

The thing is, your powers of prediction are so obviously awful, why should anyone take this seriously? You've got no clue how the economy even works, much less have any idea what it will be like in two years. Even economic experts admit they don't know that. You, definitely NOT an expert, are just bloviating.

Reagan cut taxes. Obama is jacking them up. Revenues going down, and will continue to go down.

There weren't approval polls like there are today for Wilson

I consider the 1920 election sufficient proof.

Well Lincoln was certainly unpopular in the South, yes. But in the North, he won re-election with 55% of the vote. Hardly unpopular, now is it?

Because the South simply isn't a part of the US?

What "kool-aid" am I drinking when I fully acknowledge that Obama's approval ratings are at a low point and if the election were this year, he'd likely lose? That's not very kool-aid drinking to me.

You believe his ranking will rise magically in 2 years.

33% approval rating, Ben. You can't get around that, no matter how much you weasel. Angle is such a bad candidate, she's deadlocked in the polls with a guy with a 33% approval rating.

Incumbancy advantage. Devil you know, etc. Dims would cross a ballot just because his name is famous. See
.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You willing to give me proper odds? 5:1. Buck buck buck buck buckawk!

You are such a gutless coward.

[giblets]

"proper odds" for Delaware would be more like 15:1, IMO

[N35t0r]

Rasmussen was spot on their election call. So relying on the average would introduce error.

PLEASE go take a statistics class.

[Ben Kenobi]

Systematic error, anyone? Precision errors, anyone?

I'm not going to take two measurements, one using calipers and the other using fingers and argue that the average between the two is always superior. I'm going to use the best tools available.

Not all polls are the same. Averaging out polls taken at different times, places, methodologies, etc, is just bad science. At the very least, you would want surveys to survey the same people over a certain period of time, in the same place, using the same methods to derive any real data on shifts in opinion. RCP doesn't do this. RCP includes garbage polls, and expects that taking the average of garbage will give you accurate results.

[N35t0r]

At the very least, you would want surveys to survey the same people over a certain period of time,

[Ben Kenobi]

That would control for error, would it not?

Say I poll people at one zip code, chosen randomly.

Then I do another survey and poll people at a different random zip code. You're going to get very different results.

If I combine them and take the average, if both are on the wrong side of the true mean, I've made my results worse than if I used a truly random sample.

I'm really not sure why people use RCP. It's not very good at showing trends. You'd be better off sticking with one brand of garbage and watching it rise and fall.

[N35t0r]