Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)

4. 67% may well be too low.

Reply to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 05:42 PM

Jun 2012

I don't know Bloomberg's basis for norming to that level, or whether it is correct to do so.

So your statement may well be correct. 67% may well be too low.

To me, if whites were 74% of the electorate in 2008 and will be 67% of the electorate in 2012 then I don't see how Obama could lose, so if Bloomberg's model is right we're home-free.

But that is the level Bloomberg normed to. Hope they're right.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bloomberg Poll (Complete) [View all] cthulu2016 Jun 2012 OP

they undersampled whites by 5%. hrmjustin Jun 2012 #1

Actually not by race. The problem is with party affiliation. cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #2

thanks for the correction. hrmjustin Jun 2012 #3

67% may well be too low. cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #4

I'll take it. demosincebirth Jun 2012 #7

Don't start the whole Goose Gander thing! Motown_Johnny Jun 2012 #5

Everyone else loves Ned Flanders! cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #6