Google Releases Raw Election Polling Results 51
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, Nate Silver ranked Google Consumer Surveys as one of the most accurate polling firms of the 2012 US election. This week, Google has released the raw data that went into its election-day prediction, and is running a contest for interesting visualizations of that data. They provide a few examples of their own, including a WebGL globe view."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that's strictly a right-wing fantasy. Obama actually LOWERED taxes and CUT regulations.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Except that's strictly a right-wing fantasy. Obama actually LOWERED taxes and CUT regulations.
Psst, hey AC, better check this out...
Incomes are down: http://news.investors.com/092512-626958-household-income-down-82-under-president-obama.aspx [investors.com]
Obamacare regulations for 2013 are going to be less than optimal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2012/10/28/the-avalanche-of-new-obamacare-rules-will-come-in-january-2013/ [forbes.com]
Obama EPA regulations also sub-optimal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/11/04/epas-insanely-ambitious-agenda-if-obama-is-reelected/ [forbes.com]
Here's another tip- stop getting your
Re: (Score:1)
Straws... GRASP THEM!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
NPR is only a liberal news organization in comparison to conservative news (Fox).
lol I have NPR as the radio station that plays on my clock radio in the morning as my alarm. Either that or country, something annoying.
Re:The country is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
NPR is a bit left of center. Anything not far-right can be called "liberal" by a die-hard republican.
NPR is Establishment Radio (Score:2)
A while back I filled out one of those surveys about "where do you get your news?" I checked "Conservative Talk Radio", and gave my local NPR station as the station.
They're not "Crazy Right-Wing Talk Radio", they're Establishment Radio, which is conservative in the more traditional sense. If there's a government position on something, they may examine it from multiple sides, but it'll be based on the government's framing of the questions, with the presumption that that's an appropriate framing to use. "W
Re: (Score:2)
NPR is the only news source that's actually rational. I suggest you listen to how the conduct interview with politician, regardless os letter, as well as how well the investigate their stories.
I'm sorry facts and research make you angry.
Companies who let people go are bringing people back to those same position for less money.
Shocking revelation you got there~
I love data. Lots of data. I enjoy reading federal reports. I love compiling, cutting and looking at patterns in data. It's what I do, and I do andf
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice people say 'recovery isn't fast enough' but never compare it to anything else? You can't say fast enough without some measure to make the judgement.
However, if you look at other countries, and US's history of recovery, the current recovery is pretty much the fastest ever.
Pretty much fastest ever? Not quite, see link below. Recovery is very slow by comparison to other recoveries.
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-economic-recovery-2012-8?op=1 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:1)
My company had open enrollment for all benefits this month... our premiums for medical insurance went down and our coverage went up.
What does anecdotal evidence prove? Nothing by itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Our company had open enrollment for our medical benefits this month. For the first time in awhile, the costs went up SIGNIFICANTLY.
Irrelevant if it's lowered in one area and raised in another (and, so far, I don't see any examples of my taxes being any lower whatsoever in the last few years).
Well guess what. We had our open enrollment a few weeks ago too. Guess how much mine went up? 4%. And if you include the employer paid portion, overall it's up 6%. That's about on par with previous years. So if Obamacare is responsible for these SIGNIFICANT increases, how come I'm not seeing them? I'll give you the answer. It's one of 2 things. Either your employer/insurer is using Obamacare as a convenient excuse to take a piss on you and jack up rates, or your previous "coverage" was piss poor and now you
Re: (Score:3)
Our company had open enrollment for our medical benefits this month. For the first time in awhile, the costs went up SIGNIFICANTLY.
Irrelevant if it's lowered in one area and raised in another (and, so far, I don't see any examples of my taxes being any lower whatsoever in the last few years).
Well guess what. We had our open enrollment a few weeks ago too. Guess how much mine went up? 4%. And if you include the employer paid portion, overall it's up 6%. That's about on par with previous years. So if Obamacare is responsible for these SIGNIFICANT increases, how come I'm not seeing them? I'll give you the answer. It's one of 2 things. Either your employer/insurer is using Obamacare as a convenient excuse to take a piss on you and jack up rates, or your previous "coverage" was piss poor and now you've actually got to pay a little more to get coverage that actually covers stuff. The former is not the fault of Obamacare. The latter is, but I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing.
Where I work (a very large national engineering firm), they made it clear that the only part of the increase in rates this year attributable to Obamacare was for some increased women's preventive services (yes, including contraception). There really aren't that many other aspects of Obamacare that impinge on employer-provided health insurance (requiring coverage for dependents up to 26 y.o. is another - that went into effect last year). That was how Obamacare was designed - it had minimal impact on people
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Payroll taxes were cut from 6% to 4%, back in '09 I think. They're due to expire next year. The Bush tax cuts were extended but they've been in place since before Obama took office. Now, my local taxes have been going up, as state and county have been trying to make up loss of federal funding but that's due to cutting the federal budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Payroll taxes were cut from 6% to 4%, back in '09 I think. They're due to expire next year. The Bush tax cuts were extended but they've been in place since before Obama took office.
About 30% of Obama's stimulus bill was tax cuts. [politifact.com]. From the linked page:
Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Been interesting if (Score:5, Interesting)
It would have been more interesting if the "Who do you want to win the US Presidential Election?" question had allowed for *any* candidate to be entered. I didn't want either of the two running to win. In fact, it is kind of a rip that only a handful of states actually count write-in votes.
This is part of the reason that the one-party system has a stranglehold on America because it craftily marginalizes decenters.
Re: (Score:1)
Think of the stock predictions you could make when you have access to so many people's emails and search data. Sure some data and predictions would be wrong, but if you have some safeguards I think they could make a lot of money.
Of course that would be bad PR if they were caught doing that
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you meant "dissenters"?
I'm not from the US, but it's interesting to notice how out in the middle of nowhere, there were a lot of Romney voters. In areas with denser population, there were a lot more Obama voters.
Re: (Score:3)
In the midwest we actually help each other and hold each other accountable.
True.
Our states are also not going bankrupt
Illinois isn't in the midwest? We're in worse shape than California.
and haven't had to put "nanny" laws on the books
Anti-pot laws are nanny state laws, and the only two state that have legalized reefer aren't in the midwest. Your soda example doesn't stop you from drinking as much soda as you want, and IINM New York City is the only place with that particular law.
We also immediately help ea
But There Was a Third Option on the Poll (Score:3)
I didn't want either of the two running to win.
From the survey details [google.com] they had three target answers:
"Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan, the Republicans" or "Barack Obama / Joe Biden, the Democrats" or "Third party candidate / Undecided"
It sounds like you would have answered "Third party candidate / Undecided"
This is part of the reason that the one-party system has a stranglehold on America because it craftily marginalizes decenters.
Hey you leave my centers out of this :-) But in all seriousness, this is about an election poll ... you should have been out campaigning for Gary Johnson or whoever you wanted a long time ago. I think that campaign finances are the root of the problem that we should attack but apparently you are just upset that some Google Survey didn't allow everyone to write in specific names?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the "winner takes all" setup that causes the two-party system. There is only 1 presidential position to distribute, meaning people will only vote for one of the two candidates that actually stand a chance of winning.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but...
This isn't really the reason there is a two-party system in the US. Lots of systems with a President elected directly or (as in the US) indirectly using have multiparty systems. The main reason the US doesn't is that single-winner contests using either plurality or
Re: (Score:1)
"Scientific" polls used for the debates should not be asking "Who will you vote for?". Even if they have a multiple choice response. That is a question to predict the outcome of the election. Which is a valid poll. However for the debates, it should be "Without consideration of voting for the best candidate, A, with a chance to defeat the candidate, B, you like less than A, who would you vote for?"
You would see a lot more people with polling numbers at 10%+. You might get up to 4. Then other candidate
Google's Election Results showed multi-party (Score:2)
Google's Election Results map would show you either two-candidate or multi-candidate results. Sometimes you had to click to get the multi-candidate results, but it was all there, so you could see the percentages that went to Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, other third-party and independent candidates. Getting the details for Congress was a bit tougher, because they did a better job of visuals for the President, Senate, and Governor than for the 438 district races, but the results were there.
Getting real "Percent Reporting" numbers (Score:2)
I did find the "Percent Reporting" numbers to be frustratingly misleading, though, and that's not just the fault of Google; the California Secretary of State website had similar issues. The problem is that, while they can say "X% of Precincts Reporting", that doesn't actually tell you vote counts in jurisdictions that allow absentee ballots, voting by mail, or other slow-to-count voting methods. So for instance, some of the California races for US Congress took a week to finish counting, even though they
Now they can come after the opposition. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I am pissing into the wind in asking people to call their senators and congressmen and voice your opposition to the new bill that gives the government warrantless, suspicionless access to your email and anything you store in the cloud, like your google docs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/ [cnet.com]
Once government can read all of your email (not just what you leave on GMail longer than 6 months) on a whim without suspicion, they'll be able to come after all of their opposition.
"Oh no, they'll never do that," or, "oh, that'll never happen to ME." Lots of Jews said stuff like that in the 30's.
Just wait.
Re: (Score:1)
Once they can read it without suspicion or any human interaction, they will write a script that reads everyone's email in order to find troublesome people why may not toe the party line. How can that go wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
Aggregated data is a tool, just like guns. You can do both good and evil with it. It's just that in the general populace of a functional modern society, you can do a lot more good with widely available aggregated data than with widely available firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I am pissing into the wind in asking people to call their senators and congressmen and voice your opposition to the new bill that gives the government warrantless, suspicionless access to your email and anything you store in the cloud, like your google docs.
I think you missed the follow-up
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/20/2122223/that-was-fast-leahy-drops-warrantless-e-mail-surveillance-bill [slashdot.org]
Looks like the Prosecutors and Police aren't getting anything for Christmas this year.
Once government can read all of your email (not just what you leave on GMail longer than 6 months) on a whim without suspicion, they'll be able to come after all of their opposition.
They can already do that.
The bill just more people do the same thing
Re: (Score:1)
Well shit.
Heh...
It'll come up under the new Congress. Don't worry.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill died already, it was in the news this morning.
WebGL Navigation (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in Boston... (Score:1)
City of Boston November 2012 Presidential Election Results [cityofboston.gov]. Only three precincts reported less than 100% turnout. A great day for democracy!
It should be noted that in Boston, there are no Republicans; the city is owned lock, stock & barrel by Mayor Tom 'Mumbles' Menino. [mumblesmenino.us] Oh, and his party affiliation is (D), which is so often left out of summaries. "You Never Stumbles When You Votes for Mumbles"