2012 Polling Accuracy

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by randomrogue, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. randomrogue

    randomrogue Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    5,462
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. PottedMeat

    PottedMeat Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    11,252
    Likes Received:
    5
    lolwtf?

     
  3. Ausm

    Ausm Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    25,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love it must because they lean Rightwing? ;)
     
  4. randomrogue

    randomrogue Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Messages:
    5,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    They did 1 poll and it was robo calls.
     
  5. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    The final Gallup poll had Romney up 1 instead Silver assumes that Romney was always down 2.6 to figure its error of +7.2 R. Now, I have no doubt that Romney was never really up 6 or 7 at any point during the campaign but there was a consensus at one point that he was up.
     
  6. loki8481

    loki8481 Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    42,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    seems like many underestimated Democratic turnout, overestimated Republican enthusiasm, and need to stop relying on only polling people with landlines.
     
  7. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was reading Rasmussen's take on why he was off and it was turnout of the young and minority voters. He was off by a few percentage points on both which underestimated Democratic turnout. As long as you get your demographics right it shouldn't matter how you contact them.
     
  8. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    I also think polling didn't take into account Obama's get out the vote machine and Romney's total failure in this department.
     
  9. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,623
    Likes Received:
    35
    There was never a consensus that anything other than Obama winning the electoral college was going to happen though. The outcome of the election had been obvious for months.
     
  10. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    Irrelevant. National polls had Romney up for most of October. Silver is just talking about national polls (I believe) in this article so any other factors shouldn't matter
     
  11. techs

    techs Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    28,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did Rassmussen really make such a bullshit claim? Hell, Nate Silver has been all over the news because he was explaining why the polls had been so accurate.

    The only polls that were inaccurate were polls like Rassmussen who were influenced by the Republicans claims that they were inaccurate.

    Pollsters have many tools to determine probable turnout. Most of the polls were accurate this year with their margin of error. They did a great job.

    The outliers, to the best of my knowledge, all used Republican claims that their supporters enthusiam was higher and the Dems lower than what the pollsters were actually measuring. They gave the pollsters no hard data to support this. But some pollsters either wanted to protect their polls against Republican retaliation or to give a result so skewed it would be 'news' and their polls would receive more publicity.
     
  12. Athena

    Athena Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point is, most others didn't make that mistake but the Romney campaign decided to adjust the results to conform to its own world view.

    The bottom line is that Republicans start with a fixed idea of what an "American" is (or more accurately should be) then reject any objective evidence that reality may be something else.
     
  13. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,623
    Likes Received:
    35
    No, he is definitely not just talking about national polls and so the failure in the state polling is in fact very relevant. Rasmussen again performed quite poorly and with a major Republican bias. I'm not sure why anyone took them that seriously even before the election though, considering their recent history of significant Republican bias. My guess is because people want to be told what they want to hear, they don't want to look at reality.
     
  14. jagec

    jagec Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    24,442
    Likes Received:
    0
    If your demographics are good enough that you can predict how people are going to vote without actually polling them, than why call ANYONE? Just make a prediction and then justify it after the fact with "demographics".

    The fact of the matter is that if you only use landlines, you're going to have so few young voters in your sample that you may as well just be throwing darts. There is no justification for landline-only polls in this day and age.
     
  15. techs

    techs Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2000
    Messages:
    28,567
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well when your idea of "science" starts with the idea the Earth is 6,000 years old the idea of magic turnout fairies helping your side to win is not so difficult to beleive.
     
  16. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think they were assuming 2008 levels or something close so it wasn't absurd to make those assumptions. All polling firms weight for demographics. You have to make some kind of assumptions when polling 1000 people. They had whites at 2 points higher than what actually voted.
    A shit load of polls were off this time.
    So was Rasmussen.

    I suggest that you quit looking in the grassy knoll for conspiracies when none exist.
     
  17. loki8481

    loki8481 Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    42,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    it was pretty much every internal Republican polling group, not just the Romney campaign.

    wat? :confused:

    how is underestimating youth/minority turnout rejecting people as non-Americans? o_O
     
  18. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,623
    Likes Received:
    35
    Rasmussen was one of the least accurate pollsters available and they were inaccurate in the same way that they have been inaccurate for several election cycles now. This is why everyone was telling you before the election that basing your judgment on their polls was such a silly idea, and sure enough it was.

    Until they refine their methods Rasmussen simply isn't a very trustworthy pollster.
     
  19. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nobody is saying this at all, you can't do it. If for some random reason you contact 80% whites in your poll you have to weight those responses down to what you expect to show up to vote. If you get 20% under 30 you have to count their responses more heavily if you expect more than 20% turnout of that group.
    Maybe but not necessarily. If you get less young people (lets say half as many) because you are using landlines only then you count the opinions of the ones you get in contact with more heavily. I agree that cell phones being included are more desirable, definitely. I just don't think that you're going to get totally unreliable results when you don't included them.
     
  20. RabidMongoose

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems like the GOP was hoping that minorities don't exist.
     
  21. Athena

    Athena Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read the comments from Republican operatives. Dick Morris thought that things would return to "normal" -- i.e. that the elements of the Obama coalition would melt away because they only voted for him as a symbol in 2010, not as politically active, engaged Americans. This was illustrated by Sununu's insulting statement that the President as needed to "learn to be American", followed by his dismissal of the foreign policy observations of the former Secretary of State (and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) as nothing more than racial solidarity. Many other Republicans said that they didn't think those voters would "make the effort" to vote (IOW these are lazy elements of society and they don't vote).

    Underestimating the importance of the trends documented in the 2010 census wasn't just an unlucky oversight, it was the result of blinders built-in to the party's view of the electorate.
     
    #21 Athena, Nov 11, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2012
  22. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    The only poll I was basing anything on was their party affiliation poll which was pretty accurate going back 10 years in predicting voter turnout. They were off by like 14 points this time in that particular poll.
     
  23. buckshot24

    buckshot24 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,195
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was hoping that this post didn't really exist.
     
  24. RabidMongoose

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2001
    Messages:
    11,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Republicans have serious racial issues. It's as if their fantasy of an America with no minorities (e.g., the Romney constituency) blended with what they perceived reality to be!
     
  25. fskimospy

    fskimospy Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    43,623
    Likes Received:
    35
    Well if you weren't taking the rest of their poll and using it that means you were attempting to graft voter turnout models from one polling firm onto the results of another firm despite the two not necessarily dealing with similar samples or similar methods. This is a big statistics no-no. That just means instead of trusting an inaccurate pollster you were just working from a fundamentally flawed understanding of how this stuff works.