Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[buckshot24]

Gallup also shows Obama's approval number at +1. That's a drop of 10 full points in two days?

The +1 is pretty much in line with their earlier polls from way back to June.

Regardless of these stupid tracking polls, Obama remains firmly in command in the states.

Why would the tracking polls be wrong while the state polls are correct? Historically there has been a full 1% less error against actual results for national polls vs state polls. So it is easier to get wrong, historically, state polls but you trust those over the national polls. What is your justification for this? Bias?

 

[Screech]

The +1 is pretty much in line with their earlier polls from way back to June.


Why would the tracking polls be wrong while the state polls are correct? Historically there has been a full 1% less error against actual results for national polls vs state polls. So it is easier to get wrong, historically, state polls but you trust those over the national polls. What is your justification for this? Bias?

It's quite likely that both are correct, ie, romney has a point or two lead nationally but in the swing states obama has the lead.

It will indeed be ironic if, 12 years after the 2000 elections, the democrats win in the electoral college while losing the popular vote nationally (which as we have seen is of basically no consequence).

 

[xBiffx]

It's quite likely that both are correct, ie, romney has a point or two lead nationally but in the swing states obama has the lead.

It will indeed be ironic if, 12 years after the 2000 elections, the democrats win in the electoral college while losing the popular vote nationally (which as we have seen is of basically no consequence).

Its very possible this could happen given the right circumstances. But, as had been said before, its damn near impossible for this to happen when the national popular vote spread is more than about 2%. But I've got my popcorn out just in case.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The +1 is pretty much in line with their earlier polls from way back to June.

But the numbers are fishtailing all over the place in a way that does not induce confidence.

Why would the tracking polls be wrong while the state polls are correct?

A major problem with the national tracking polls right now is that they are measuring too much of what is unimportant and not enough of what counts. Probably 90% of the people they are polling are in states whose outcomes are already decided.

This means very few people in the swing states are actually being polled. Probably just a handful in each one. In contrast, the state polls involve hundreds of people targeted in a specific state.

Another issue is that these polls are easily moved by trends that have no impact on who wins the election. For example, one hypothesis for why Romney suddenly gained after the first debate was that Republicans who weren't too hot on him came around, especially in the southern states. But it doesn't matter if he wins Georgia by 10 points or by 50. What matters is how many states are in his column.

Another problem with some of these tracking polls is that they are often conducted using robocalls with no cell phones. This causes them to have a heavy rightward lean.

Historically there has been a full 1% less error against actual results for national polls vs state polls.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[Todd33]

Yet another statistical model:

http://votamatic.org/

 

[buckshot24]

A major problem with the national tracking polls right now is that they are measuring too much of what is unimportant and not enough of what counts. Probably 90% of the people they are polling are in states whose outcomes are already decided.

Gallup and Rasmussen both had Romney up 50-46 in the swing states recently.

This means very few people in the swing states are actually being polled. Probably just a handful in each one. In contrast, the state polls involve hundreds of people targeted in a specific state.

Except where Rasmussen and Gallup specifically polled these states and they both had 4 point leads for Romney.

Another issue is that these polls are easily moved by trends that have no impact on who wins the election. For example, one hypothesis for why Romney suddenly gained after the first debate was that Republicans who weren't too hot on him came around, especially in the southern states. But it doesn't matter if he wins Georgia by 10 points or by 50. What matters is how many states are in his column.

Again, swing state polls disagree with you. Maybe you should put your resume with these shitty polling outfits since you know so much more about how to run polls.

Not sure what you mean here.

There is an average error rate of 3.5% for statewide presidential polls vs 2.5% for this shitty tracking polls since 1988. By error rate I'm talking how off they are vs the real results.

 

[Todd33]

Another one:

http://election.princeton.edu/

It has a good record for 2004 and 2008.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Gallup and Rasmussen both had Romney up 50-46 in the swing states recently.

Several problems here:

1. These are aggregated swing state polls. They don't show what is happening in individual states. Romney needs to win most or all of these battlegrounds -- Obama does not.

2. Rasmussen doesn't provide any details or breakdowns of his "battleground poll".

3. Neither does Gallup, and theirs was done right after Obama tanked the first debate.

4. Gallup's likely voter model is a joke.

5. Rasmussen uses robocalls, which means no cell phones, as I believe does Gallup.

Even ignoring all that -- and only an idiot or a hack would -- these are just two data points. I'm happy to consider them, but I also look at all the other polls, which show Obama clearly ahead in enough states to win.

Again, swing state polls disagree with you.

No, they don't. Two cherry-picked poor quality polls make you feel happy because you think they tell you what you want to hear. That's because you have no clue what you are reading or what it means.

Here is a summary of recent polls in Ohio. See Romney leading in ANY of them?

Here's Nevada. Same.

Here is Wisconsin. Not one poll with Romney leading since August.

Iowa -- One poll with Romney ahead by a single point in the last month.

Tell me -- how's Romney getting to 269 without these states? Oh, right, you can't. You don't even try.

Maybe you should put your resume with these shitty polling outfits since you know so much more about how to run polls.

Maybe you should learn a bit about how polling works instead of acting like an asshat.

 

[buckshot24]

Several problems here:

1. These are aggregated swing state polls. They don't show what is happening in individual states. Romney needs to win most or all of these battlegrounds -- Obama does not.

So now your goalposts have shifted outside of Georgia being irrelevant to Florida being irrelevant or some other state in the swing state list.

2. Rasmussen doesn't provide any details or breakdowns of his "battleground poll".

Unfortunately he makes you pay for that privilege.

3. Neither does Gallup, and theirs was done right after Obama tanked the first debate.

October 15th is 12 days after the first debate.

4. Gallup's likely voter model is a joke.

So you're now saying you do know more about polling than Gallup. Would you make up your fucking mind?

5. Rasmussen uses robocalls, which means no cell phones, as I believe does Gallup.

Wrong, Gallup uses cell phones.

Even ignoring all that -- and only an idiot or a hack would -- these are just two data points. I'm happy to consider them, but I also look at all the other polls, which show Obama clearly ahead in enough states to win.

I think a lot of your problem is assuming I am arguing for something when I'm just posting the data. You take a defensive position when it isn't warranted. I am not ignoring anything I am asking you to defend your contentions that these polls are wrong and the state polls are right. By me even mentioning them you seem to think I think the state polls are shit and these are the golden tablets. So quit defending a gate that I'm not fucking attacking.

Maybe you should learn a bit about how polling works instead of acting like an asshat.

Why don't you quit making unwarranted assumptions, dick head.

Do you think I fucking can't see the polls in the states? Do you think I'm blindly ignoring them? Where the fuck am I saying state polls are shit and national ones are awesome?

You're the one saying the national polls are shit and the state polls are reliable. I'm not saying either way shit head. You fucking are!

 

[Farang]

Romney was against behind in every poll released today from Ohio. That's the only news that matters now and every day until election day. Unless that changes there is really nothing else to talk about.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So now your goalposts have shifted outside of Georgia being irrelevant to Florida being irrelevant or some other state in the swing state list.

Good grief. There's no "goalpost shifting". All that matters are the states necessary to get a candidate to 269/270.

Florida is a swing state for Romney -- not for Obama.

If Romney is leading in Florida by 5 and Obama is leading in Ohio by 2 and the weighted average means that "aggregated" Romney is leading by 4, the "aggregated" poll is meaningless.

October 15th is 12 days after the first debate.

It was published on the 15th. It was conducted October 5-11. Look it up.

So you're now saying you do know more about polling than Gallup.

No, I'm saying I know how to interpret Gallup's numbers based on their LV model, and you don't.

Wrong, Gallup uses cell phones.

I stand corrected.

I'm just posting the data.

You're not "just posting data", you're cherry-picking it. There's a difference.

Do you think I fucking can't see the polls in the states? Do you think I'm blindly ignoring them?

You come in here every day harping about national polls but you never mention any of the real state-specific polls. And when anyone else does, you only bring up the useless "battleground" polls from Rasmussen and Gallup.

So I think you're deliberately ignoring them.

 

[buckshot24]

No, I'm saying I know how to interpret Gallup's numbers based on their LV model, and you don't.

So when Gallup says up 5+ Romney they are flatly wrong and Charles (some random dude on a forum) knows this and they don't. This isn't about you and me it's about you and Gallup. You're saying they are full of shit and you know best. I think you're full of shit.

You're not "just posting data", you're cherry-picking it. There's a difference.

I have posted polls with Obama up. You're wrong again. I generally post things that are favorable to Romney because a lot of the state polls are directly contradicting these polls. Disabuse yourself of the notion that my postings are trying to prove that Romney is going to win and you'll do a lot better.

You come in here every day harping about national polls but you never mention any of the real state-specific polls. And when anyone else does, you only bring up the useless "battleground" polls from Rasmussen and Gallup.

I have mentioned state polls and I have posted links to them so you're simply full of shit.

So I think you're deliberately ignoring them.

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups and you're fucking up.

 

[xBiffx]

Romney was against behind in every poll released today from Ohio. That's the only news that matters now and every day until election day. Unless that changes there is really nothing else to talk about.

The new Ohio. I'd say this could be newsworthy. Will have to wait and see if it sticks out.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So when Gallup says up 5+ Romney they are flatly wrong and Charles (some random dude on a forum) knows this and they don't. This isn't about you and me it's about you and Gallup. You're saying they are full of shit and you know best. I think you're full of shit.

The difference is that I've explained my reasoning in detail, which happens to agree with the reasoning used by poll analysts who do this for a living.

And all you have in response is that "I'm full of shit".

Disabuse yourself of the notion that my postings are trying to prove that Romney is going to win and you'll do a lot better.

That notion was the only reason you responded to my comments about the state-level polling not discussing the real state-level polls but instead the BS "battleground" polls.

Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups and you're fucking up.

Yes, who should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The new Ohio.

If by this you mean "Midwestern state that right-wingers convince themselves Romney is competitive in but that Obama's going to win", then I agree.

 

[buckshot24]

The difference is that I've explained my reasoning in detail, which happens to agree with the reasoning used by poll analysts who do this for a living.

Ok, Pollsters are wrong and you're right. Ok

And all you have in response is that "I'm full of shit".

You are full of shit on certain things, yes.

That notion was the only reason you responded to my comments about the state-level polling not discussing the real state-level polls but instead the BS "battleground" polls.

Those polls were brought up to a specific point about Georgia that you made. Thats it. Those polls rebut your contention, that is all.

Yes, who should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

This is one area that you are full of shit. How does it smell?

 

[randomrogue]

Romney is going to lose. At this point it's not even close and he's losing ground daily in the state polling.

It's over.

 

[buckshot24]

Romney is going to lose. At this point it's not even close and he's losing ground daily in the state polling.

It's over.

Wow, thanks for the analysis. Ok guys, its over. Move along.

 

[randomrogue]

The new Ohio. I'd say this could be newsworthy. Will have to wait and see if it sticks out.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president

95% confidence in a +- 4.5% points.

49% to 49%

Reading their methodology is interesting. They call land lines and if they don't have a land line they offer an online way to answer their questions.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology

I'm really looking forward to the final results. Rasmussen has done quite poor lately and I have a feeling their methodology (as well as others) needs a dramatic overhaul. Possibly one that uses social media, cell phones, and well - modern methods to communicate with the population.

 

[randomrogue]

Wow, thanks for the analysis. Ok guys, its over. Move along.

Once again. Unless the statistics are all wrong it's over. Romney is losing the EC according to every polling agency and he's not making up ground. He's bleeding EC votes daily.

 

[buckshot24]

The interesting bit from that Wisconsin Rasmussen post

"Ninety-six percent (96%) of Badger State voters say they are sure to vote in this election. Romney leads 51% to 47% among these voters."

 

[buckshot24]

Once again. Unless the statistics are all wrong it's over. Romney is losing the EC according to every polling agency and he's not making up ground. He's bleeding EC votes daily.

How can he be bleeding votes of none have been counted yet?

 

[randomrogue]

How can he be bleeding votes of none have been counted yet?

Romney is polling a net negative. Trend line is going down. He's never crossed the 270 EC mark. He's currently in the "no-chance to win" section of the bleachers.

He literally is running out of mathematical ways to win. If you could show me the most probable way that he can win I'm all ears. You can't though since there doesn't exist one. The election is in 11 days.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Romney still has a way to win. It's called "the state polling is wrong".

That's about it.

 

[cybrsage]

I think a lot of your problem is assuming I am arguing for something when I'm just posting the data. You take a defensive position when it isn't warranted. I am not ignoring anything I am asking you to defend your contentions that these polls are wrong and the state polls are right. By me even mentioning them you seem to think I think the state polls are shit and these are the golden tablets. So quit defending a gate that I'm not fucking attacking.

This is what he does once he realizes that he cannot argue against the actual point you are making.