Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[buckshot24]

He doesn't need to because on 11/6 we'll all know if you're right or wrong, and that outcome trumps any and all theoretical discussion we have here.

Your statements about "landslides" and "easy wins" are going to be extremely sigworthy if O wins this on 11/6. We shall see.

That post had two IF THAN statements in it but everybody only notices the Romney one.:whiste:

 

[buckshot24]

New ABC national poll is out and it has Romney +1

They have the party split as follows.

D 32
R 29
I 35

On the October 27th poll there were 35 percent Democrat. Down 3 points in a week or tightening the likely voter screen?

 

[Jhhnn]

New ABC national poll is out and it has Romney +1

They have the party split as follows.

D 32
R 29
I 35

On the October 27th poll there were 35 percent Democrat. Down 3 points in a week or tightening the likely voter screen?

National polls don't matter- the electoral college matters.

 

[Balt]

New ABC national poll is out and it has Romney +1

They have the party split as follows.

D 32
R 29
I 35

On the October 27th poll there were 35 percent Democrat. Down 3 points in a week or tightening the likely voter screen?

Hmmm.. that poll also shows a greater % of Obama voters who are "very enthusiastic" versus Romney voters who are "very enthusiastic" (66% to 62%). Among the people who are still voting for Obama, that would seem to go against the claim that they are disaffected.

 

[rockyct]

The only thing I'm really left watching for is if the media will accept a narrative of 'Obama is likely going to win unless all of the polling is wrong.' Slowly it is happening but a lot of pundits are still hanging on to the 'toss up' framing of it

You're already starting to see that. Of course, pundits won't admit that Obama had a lead last week and an even more solid one now; it doesn't fit into the narrative. So, instead they'll say it really was a toss-up last week but Obama has a lead now because of Sandy and that's how they will weasel out. I don't think it's going to be close with the electoral votes as I think Obama will get over 300 and I even think he has a better than 50% chance of getting FL. I'm sure the popular vote will be less than a 5 point difference and possibly only 2, even less.

If Obama wins on Tuesday (which I believe he will) and by a comfortable margin, I think pundits will say he won because of Sandy and they will try to push that narrative. The idea that it was a toss-up until Sandy came and made people more comfortable with Obama.

 

[buckshot24]

Hmmm.. that poll also shows a greater % of Obama voters who are "very enthusiastic" versus Romney voters who are "very enthusiastic" (66% to 62%). Among the people who are still voting for Obama, that would seem to go against the claim that they are disaffected.

Yes it does.


Oddly enough Obama is sitting exactly where Kerry was 8 years ago at 47.4% RCP average. Bush was at 48.9% The vote occurred on this date in 2004 so these polls were a little closer to the election.

 

[randomrogue]

If you believe that Romney is going to win at this point you might as well roll a die and see how many times you roll a 6.

Does the polling continue until the day before the election?

 

[buckshot24]

If you believe that Romney is going to win at this point you might as well roll a die and see how many times you roll a 6.

Based upon what? Silver?

If the turnout is as it is showing up in the polls then Romney has basically no chance not even 17% chance.

Does the polling continue until the day before the election?

In 2004 there were 5 pollsters who polled the day before the election. Most stopped a day or two earlier.

 

[jackstar7]

Based upon what? Silver?

You don't have to pick one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-and-the-forecasting-consensus-in-one-chart/

 

[buckshot24]

You don't have to pick one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-and-the-forecasting-consensus-in-one-chart/

It's based upon the same data. If it is right then Romney loses.

Polls have been wrong before such as in 2002 when the generic congressional rcp avg was GOP +1.7 and it turned out to be GOP +4.5%.

3 points towards Romney and this isn't even close.

Yeah I know it's a mid term election but that isn't the point. The polling companies methodology produced skewed results and I think there is a good chance it is happening this year as well.

 

[Todd33]

Yeah I know it's a mid term election but that isn't the point. The polling companies methodology produced skewed results and I think there is a good chance it is happening this year as well.

Wishful thinking doesn't make reality. You are literally betting on every single poll being systematically biased in one direction. Not likely.

 

[buckshot24]

Wishful thinking doesn't make reality. You are literally betting on every single poll being systematically biased in one direction. Not likely.

I don't need every poll to be wrong, that is simply false.

 

[rockyct]

I don't need every poll to be wrong, that is simply false.

You DO need every Ohio poll to be wrong. Even Rass has Obama and Romney tied there. Without Ohio, you then really would need every NV/WI poll to be wrong.

 

[shira]

It's based upon the same data. If it is right then Romney loses.

Polls have been wrong before such as in 2002 when the generic congressional rcp avg was GOP +1.7 and it turned out to be GOP +4.5%.

3 points towards Romney and this isn't even close.

Yeah I know it's a mid term election but that isn't the point. The polling companies methodology produced skewed results and I think there is a good chance it is happening this year as well.

You're cherry-picking the worst-case difference out of the last 10 years, and this is your argument that polling is badly skewed? And you think that "there is a good chance it is happening this year as well?" WHY is there a "good chance?"

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You're cherry-picking the worst-case difference out of the last 10 years, and this is your argument that polling is badly skewed? And you think that "there is a good chance it is happening this year as well?" WHY is there a "good chance?"

He's also, once again, comparing a non-presidential year to a presidential year.

Look, the guy has been doing this crap for hundreds of posts. He has no idea what he's talking about and desperately wants Romney to win. Everything else works backwards from that.

 

[buckshot24]

You're cherry-picking the worst-case difference out of the last 10 years, and this is your argument that polling is badly skewed? And you think that "there is a good chance it is happening this year as well?" WHY is there a "good chance?"

What the hell is wrong with you people. I only posted that to show that polling CAN be wrong and show a bias one way or the other. It isn't proof that it is going to happen again. You guys seriously need to take your ritalin or something. It's you guys who are acting as if the polls CAN'T be wrong when that is clearly false.

You're falling into the ridiculous Charles assumption fuck up where every bit of evidence I post is a "therefore Romney is definitely going to win" argument.

He's also, once again, comparing a non-presidential year to a presidential year.

I am talking about polling dip shit. People can bring up off year elections when they are trying to take a shit on Rasmussen but I can't ever bring up mid term elections?

Look, the guy has been doing this crap for hundreds of posts. He has no idea what he's talking about and desperately wants Romney to win. Everything else works backwards from that.

Only a pussy blocks somebody and keeps talking about them and you're a pussy.

And please tell me what the fuck is the problem with an opinion existing where you just can't let it be? You have to "fix" it, to me this seems to be a character flaw or something. Are you OCD? That would explain a lot.

The bottom line is you take the most absurd line and assume the worst possible interpretation of everything I post. I have posted a lot of data that supports my position. I haven't posted anything that proves it.

The latest example supports the idea that polling can sometimes get it wrong and by a pretty decent margin; it doesn't prove that it will happen this time. But you've taken the extreme of my point that it must mean that 2002 polling skews HAVE TO BE present in 2012. You've consistently done this and then insulted me to boot.

 

[TraumaRN]

Apparently Nate Silver must have been reading this thread. Here is a link to his latest article. I'll quote/bold a couple key points.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

The margin of error is much reduced, however, when you aggregate different polls together, since that creates a much larger sample size. In Ohio, for example, there have been 17,615 interviews of likely voters in polls conducted there within the past 10 days. That yields a margin of error, in measuring the difference between the candidates, of about 1.5 percentage point — smaller than Mr. Obama’s current lead in the polling average there.
In other words, Mr. Obama’s current lead in Ohio almost certainly does not reflect random sampling error alone. The same is true in states like Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin and others that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes. (Mr. Obama’s more tenuous leads in Colorado and Virginia, and Mr. Romney’s thin lead in Florida, potentially could be a product of sampling error.)

To be exceptionally clear: I do not mean to imply that the polls are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. But there is the chance that they could be biased in either direction. If they are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor, then Mr. Romney could still win; the race is close enough. If they are biased in Mr. Romney’s favor, then Mr. Obama will win by a wider-than-expected margin, but since Mr. Obama is the favorite anyway, this will not change who sleeps in the White House on Jan. 20.
My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.
Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.
Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.
But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.

Obama is most likely going to win Tuesday, the metrics are all in his favor at this point. (Nearly)End of Story

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yep. Those of us who actually understand polling have been saying that for a while.

 

[buckshot24]

Apparently Nate Silver must have been reading this thread. Here is a link to his latest article. I'll quote/bold a couple key points.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...win-state-polls-must-be-statistically-biased/

Obama is most likely going to win Tuesday, the metrics are all in his favor at this point. (Nearly)End of Story

Yeah, I read that piece. I think he is missing the point. He's arguing that since there hasn't been significant bias historically that it isn't valid to think there is one this year. I don't think anybody is claiming a historic bias is in play so him going into great detail along those lines wasn't very helpful or relevant. He's basically constructed a strawman.

I'm not just pulling this turnout argument out of my ass.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

These two polls have to be incorrect for the underlying data that Silver relies on to be accurate. They have been pretty spot on in the last few elections.

Now before anybody pulls a Charles and thinks I'm saying these two polls are right and everything else is wrong and therefore Romney will be elected. Don't. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence to support my assertions it isn't merely wishful thinking.

 

[TraumaRN]

Yeah, I read that piece. I think he is missing the point. He's arguing that since there hasn't been significant bias historically that it isn't valid to think there is one this year. I don't think anybody is claiming a historic bias is in play so him going into great detail along those lines wasn't very helpful or relevant. He's basically constructed a strawman.

I'm not just pulling this turnout argument out of my ass.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

These two polls have to be incorrect for the underlying data that Silver relies on to be accurate. They have been pretty spot on in the last few elections.

Now before anybody pulls a Charles and thinks I'm saying these two polls are right and everything else is wrong and therefore Romney will be elected. Don't. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is evidence to support my assertions it isn't merely wishful thinking.

I think you missed Silvers argument entirely. He's saying there would have to be an essentially historic conspiracy to bias nearly every poll against Romney and honestly when you look at it from the standpoint of logic and reason that just doesnt seem very likely.

Gallup at this point is a non point. They haven't polled in nearly a week. Moreover as past electoral evidence shows state polls tend to be more correct than any national poll. And please stop bringing up Rasmussen's polls. They don't call cell phones and until they do myself and many other don't take their polling seriously. You can't call yourself a reasonable pollster when you exclude 1/4 of the population.

 

[umbrella39]

Who was it that used to make such fantastical predictions... Oh yeah, ProJo. Wonder what ever happened to that guy...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You can't call yourself a reasonable pollster when you exclude 1/4 of the population.

Especially when you know there's a heavy bias in that excluded population.

I love when people talk about Rasmussen's party ID numbers. Where does he get them from? The same people he's polling about the race.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't think it's wishful thinking.


I think it's a head injury.

 

[buckshot24]

I think you missed Silvers argument entirely. He's saying there would have to be an essentially historic conspiracy to bias nearly every poll against Romney and honestly when you look at it from the standpoint of logic and reason that just doesnt seem very likely.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? Polls from time to time are biased and in some cases by a significant margin. Look at 2002 and 1980 or even 2000.

Gallup at this point is a non point. They haven't polled in nearly a week.

The poll I mentioned was conducted October 1-24. I'm not posting Gallup because of the 5 point lead I'm using it as a data point which supports my contention that most pollsters may have inaccurate samples as compared to who is going to come out and vote.

Moreover as past electoral evidence shows state polls tend to be more correct than any national poll.

That isn't true. I think Silver says that there are cases where this is the case but it isn't always the case. Also national polls have been more accurate over time than state polls. Silver's old site has national polls having an error rate (poll margin vs real vote margin) of 2.5% and state polls were at 3.5%

But I'm not even talking about national polls vs state polls. Look at the party affiliation polls

And please stop bringing up Rasmussen's polls. They don't call cell phones and until they do myself and many other don't take their polling seriously. You can't call yourself a reasonable pollster when you exclude 1/4 of the population.

Rasmussen has a 2.6% advantage for Republicans in his poll. Even assuming that he is 5 points biased which is absurd and Democrats really have a 2.5% advantage Obama still loses because of Romney's lead among independents (which is close to 10 points if not higher).

Furthermore in 2010 he got the party affiliation pretty close to what turned out.

 

[buckshot24]

Especially when you know there's a heavy bias in that excluded population.

I love when people talk about Rasmussen's party ID numbers. Where does he get them from? The same people he's polling about the race.

Please show us were his party affiliation numbers were fundamentally wrong.

Since you won't see this, you're a douche.