Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Balt]

I don't think either side is going to convince the other at this point regarding the polling. On the bright side of things, in three days the truth will be revealed.

 

[Doppel]

Scott Rasmussen is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh fine polls that showeth my man winning; he leadeth me past polls I dislike.

He restoreth my political hope; he leadeth me in the paths of right-leaningness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of math I will fear no evil: for his bias is with me; his distorted sampling doth comfort me.

He preparest a table before me in the presence of Fox and Friends; he anointest my head with propaganda; my cup runneth over.

Surely Republican victory shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of Ailes for ever.

I liked this.

 

[First]

Lol ++ Charles.

 

[buckshot24]

LOL, I don't even need Rasmussen to make the argument I'm making.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc

November 6th is going to be awesome.

 

[Jhhnn]

I haven't personally attacked you as far as I know. If I have, I'm sorry.

But you're making assumptions and as the saying goes that assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Sigh, I'm not talking about his national tracking poll. I'm talking about his party identification poll. The latest has a spread of 2.6% in favor Republicans. Assuming the worst about that poll and it's really a 2.5% in favor of Democrats on election day Obama would still lose because of the Independent advantage Romney has.

The question is, who is going to show up to vote next tuesday (or have already voted)?

And the answer is, probably enough pro-Obama voters to keep him in the oval office for another 4 years, regardless of how much wishful thinking & mental gymnastics you employ.

Your Party identification poll & independent advantage for Romney just being part of that- you're dancing on the head of a rhetorical pin, ignoring the cumulative efforts of pollsters showing Obama with a clear lead in the electoral college.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't think either side is going to convince the other at this point regarding the polling. On the bright side of things, in three days the truth will be revealed.

Definitely not. Charles for some stupid reason expected to convince me personally.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL, I don't even need Rasmussen to make the argument I'm making.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc

November 6th is going to be awesome.

Lol, in the very first line it says, "if gallop is right", what's the track record for gallop on presidential polls?


Lol, the desperation has sunken in, we should be seeing the next stage of denial kicking in shortly.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Rasmussen and Gallup show Romney winning because they are polling more Republicans than other pollsters.

Rasmussen and Gallup show higher Republican party ID because they are polling more Republicans than other pollsters.

Neither of these things proves that there has actually been a major shift in the electorate towards the GOP. It's possible. But it's more likely that -- wait for it -- Rasmussen and Gallup are just polling more Republicans than other pollsters.

 

[First]

Lol, how many states has Gallup polled this election cycle (since PV means nothing and electoral college > partisans in CA and TX)? I believe it's somewhere between zero and zilch.

 

[randomrogue]

I kind of feel like this picture is appropriate at this point.

Truman becomes president when FDR dies and runs again Dewey for his second term.

The Chicago Tribune was famously pro-Republican but faced the problem (as do newspapers today) that on election day itself the results were still being counted when they went to print. Instead of waiting till the next day to find out who won they decided to take a gamble based on the opinion poll data and the hunch of their Washington correspondent Arthur Henning, who has a good track record of predicting Presidential elections.

They duly went to press with the banner headline “Dewey defeats Truman” while votes were still being counted in the west of the country. It was only a few hours later as more results came in that they realised that they could have made a mistake and switched headlines to reflect the Democratic gains across the country. However, by this point almost 150,000 papers with the wrong headlines had been printed and distributed, one of which fell into the hands of Truman himself who quickly took advantage of it as a photo opportunity.

 

[buckshot24]

And the answer is, probably enough pro-Obama voters to keep him in the oval office for another 4 years, regardless of how much wishful thinking & mental gymnastics you employ.

This may very well happen. Although I don't think I'm doing any gymnastics to give my case some plausibility. It isn't like I'm using data I pulled out of my ass.

Your Party identification poll & independent advantage for Romney just being part of that- you're dancing on the head of a rhetorical pin, ignoring the cumulative efforts of pollsters showing Obama with a clear lead in the electoral college.

Don't you think that if the turnout model is different that the election would be affected? Seems pretty shut and dried to me. It's you're side who is ignoring these data points. If these data points are accurate then most of the polls are wrong since they almost all have more democrats showing up to vote than what Gallup/Rasmussen has.

Do you have any hypothesis as to why these two polls (which are basically in agreement) are wrong? I've given a few of my own why the polls aren't quite right.

Likely voter screens being too lax (one poll with 98% of Registered voters being Likely voters).

Couple that with weighting for demographics based off of US census then you end up with a more democratic electorate by having more minorities in the pool of likely voters.

If for instance 98% of Registered voters (who always lean toward Democrats) are Likely voters you've basically skewed toward a higher Democratic turnout.

It's harder to contact people now than it used to be while media outlets have less money to spend on making more calls. There is motivation to accept more of the people they get in touch with as likely voters to lower cost.

There are others but I will probably just get "you're a moron" so I'll stop.

 

[buckshot24]

Lol, in the very first line it says, "if gallop is right", what's the track record for gallop on presidential polls?

That's what I'm saying!

 

[Moonbeam]

Lol, in the very first line it says, "if gallop is right", what's the track record for gallop on presidential polls?


Lol, the desperation has sunken in, we should be seeing the next stage of denial kicking in shortly.

A person is entitled to their denial. Denial is what keeps kids from killing themselves after psychic death. The point that I wonder about is whether he is in a state of denial that he can present arguments to defend, or if he is simply lying to prevent less skilled dreamers from abandoning a sinking ship.

The delusional can't help themselves but liars are just cunning scum, in my opinion.

 

[buckshot24]

Rasmussen and Gallup show Romney winning because they are polling more Republicans than other pollsters.

As far as Gallup is concerned more Republicans are making it through their likely screening.

Rasmussen and Gallup show higher Republican party ID because they are polling more Republicans than other pollsters.

What a novel concept. Exactly.

Neither of these things proves that there has actually been a major shift in the electorate towards the GOP. It's possible. But it's more likely that -- wait for it -- Rasmussen and Gallup are just polling more Republicans than other pollsters.

It doesn't "prove" it. It supports an assertion that I have been making for hundreds of posts.

I could be wrong but if I am those two polls are wrong when historically they haven't been wrong enough.

 

[ivwshane]

As far as Gallup is concerned more Republicans are making it through their likely screening.

What a novel concept. Exactly.

It doesn't "prove" it. It supports an assertion that I have been making for hundreds of posts.

I could be wrong but if I am those two polls are wrong when historically they haven't been wrong enough.

Do me a favor and look up gallops history since 2000 and tell me how accurate they were. Please post the results here. Thanks

 

[buckshot24]

Do me a favor and look up gallops history since 2000 and tell me how accurate they were. Please post the results here. Thanks

I don't think that would help you much because as I have been saying IF Gallup is correct they have basically nailed the coffin on a second term for your boy. I have no reason to assume that they are off by enough to swing the election in Obama's favor. They could be off by quite a bit and it would still spell doom for Barack.

I think I've expressed myself well enough so I'm going to call it a day.

 

[Rainsford]

As far as Gallup is concerned more Republicans are making it through their likely screening.

What a novel concept. Exactly.

It doesn't "prove" it. It supports an assertion that I have been making for hundreds of posts.

I could be wrong but if I am those two polls are wrong when historically they haven't been wrong enough.

Aren't you only looking at one side of the equation though? Even if Gallup and Rasmussen are historically right enough to support your position, don't you also have to demonstrate that the REST of the polls are historically wrong enough to not counter your position? After all, finding evidence to support a position isn't all that hard if that's all you're looking for.

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't you think that if the turnout model is different that the election would be affected? Seems pretty shut and dried to me. It's you're side who is ignoring these data points. If these data points are accurate then most of the polls are wrong since they almost all have more democrats showing up to vote than what Gallup/Rasmussen has.

Do you have any hypothesis as to why these two polls (which are basically in agreement) are wrong?

Because they're the outliers. I'll let Nate Silver explain-

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...olls-must-be-statistically-biased/#more-37099

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think that would help you much because as I have been saying IF Gallup is correct they have basically nailed the coffin on a second term for your boy. I have no reason to assume that they are off by enough to swing the election in Obama's favor. They could be off by quite a bit and it would still spell doom for Barack.

I think I've expressed myself well enough so I'm going to call it a day.

Let me pretend I'm you:

The data is historically wrong or off basis compared to other data sets but it supports my point so I'm sticking with it!

/end



Only a fuckinf idiot would make that point and you know what? A fucking idiot did make that point!

Yes call it a day, or do everyone a favor and call it a month and start a post letting us know what it's like after a month into Obamas 2nd term.

 

[buckshot24]

I was done but shania decided to be so fucking retarded that I had to reply.

Let me pretend I'm you:

The data is historically wrong or off basis compared to other data sets but it supports my point so I'm sticking with it!

/end

You're looking at the wrong data dip shit. I am not talking about the Gallup tracking poll shit head.

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

Prove that it is historically wrong or shut the fuck up.

Only a fuckinf idiot would make that point and you know what? A fucking idiot did make that point!

We got an internet tough guy on our hands. I should have kept your ass on block.

You're whole argument is that Gallup was off 4 points in 2008 and 2 points in 2004 so the 14 point swing in party affiliation is non existent. You really are a stupid fucker aren't you?

Here's another fact. In 2008 these party affiliation polls and most all of the regular polls converged onto a consensus of voter turnout. In 2012 there is a wide divergence between the two. In 2008 it was much harder to argue against the polling data because there wasn't much to grasp onto. Something has to be wrong this year. Then you factor in Rasmussen's poll that was very close with his party affiliation to 2008 exit polls. He was very close in 2010 vs exit polls as well.

Instead of recognizing the disagreement between party affiliation polls and horse race polls I get called names in response. There is a discrepancy, period. Shane's contention is that gallup is so wrong that going from a 39-29 D-R in 2008 spread to 35-36 D-R is meaningless and doesn't even hint at supporting my contention. Of course it does you'd have to assume gross incompetence to suggest that these numbers are so wrong that there is really a 6 point edge for Democrats.

I've been on the record that Gallup and Rasmussen may be wrong. I just don't believe that they are. We'll see on tuesday.

 

[buckshot24]

Aren't you only looking at one side of the equation though? Even if Gallup and Rasmussen are historically right enough to support your position, don't you also have to demonstrate that the REST of the polls are historically wrong enough to not counter your position? After all, finding evidence to support a position isn't all that hard if that's all you're looking for.

There are definitely conflicting data sets.

Unfortunately we'll have to wait for some final answers come Tuesday. There is just no way around it.

 

[ivwshane]

You aren't getting it and that's ok I wasnt expecting anything different.

 

[randomrogue]

There are definitely conflicting data sets.

Unfortunately we'll have to wait for some final answers come Tuesday. There is just no way around it.

Are you backpedaling or do you still think Romney is going to win with 300+ Electoral Votes?

 

[Jhhnn]

Something has to be wrong this year.

The simple answer, which you avoid entirely, is that the party affiliation polls don't really matter in terms of the electoral college, particularly when the numbers come from a single source & methodology. The aggregated battleground state polls tell a different story & are much more likely to indicate the outcome.

Obama could lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college, same as GWB in 2000. I which case I offer the same sentiments that Repubs offered back then- Neener-Neener!

 

[a777pilot]

The simple answer, which you avoid entirely, is that the party affiliation polls don't really matter in terms of the electoral college, particularly when the numbers come from a single source & methodology. The aggregated battleground state polls tell a different story & are much more likely to indicate the outcome.

Obama could lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college, same as GWB in 2000. I which case I offer the same sentiments that Repubs offered back then- Neener-Neener!

That's the system we conduct government under.