Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[randomrogue]

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

That's about it.

Yes and I said that above. If the polling is all wrong then he has a chance. I really am looking forward to the results since I think (regardless of the outcome) that we're going to see a dramatic change in future polling. I'm sure they all are perfectly fine at running the statistics but it's their methodology in gathering results and the questions they ask that are suspect. Times change and I have a feeling the pollsters are a bit behind. This is why I like 538. He's not a pollster. He's simply a statistician and trying to make the most of all the data that's out there. If the data is wrong though...

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, the polls mentioned here do not have anything to do with who wins, it is the people who vote to provide the EC votes.

 

[Doppel]

Romney continues to slip in EC odds, now down to 1/4 chance win projected by 538. Is still funny to watch people who pretend his campaign is anything but moribund.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I really am looking forward to the results since I think (regardless of the outcome) that we're going to see a dramatic change in future polling.

I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.

I remember in 2010 I think it was when Silver called out Rasmussen and the latter just dissed the former. I don't think he'll get away with that this time if he's way off.

 

[TraumaRN]

I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.

I remember in 2010 I think it was when Silver called out Rasmussen and the latter just dissed the former. I don't think he'll get away with that this time if he's way off.

I think fucking up in a presidential election might force that change...but then again it might not. In this age of partisan politics it probably is good to be partisan to a degree with your polling. Keep future races artificially close.

 

[Rainsford]

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."

That is pretty interesting, because the general consensus among the polling aggregation sites seems to be that Obama is more likely to win Wisconsin. I suppose we'll see who's right fairly soon.

 

[Rainsford]

I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.

I remember in 2010 I think it was when Silver called out Rasmussen and the latter just dissed the former. I don't think he'll get away with that this time if he's way off.

I suppose it depends on what type of polling results you're aiming for. If you're looking to produce the most accurate picture possible of who's likely to get how many votes, then your record is definitely important. On the other hand, if your goal is to produce results that are "interesting" either in terms of the horse race coverage or because they appeal to partisans, then charges of inaccuracy might not be a major issue at all.

In Nate Silver's new book, he talks about how most political predictions made by "experts" are incredibly inaccurate...to the point where it would seem like people paid to make them would end up losing their jobs. Except people aren't really looking for accuracy exactly, so it's not as much of an issue as you would think.

 

[randomrogue]

Been a long time since I studied statistics but are polling statistics maybe too loose? They only work with a 2 sigma margin of error. Physics works with 5. How much larger would their samples have to be to get up to 3 sigma or 99.7%? Well 10,000 people. So basically they're being cheap and opting to just do many polls that are not as accurate.

I for one would rather have polls at 3 sigma and cut the crap. They're opting for more polls and probably hoping to sway voters to their side of the political fence.

 

[Farang]

I suppose it depends on what type of polling results you're aiming for. If you're looking to produce the most accurate picture possible of who's likely to get how many votes, then your record is definitely important. On the other hand, if your goal is to produce results that are "interesting" either in terms of the horse race coverage or because they appeal to partisans, then charges of inaccuracy might not be a major issue at all.

In Nate Silver's new book, he talks about how most political predictions made by "experts" are incredibly inaccurate...to the point where it would seem like people paid to make them would end up losing their jobs. Except people aren't really looking for accuracy exactly, so it's not as much of an issue as you would think.

To your last point, I think a certain segment of political analysts make their living by telling people what they want to hear. An extreme example of this is Dick Morris.. if you look at his website, what he is selling is comfort to people who want to hear a certain thing. So even though he is consistently wrong, to the point of being actually very good at being wrong, he makes a living.

 

[shortylickens]

Virginia and a couple others are still swing states.
How much you wanna bet the candidates use Sandy as leverage to gain votes?

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/weather_wisdom/2012/10/sandy_will_be_historic_storm_i.html

You know the cocksuckers would do it.........

 

[Todd33]

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."

LOL, 96% voter turn out, up 25% from 2008!

 

[shortylickens]

LOL, 96% voter turn out, up 25% from 2008!

Yeah but 2000 and 2004 were excellent so.......

 

[cybrsage]

LOL, 96% voter turn out, up 25% from 2008!

Nah, you misunderstood his post. It said voters, not eligible voters. It is 96% of the 65% (or whatever percent it is) of eligible voters...

 

[buckshot24]

LOL, 96% voter turn out, up 25% from 2008!

Are you that daft? They said that 96% of the voters they contacted said they were sure to vote. So 4% said they may not vote and Obama is way up with those people.

 

[buckshot24]

To your last point, I think a certain segment of political analysts make their living by telling people what they want to hear. An extreme example of this is Dick Morris.. if you look at his website, what he is selling is comfort to people who want to hear a certain thing. So even though he is consistently wrong, to the point of being actually very good at being wrong, he makes a living.

Did Morris outright predict a McCain victory? I really don't know so there are no "gotcha" traps waiting here.()

 

[Doppel]

To your last point, I think a certain segment of political analysts make their living by telling people what they want to hear. An extreme example of this is Dick Morris.. if you look at his website, what he is selling is comfort to people who want to hear a certain thing. So even though he is consistently wrong, to the point of being actually very good at being wrong, he makes a living.

Look at foxnews, look at msnbc. I honestly doubt these people even give a damn. Hannity does he really care who wins? He is simply selling slop to greedy pigs and makes a living off it.

 

[Farang]

Look at foxnews, look at msnbc. I honestly doubt these people even give a damn. Hannity does he really care who wins? He is simply selling slop to greedy pigs and makes a living off it.

I think Hannity and Rush hope for an Obama victory.. I'd have to assume the Clinton years were the best for Rush financially.

 

[Doppel]

I think Hannity and Rush hope for an Obama victory.. I'd have to assume the Clinton years were the best for Rush financially.

I absolutely agree with this. Their money is in pissed off angry lost listeners.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Did Morris outright predict a McCain victory?

Yes, a comfortable one. I think he changed his mind right at the very end, though, when even people as stupid/dishonest as his readers knew it wasn't going to happen.

 

[Rainsford]

Are you that daft? They said that 96% of the voters they contacted said they were sure to vote. So 4% said they may not vote and Obama is way up with those people.

To be fair, I'm not sure "96% of voters" really means anything. Technically they're not "voters" if they don't vote, so the number should really be 100%. I assume that's not what Rasmussen means though, but did they mean registered voters, likely voters or eligible voters? I'm guessing registered, but even that sounds a bit high. Unless they're saying 96% of likely voters are absolutely sure voters.

Like I said, it's an interesting number, but it also sounds kind of non-standard for polling (unless I'm just misunderstanding something).

 

[buckshot24]

To be fair, I'm not sure "96% of voters" really means anything. Technically they're not "voters" if they don't vote, so the number should really be 100%. I assume that's not what Rasmussen means though, but did they mean registered voters, likely voters or eligible voters? I'm guessing registered, but even that sounds a bit high. Unless they're saying 96% of likely voters are absolutely sure voters.

Like I said, it's an interesting number, but it also sounds kind of non-standard for polling (unless I'm just misunderstanding something).

I assumed it meant "voters" in the sense that people are "likely voters". Of those 96% said they were sure to vote. Just a guess.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, a comfortable one. I think he changed his mind right at the very end, though, when even people as stupid/dishonest as his readers knew it wasn't going to happen.

Before or after the meltdown? I think the cake was baked at that point.

 

[Todd33]

Are you that daft? They said that 96% of the voters they contacted said they were sure to vote. So 4% said they may not vote and Obama is way up with those people.

I understand that and it is still nonsense. Until they actually vote they are not voters, just registered or eligible. Turn out will not be 96% of RV or voter aged people. I think it is typically reported as a percent of RV . It is just easier for people to respond to a poll than actually vote hence the LOL.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/voter-turnout-and-registration/

 

[buckshot24]

I understand that and it is still nonsense. Until they actually vote they are not voters, just registered or eligible. Turn out will not be 96% of RV or voter aged people.

They didn't say that, moron. You say you understand it then contradict yourself by being a moron about it.

Out of their already screened likely voters in their poll 96% of those said they were sure to vote. Only in your pea brain did they say 96% of all registered voters in the entire state.

 

[Charles Kozierok]