Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Charles Kozierok]

But you're comparing a midterm to a presidential race!

He was also way off at the state level in 2008, and 90%+ of the time leaning to the Republicans.

He's a hack.

 

[QueBert]

Romney ahead? LOL 2 days ago I had my friend put a $250 bet on Barack for me. The line's were -400 for Obama +300 for Romney. Sort of a shit bet considering I'll only make .25 on the dollar, but it's a safe bet and I like easy money.

 

[buckshot24]

Why would R turnout be larger than 2010 when they had the Tea Party anti-Obama low Democratic turnout year?

Hey, we'll see. I've been arguing for parity between the two parties for turnout meaning an easy Romney win. +6R would be ridiculous and I don't think it will be that high, I'd be surprised actually.

 

[buckshot24]

He was also way off at the state level in 2008, and 90%+ of the time leaning to the Republicans.

He's a hack.

State level polling has nothing to do with this poll.

Plus you're basically saying that this poll (party affiliation poll) has to be off by 15 points but you're providing evidence of 3.9% bias. You're short 11.1 points.

Even the Golden boy gives Rasmussen some credit but you're simply dismissing them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

State level polling has nothing to do with this poll.

Of course not.

Plus you're basically saying that this poll (party affiliation poll) has to be off by 15 points but you're providing evidence of 3.9% bias. You're short 11.1 points.

Huh? I never said anything about 15 points.

Rasmussen's polling is biased and inaccurate. There is no way in hell the split between D and R is going to be anything like 2010, much less worse than it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

State level polling has nothing to do with this poll.

Plus you're basically saying that this poll (party affiliation poll) has to be off by 15 points but you're providing evidence of 3.9% bias. You're short 11.1 points.

Even the Golden boy gives Rasmussen some credit but you're simply dismissing them.

Rasmussen's latest poll has Romney leading 49-48. Please explain the discrepancy between this poll and the party affiliation poll from the same firm, and why you believe the party affiliation poll is more indicative of how voters will vote on election day.

 

[Screech]

It'll be more impressive when they're still arguing over it come December.

haha, good point.

Also, the votamatic site has an interesting post on the idea of polls herding.

 

[buckshot24]

Of course not.



Huh? I never said anything about 15 points.

Rasmussen's polling is biased and inaccurate. There is no way in hell the split between D and R is going to be anything like 2010, much less worse than it.

Yeah, 15 was too high. Sorry about that. You are saying however that the poll is off by around 10 points and yet you've only provided evidence from a mid term election (which can only be compared to a presidential race when it's convenient) where Rasmussen was 3.9 points, on average, in favor of the GOP.

I just want to make sure we've got that right.

Oh wait, "Rasmussen is a hack", was the other evidence you provided.

 

[Fern]

All the right-wing fanatics who continually complain about "liberal bias" in the news media should keep that in mind. In fact, journalists are bending over backwards to NOT tell the American public that the REAL message of the polls is that Obama is a big favorite to win. That's a huge CONSERVATIVE bias, but somehow right-wingers just can't see it.

Nah.

If you were biased to the Left the last thing you'd want to do is claim a guaranteed victory for Obama. That would repress D turnout, instead you claim is super close to ensure they vote.

Fern

 

[buckshot24]

Rasmussen's latest poll has Romney leading 49-48. Please explain the discrepancy between this poll and the party affiliation poll from the same firm, and why you believe the party affiliation poll is more indicative of how voters will vote on election day.

I don't know the internals of that poll, I'm not paying 20 bucks a month to get access either.

I'm not saying the party affiliation poll is telling us anything about how people vote I'm saying that it could be showing us who comes out to vote and in what proportions.

 

[TraumaRN]

I don't know the internals of that poll, I'm not paying 20 bucks a month to get access either.

I'm not saying the party affiliation poll is telling us anything about how people vote I'm saying that it could be showing us who comes out to vote and in what proportions.

First off hiding your internals behind a pay wall is crappy and shady.

Second off why are we arguing over one pollsters data the day before the election.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you were biased to the Left the last thing you'd want to do is claim a guaranteed victory for Obama. That would repress D turnout, instead you claim is super close to ensure they vote.

So if the media reports Obama is ahead, they're biased in his favor, and if they don't report that he's ahead, they're biased in his favor.

Nice to have all the bases covered.

 

[buckshot24]

First off hiding your internals behind a pay wall is crappy and shady.

Second off why are we arguing over one pollsters data the day before the election.

Because people seem to think I accept this poll without question while dismissing any other poll that contradicts it.

Any way we look at it there will be come polls that show things that turnout to be wrong by an unprecedented margin. If Gallup's and Rasmussen's party affiliation polls are close to correct then all the polls that show a 4-11 point Democrat advantage in turnout are wrong. If those party ID polls are wrong they will be off by more than they have ever been off.

My gut says the party id polls are correct but my mind is saying that we'll have to wait and see.

 

[buckshot24]

Liberal bias does not have to show in the way the race is portrayed in the media.

 

[sportage]

The only trend I have noticed is the moan and groan when anyone mentions Mitt Romney.
Show me one, just one poll other than media polls or news polls or state polls or national polls where Obama isn't out front by 2 to 1 and many cases 3 to 1.
Anyone look at the polls here lately? Same story.
Every instance where live people are polled at random, Mitt's loses big time.
Pick your forum. Pick your website. Obama tromps Romney every single poll.
Yea I know what some will claim... all forums are liberal Obama lovers.

Then you have Late Night with David Lettermen. He does an audience poll by applause and there again maybe 1/3 Romney, thunderous applause for Obama.

Every single time, people simply do not like Mitt Romney and they see right thru him.

But again I ask... link us to one, just one single poll from one live public forum showing Romney ahead. Then try to convince me that only liberal have internet access, type, own computers, or posts on forums.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because people seem to think I accept this poll without question while dismissing any other poll that contradicts it.

You've shown a consistent pattern over the last few weeks of choosing to believe minority polls that show you what you want while discounting or ignoring everything else. You're like a guy in a clock shop who sees a dozen clocks all saying it's 4:15, one clock saying it's 3:45, and since you have an appointment at 4 you don't want to be late for, deciding the 3:45 clock has to be right.

 

[Fern]

It's not tied. Obama is significantly ahead in the EC. The only way he doesn't win is if the polls are systematically biased (deliberately or unintentionally) in some way.

I don't know that it would indicate bias. Most polls make no attempt to model for voter turnout (D vs. R). But voter turnout is the name of the game in elections. When I was looking at various polls for info on voter turnout models I noticed that some of those that don't model actually say their poll is not designed to be a predictive tool. I.e., they're giving you a snapshot of the electorate, not making predictions.

I would expect those that claim 'likely voter' polls engage in modeling voter turnout.

If you listen to the professionals who have made their livings for decades running campaigns and deciphering polls they'll tell you that the voter turnout model is a big deal. Joe Trippi has been all over TV talking about it this weekend.

Unlike Morris (and to a lessor extent Michael Barron and Karl Rove), Joe Trippi, Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell were all sounding quite cautious this weekend. Trippi acknowledges the 2 models, he won't commit to which one is wrong but thinks the winner gets a little bit over 300 EC votes (he leans in Obama's favor). Schoen thinks a much closer EC vote and leans Obama. Caddell declined to say. He's getting suspicious that this election may turnout like the one in 1976 (Ford v. Carter) when in the last 48 hrs the electorate shifted substantially for Carter who won though he trailing in the polls at the weekend. Caddell said he wanted to see the new Gallup poll before commenting. Since that shows a shift to Obama I'm guessing he would now pick Obama.

Just to muddy the waters, the Redskins lost to the Panthers Yesterday.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

Just to muddy the waters, the Redskins lost to the Panthers Yesterday.

Fern

And the stock market closed "up" from the period after labor day to the day before the election.

 

[buckshot24]

You've shown a consistent pattern over the last few weeks of choosing to believe minority polls that show you what you want while discounting or ignoring everything else. You're like a guy in a clock shop who sees a dozen clocks all saying it's 4:15, one clock saying it's 3:45, and since you have an appointment at 4 you don't want to be late for, deciding the 3:45 clock has to be right.

That's why I have coined the term "doing a Charles". You are assuming and you're fucking up.

Where have I ever said one poll was right and others are wrong? Only in your mind. Mentioning these conflicting polls are an admission that they are right and everything else is wrong, according to your false construct.

When you dismiss out of hand these conflicting polls I press you for reasons for doing so. In doing, I must believe these polls and dismiss all the other polls. If you quit assuming all of these things, you'll do much better.

 

[Fern]

So if the media reports Obama is ahead, they're biased in his favor, and if they don't report that he's ahead, they're biased in his favor.

Nice to have all the bases covered.

No problem showing him a bit ahead. Showing him a 'sure thing' would be the problem. But you knew that.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You are assuming and you're fucking up.

I'm not assuming. I'm commenting based on your posts.

You constantly go on and on and on and on and on about Rasmussen and any other poll that tells you what you want to hear. You say things like "If those party ID polls are wrong they will be off by more than they have ever been off" -- as if that would be a big surprise given that they are outliers.

I've said a number of times that Rasmussen could be right. But he's off in right field compared to every other pollster.

You are cherry-picking only the most right-leaning polls to make your predictions of a Romney win. You have no reason to prefer these polls over the vast majority showing something completely different. You're being dishonest with us, but more importantly, with yourself.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No problem showing him a bit ahead. Showing him a 'sure thing' would be the problem. But you knew that.

When the media reported Obama being a bit ahead, all of the usual suspects on the right screamed about bias.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm not assuming. I'm commenting based on your posts.

You constantly go on and on and on and on and on about Rasmussen and any other poll that tells you what you want to hear. You say things like "If those party ID polls are wrong they will be off by more than they have ever been off" -- as if that would be a big surprise given that they are outliers.

Not only are they outliers, they seem to directly contradict what Rasmussen's own daily poll numbers indicate. It makes me think that buckshot is just reading the data wrong. Either that or Rasmussen has recorded a 14 point swing in the last couple days.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm not assuming. I'm commenting based on your posts.

You are assuming that by me commenting on polls or mentioning them then I think they are correct and anything else is false. That is exactly what you're doing because I haven't ever said this.

You constantly go on and on and on and on and on about Rasmussen and any other poll that tells you what you want to hear. You say things like "If those party ID polls are wrong they will be off by more than they have ever been off" -- as if that would be a big surprise given that they are outliers.

They have historically predicted turnout trends over the last few elections and I don't dismiss them because they disagree with other polls saying the opposite. If they are wrong then they are wrong.

I've said a number of times that Rasmussen could be right. But he's off in right field compared to every other pollster.

No he isn't. There are at least two polls saying the same thing.

You are cherry-picking only the most right-leaning polls to make your predictions of a Romney win. You have no reason to prefer these polls over the vast majority showing something completely different. You're being dishonest with us, but more importantly, with yourself.

Now you're crossing the line from merely "fucking up" to being a "fuck up". You keep making assumptions when time after time you've been told that you're wrong.

My "gut" says Romney wins. My mind says "lets wait and see". We'll know tomorrow.

 

[PJABBER]

I am pretty much discounting all polls since the election is tomorrow and we will know for sure either tomorrow night or, if it really is that close, sometime later.

Interesting article that purports to describe Romney's internal polling outlook -

Exclusive: Romney campaign internal polling puts Republican nominee up ONE POINT in Ohio and TIED in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

By TOBY HARNDEN IN PITTSBURGH

PUBLISHED 15:28 EST, 5 November 2012 | UPDATED 15:46 EST, 5 November 2012

Mitt Romney is ahead by a single percentage point in Ohio, according to internal polling data provided to MailOnline by a Republican party source.

Internal campaign polling completed last night by campaign pollster Neil Newhouse has Romney three points up in New Hampshire, two points up in Iowa and dead level in Wisconsin and - most startlingly - Pennsylvania.

Internal poll show Romney trailing in Nevada, reflected in a consensus among senior advisers that Obama will probably win the state. Early voting in Nevada has shown very heavy turnout in the Democratic stronghold of Clark County and union organisation in the state is strong.

Romney is to campaign in Cleveland, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on election day, reflecting the tightness of the race in Ohio and the tantalising prospect of success in Pennsylvania, which has not gone Republican in a presidential campaign for 24 years.

Nearly all public polling put Obama ahead in Ohio by whisker at least. The RealClearPolitics average of polls there gives the president a 2.8 per cent advantage. But the Romney campaign insists that pollsters have their models wrong and are overestimating Democratic turnout and underestimating Republican enthusiasm.

If the Romney campaign's internal numbers are correct - and nearly all independent pollsters have come up with a picture much more favourable for Obama - then the former Massachusetts governor will almost certainly be elected 45th U.S. President.

The most dramatic shift in the Romney campaign's internal polling has been in Wisconsin, which has moved from being eight points down to pulling level. President Barack Obama is campaigning in the state on the eve of election day.
Despite the Obama campaign's insistence that Romney's late decision to contest Pennsylvania is an act of 'desperation', former President Bill Clinton - Obama's most valuable ally on the stump - is holding four eve-of-election events there.

A surprise Romney win in Pennsylvania, which has 20 of the 270 electoral college votes needed for victory, would almost certainly be a fatal blow to Obama's re-election hopes. If Romney took Wisconsin, that would offer him a credible path to victory without winning Ohio.

The Romney campaign believes that both Florida, Virginia and North Carolina - all of which Obama won in 2008 - are 'done' for the Democratic incumbent, as one senior adviser put it.

Many Republicans party officials are less bullish about Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than the Romney campaign, believing their nominee will probably fall short there, setting up a showdown in Ohio, which has 18 electoral college votes and decided the 2004 election for President George W. Bush.