OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) 4 point lead for Romney with a 2.9 MOE. Here you go: http://www.people-pr...cal Release.pdf Among registered votersRepublican voters 403 5.7 percentage points Democratic voters 396 5.7 percentage points Independent voters 364 6.0 percentage points The 2nd number above is the MOE for each sample. Now, do I still have a tin foil hat, or, have events, once again, overtaken those who said I was wrong? See? It's always just a matter of time...and properly collected data. The lamest possible excuse I've heard on this so far: "But...but...but...more people ID with the winner when he's winning." All that clown has to do is spend 1 day reading this board, to know that people don't just change their party ID on a whim, or a debate ass-whipping. Any of you Democrats feeling less Democratic today? Any Republicans feeling less Republican? Does Ron Paul suck now? No. No. and No. Not for any of you. Does the candidate your party has put forward change what you believe...or...does what you believe guide which candidate you supported in their primary? Perhaps we should ask PastaJoe if he is now IDing as an R...because Hillary didn't win? Or, because Obama lost the debate? The excuse they should be going with: when one party improves, those that ID with them are more likely to pick up the phone, and not let the pollster's call go to VM. That is at least reasonable, but I've never seen any data to back it up. That would explain why the problem polls had D+8 samples in a D+2, at best, year. Those polls were merely telling us that Obama supporters support: Obama. Thanks. We didn't know that. (EDIT: Oops. It also told us that since Obama rarely if ever broke 50%...that it was possible that they didn't support Obama anywhere near as much as Rs support Romney) The excuse they are going with: People are going to change party ID because of one debate, is preposterous. Then, there is the women thing: in this poll they are now 47/47...down from 56/38? I find that hard to believe, but women in politics, and women in general, is a whole different thread. Edited October 9, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 The only poll that matters is the one taken in December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So now that Romney is showing some positive movement, the polls are accurate? It is so hard to keep up with this stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 The only poll that matters is the one taken in December. I thought it was the one the strippers danced with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) So now that Romney is showing some positive movement, the polls are accurate? It is so hard to keep up with this stuff! Actually, what he's saying is that when the polls use a sample that is equally weighted Republican and Democrat, the poll produces a result favorable to Romney. When a poll overweights Dems, the result of the poll favors Obama. Further, OC has been making the claim that most of the previous polls have been 'over-sampling' Democrats PRECISELY BECAUSE those polls believe that the election of 2012 will be similar to the election of 2008 when it comes down to 'getting the vote out'. In other words, their models have been predicting a Democrat +6 (or 8 or whatever) turnout for the election and therefore sampled that way. He's been saying all along that he thinks that there won't be the same distribution of D's and R's as the last election; he thinks it will be even or, at most, Democrat +2%. That has been the basis of the conversations for some time now. In other words, he doesn't *magically* believe the polls now that Romney is winning, he believes the sample to be more representative of what will happen on election day. Edited October 9, 2012 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 So now that Romney is showing some positive movement, the polls are accurate? It is so hard to keep up with this stuff! What difference should we expect between this sample, and one that has 8 pts more Ds in it, do you think? Come now Buftex, you are a reasonable person. Don't try to be coy with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So now that Romney is showing some positive movement, the polls are accurate? It is so hard to keep up with this stuff! Weak effort. The op put right in the title that the methodology had changed. There is nothing really "shocking" about the results to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 There is nothing really "shocking" about the results to me. Feel the sarcasm B-man. I'm laying it on pretty thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Feel the sarcasm B-man. I'm laying it on pretty thick. Get yourself a new (electoral college) map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I thought it was the one the strippers danced with. Those are are really important in Warsaw. People kept stealing them so they had to install Poll Locks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 I wonder...now that Rassmussen is the only tracking poll that doesn't have Romney winning(tied), if we can also abandon the "Rassmussen is a liar" thing as well? Probably not. If the fact that he has been the most accurate for the last 3 elections, as was recognized by Slate Magazine, of all people, doesn't get through? Nothing will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Stop saying methodology is changed. Unless Pew does it differently from everyone else. Polling agencies don't sample by political party, never have. It is just so happened more people identified as Democrats in most polls. Get over this already. Romney making a race out of this thing is good. Gives me some entertainment for the month. Craziest result in that poll: "Who connects with ordinary Americans more?" Obama by a margin of 69-7. Lol. And to the OP, the MOE is 3.4 for likely voters. Edited October 9, 2012 by fjl2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 Get yourself a new (electoral college) map. Riiiiiichard! How about this map? http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=FQC If Rassmussen's new swing state poll is to be believed, then, there you go...with some mods. (I gave WI to Romney because of Ryan, and NH and IA because those people aren't idiots, and they are keenly aware of politics. I kept MI for Obama because of the auto bailout thingy, and PA to Obama, because even though I believe in the "Coal State" strategy, and there's ample evidence to support that belief, I still think there are too many people in the Philly area who won't admit they are wrong, about anything. Lots of people who booed drafting McNabb, and refused to admit they were wrong. I also gave Ohio to Obama...just for fun, and because I've spent a lot of time there too. They are loyal, and the auto bailout helped them, but down-ticket will be all R.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 How about this map? http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FQC That's about as likely to happen as me getting the courage to talk to this really super hot chick in one of the other buildings where I work and her actually agreeing to go out with me and us end up making whoopie I think realistically we're looking at this map http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=FRi Where Obama only needs to win 1 of 4 battlegrounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 Stop saying methodology is changed. Unless Pew does it differently from everyone else. Polling agencies don't sample by political party, never have. It is just so happened more people identified as Democrats in most polls. Get over this already. Romney making a race out of this thing is good. Gives me some entertainment for the month. Craziest result in that poll: "Who connects with ordinary Americans more?" Obama by a margin of 69-7. Lol. And to the OP, the MOE is 3.4 for likely voters. A +8 D turnout...to a 0 turnout. That's a clear change in raw data if I ever saw one. How the F do you explain that, if it's not a method change? Or, do you agree with me that its most likely a reflection of enthusiasm in terms of willingness to answer the phone, in which case the earlier polls told us nothing? Or, do you really think, that 7-13% of people just up and changed their party ID? If that is true, then the party ID MOE is wrong. It has to be more like 10. Seriously. No, usual, typical, annoying, trolling, OCinBuffalo buffoonery here: I want to know how you explain this? George Orwell said "To see what's in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" What do these numbers, which I have now put in front of your nose, tell you? Are you going to struggle...at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 That's about as likely to happen as me getting the courage to talk to this really super hot chick in one of the other buildings where I work and her actually agreeing to go out with me and us end up making whoopie I think realistically we're looking at this map http://www.270towin....s.php?mapid=FRi Where Obama only needs to win 1 of 4 battlegrounds In what world does UTAH go to Obama? May want to try this one again. Anyway, no way IA and NH both go to Obama. I might be willing to listen to IA, but no way NH. VA? You are smoking crack. The "coal state" thing will take care of VA, and it may even lead to OH. I still don't think PA will be gained by it. The rest...are swing states...and Rassmussen has leads for Romney in all as of today. My problem with that Rassmussen poll, since I don't expect anyone else to actually argue this, and want to tell me that "you just agree with the polls cause Romney is winning" instead, is that I don't know how you can reflect such massive change in a 7 day tracking poll. The average of the other days' numbers, including 3 days of prior-debate data, would suggest a more moderate gain, not 4 and 5, or in some cases 7 point swings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 In what world does UTAH go to Obama? May want to try this one again. Sorry, must have hit Utah by mistake when going for Nevada. Try this one http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=FSc VA? You are smoking crack. The "coal state" thing will take care of VA, and it may even lead to OH. The coal part of VA is already solid Romney territory. Battlegrounds here are the urban areas (NOVA, Hampton Roads, Richmond) I still don't think PA will be gained by it. Neither do I. But, if PA did go for Romney then almost every other swing state would as well. It would be a resounding victory, something like this: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=FSj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 "Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from four years ago. Of that reduction, 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/drop-in-ohio-voter-registration-especially-in-dem-strongholds-mirrors/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz28qiy2Pw8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 "Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from four years ago. Of that reduction, 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one." Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...e#ixzz28qiy2Pw8 They're too distracted now by their OBAMAPHONES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 "Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from four years ago. Of that reduction, 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one." Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...e#ixzz28qiy2Pw8 Why register, when you don't even need to prove you're you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts