Shocker: Pew Poll with = sample of D and R results in...

[DC Tom]

Dear Clueless Tom, I have said all along the polls don't mean shi+

 

You need to ask -

 

How many early votes have been submitted? What impact migh they have?

 

The Romney "surge" might only affect the undecided voters. Which I believe is a small percentage. And the Republicans that want to vote for Johnson, you have to account for their displeasure in the Centrist Mitt.

 

No you haven't. There's a 44-page thread full of you crowing about the polls showing Obama in the lead.

[OCinBuffalo]

Even more evidence of poll tinkering. And, this is from people that know this stuff cold(not the author, but the people he quotes):

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/gallup_to_up_minority_representation_in_poll_samples_under_pressure_from_the_left.html

 

Now, should we not call arbitrarily re-weighting your data, to reflect a batshit 68% white electorate...a methodology problem?

 

Which methodology says dumping your weighting standards 4 weeks before the end is...rational? But...we shouldn't question methodology?

 

The real reason imho?

 

Axelrod NEEDS a 50+ approval rating/votes for his guy. The big $ donors know the game, or, they pay people who do. They know that an incumbent polling below 50 is going to lose, even if he is winning. That's why, when we were dealing with D+4-6 polls, we were only seeing 45-49% for Obama. Then, almost as if it were planned we saw D+8-13...and that got the "required by donor" 50-52%.

[fjl2nd]

Even more evidence of poll tinkering. And, this is from people that know this stuff cold(not the author, but the people he quotes):

 

http://www.americant...m_the_left.html

 

Now, should we not call arbitrarily re-weighting your data, to reflect a batshit 68% white electorate...a methodology problem?

 

Which methodology says dumping your weighting standards 4 weeks before the end is...rational? But...we shouldn't question methodology?

 

The real reason imho?

 

Axelrod NEEDS a 50+ approval rating/votes for his guy. The big $ donors know the game, or, they pay people who do. They know that an incumbent polling below 50 is going to lose, even if he is winning. That's why, when we were dealing with D+4-6 polls, we were only seeing 45-49% for Obama. Then, almost as if it were planned we saw D+8-13...and that got the "required by donor" 50-52%.

 

Can we stop with the Glen Beck conspiracy crap??

 

Why would every single polling agency be in the bag for Obama?? Even conservative organizations like Fox and IBD had polls showing Obama with that big lead before the debates.

 

What exactly do they gain by skewing their poll numbers to make Obama look stronger than he really is/was? You explained what the campaign gains but what about Gallup, Fox, CBS, NBC, IBD, Reuters, etc. gain?

[Rob's House]

 

 

Can we stop with the Glen Beck conspiracy crap??

 

Why would every single polling agency be in the bag for Obama?? Even conservative organizations like Fox and IBD had polls showing Obama with that big lead before the debates.

 

What exactly do they gain by skewing their poll numbers to make Obama look stronger than he really is/was? You explained what the campaign gains but what about Gallup, Fox, CBS, NBC, IBD, Reuters, etc. gain?

Rasmussen has consistently shown a dead heat for weeks if not months.

[OCinBuffalo]

Can we stop with the Glen Beck conspiracy crap??

 

Why would every single polling agency be in the bag for Obama?? Even conservative organizations like Fox and IBD had polls showing Obama with that big lead before the debates.

 

What exactly do they gain by skewing their poll numbers to make Obama look stronger than he really is/was? You explained what the campaign gains but what about Gallup, Fox, CBS, NBC, IBD, Reuters, etc. gain?

Read the article. If Axlerod goes out an decries Gallup, then Gallup loses. They have to placate Axelrod, or he goes on national TV and cries. And, if there's even a shred to back it up, Gallop is in big trouble. It's way too big of a risk to take. So..now we have a 68% white electorate even though we know it will be more like 74-5%.

 

It's a business, and these guys would rather be placating their #1 customers, political campaigns and the media, than worrying about whatever I say. We don't pay them anything. Oh, and who are Rassmussen's customers? Yep, businesses, that's why he can tell Axelrod to get F'ed.

 

Everybody but Rassussen decided to use 2008, D+7 electorate as a model, a long time ago, and they aren't supposed to change that, so that one poll to the next = apples to apples. That was a stupid decision, in light of the 2010 electorate, but, they say its because the mid-terms are useless because they are smaller, different, etc. Yeah, that, and The TEA Party is dead!

 

Bottom line: do you really think that this is a D+8-13 election? If you do, then there's nothing wrong with the polls that had Obama ahead by 7-10.

 

Reality: this is a D+2 election at best. And, given what has transpired up through today, that is a pipe dream. Today, this is most likely a 0 or R+1 election. (EDIT: Keep in mind I'm talking turnout here. Turnout does not necessarily = electoral college win. Romney can lose California by 10..instead of McCain losing it by 24 in 2008, and get more turnout, but still lose.)

 

That can change....but I seriously doubt that the Libya thing will be knocked off by any other big story that might help Obama stop the bleeding, or more importantly, fire up his base to turn out in such great numbers that they beat the R turnout. It would certainly take something bigger than dogs on roofs of cars, etc.

 

Hey, I can't prove that the media put pressure on the people they pay...to fudge the #s this time. I can prove that the Washington Post and NY Times has done it in the past. Given what we have to work with, and what we know, there's a lot that makes it look very suspicious.

Edited October 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[fjl2nd]

http://fivethirtyeig...ormed-strongly/

 

Rasmussen's 2010 results were bad. They are the one's with methodology problems, not that other way around.

 

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

 

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

 

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

 

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that itsbias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied.

Some of the criticisms have focused on the fact that Mr. Rasmussen is himself a conservative — the same direction in which his polls have generally leaned — although he identifies as an independent rather than Republican. In our view, that is somewhat beside the point. What matters, rather, is that the methodological shortcuts that the firm takes may now be causing it to pay a price in terms of the reliability of its polling.

Edited October 12, 2012 by fjl2nd

[jjamie12]

http://fivethirtyeig...ormed-strongly/

 

Rasmussen's 2010 results were bad. They are the one's with methodology problems, not that other way around.

 

Look. We can just stop talking about this poll, that poll, bias, whatever.

 

OC said it above: If you believe that this is a D+8 to D+13 TURNOUT, Barack Obama will win going away.

 

If you believe that it is a D+2 or lower TURNOUT, he's going to be in some trouble. That's it. I don't know we need to have articles from 538.com or whatever. On November 6th, SOMEONE'S methodology will have been right, and the other guy's will have been wrong.

 

Just stop and think about it for yourself for a second. Don't go searching for an article to support 'your' view. Do you believe there will be a D+8 turnout this year? If not, what do you think it will be? Does it make sense to you that the turnout will be as strong for President Obama this year as 4 years ago? If so, look at 538. If not, find a poll that has the sampling that most resembles your view of turnout. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. No articles that you link to will replace you thinking about this for yourself. Just do it.

[B-Man]

Look. We can just stop talking about this poll, that poll, bias, whatever.

 

OC said it above: If you believe that this is a D+8 to D+13 TURNOUT, Barack Obama will win going away.

 

If you believe that it is a D+2 or lower TURNOUT, he's going to be in some trouble. That's it. I don't know we need to have articles from 538.com or whatever. On November 6th, SOMEONE'S methodology will have been right, and the other guy's will have been wrong.

 

Just stop and think about it for yourself for a second. Don't go searching for an article to support 'your' view. Do you believe there will be a D+8 turnout this year? If not, what do you think it will be? Does it make sense to you that the turnout will be as strong for President Obama this year as 4 years ago? If so, look at 538. If not, find a poll that has the sampling that most resembles your view of turnout. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. No articles that you link to will replace you thinking about this for yourself. Just do it.

 

Very well stated.

 

 

.

[BillsFanM.D.]

Look. We can just stop talking about this poll, that poll, bias, whatever.

 

OC said it above: If you believe that this is a D+8 to D+13 TURNOUT, Barack Obama will win going away.

 

If you believe that it is a D+2 or lower TURNOUT, he's going to be in some trouble. That's it. I don't know we need to have articles from 538.com or whatever. On November 6th, SOMEONE'S methodology will have been right, and the other guy's will have been wrong.

 

Just stop and think about it for yourself for a second. Don't go searching for an article to support 'your' view. Do you believe there will be a D+8 turnout this year? If not, what do you think it will be? Does it make sense to you that the turnout will be as strong for President Obama this year as 4 years ago? If so, look at 538. If not, find a poll that has the sampling that most resembles your view of turnout. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time. No articles that you link to will replace you thinking about this for yourself. Just do it.

 

You take your logic and common sense and get out of here.....

 

Nice post.

[OCinBuffalo]

http://fivethirtyeig...ormed-strongly/

 

Rasmussen's 2010 results were bad. They are the one's with methodology problems, not that other way around.

Yes...might and may. May and might. Assertion, not fact, then link to more may and might. You are the only one who is being definitive here. Your article is not.

 

Example: You might be a D-bag, on the other hand, you may be an idiot. I actually haven't called you any names, but now, I've associated you with them.

 

Think for yourself: why may and might...in an article whose goal is to PROVE something? This article proves nothing.

 

Rassmussen has been the most accurate the last 3 elections in a row, and there is no question: http://electoralmap....8_election.php. This has been analyzed by independent groups, it has even been confirmed by Democratic groups like Slate magazine. He is either the best, or tied. End of story.

 

Your pissant Nate Silver( ) article doesn't even do it's comparison properly = more evidence that people who don't know math should STFU. More evidence, that I should keep saying Nate Silver every time his name comes up.

 

This was one, of many, articles by the NY Times around a that time , that were trying to take the pain of the 2010 elections away, by lashing out wildly at whoever they could. The mays and the mights give it away. He is taking shots, for the sake of taking shots, but covering his ass with the mays and mights.

 

EDIT: I just realized...because I'm an idiot...that all of Silver's links point to his own work, or a neutral fact(RCP's Obama approval ratings average). Yeah...great way to make your point Nate..."I'm right because I'm right". Pathetic.

Edited October 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo