Aaron Strife
Banned
Romney's actually up 4.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I get that. This guy I was arguing with specifically said that more people that were polled selected Romney but that the results were adjusted. Sounds like a flat out lie to me. I googled and couldn't even find any claims of the sort other than on sites like unskewedpolls.com
Yup Obama is good for business, just as Clinton was good for business. If Obama loses they have to basically go after Congress and that is harder to carry a consistent narrative.
SpeedySwaf
Member
To add to this, the same group that says Romney's leading by 4 also said Obama was leading by 1 back in mid-September. Around that same time the other polls had him leading from 6 to 12.
They may have a slight bias.
Marist showing O+2 is one point better than the O+1 they had after the first debate.
Mason-Dixon showing R+6 is one point better than the R+7 they had after the first debate.
CNN showing a tie (10/28) is one point better than the R+1 they had after the first debate.
I don't think these polls are that hard to interpret.
Both these Florida polls are in line with the current averages.
Officerrob
Banned
Edit: Nevermind
Read the George Will columns and stop crying. Nearly every post you make is about the lib media. Quite an odd Obama supporter.
Technically speaking I believe that could be happening in a way, but that's not because of party ID weighting. That would happen if the poll sampled too many old people, for example, and the electorate had far less older people. They'd have to weight the answers of the younger people a bit more to put it in line with reality. The reverse would happen if they oversampled too many african americans, for example, though.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Wait a second.
They posted that in their OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA.
You don't think that article might be assumed to be a bit more shillworthy than the rest of the paper?
Byakuya769
Member
And?
If the Republican Presidential Candidate uses campaign tactics that insult the intelligence of the electorate, calling that out is... I don't know, journalism?
Are you sure you know what rationalization means? How about instead of immediately presuming some nefarious partisan blinders on my part, you actually explain why the editorial is out of bounds. How is it incorrect?
Let's not get started on your preemptive "I know the liberal gaf hivemind doesn't like this" attitude.
So one guy? Cool.
The electorate is based on the census, right?
What? That wasn't their endorsement article.
Officerrob
Banned
My mistake. I was going off of these and adding in the leaning independents:
Do you consider yourself a: (party identification)
Strong Democrat 30
Not strong Democrat 8
Democrat leaning Independent 10
Just Independent 10
Republican leaning Independent 12
Not strong Republican 7
Strong Republican 22
Other 1
Total 100
SSGMUN10000
Connoisseur Of Tedium
My latin people are not going to let me down.Yes, they weight based on the census of the entire state (or whatever they're polling), and then use a likely voter screen to whittle things down to who might actually vote.
With regards to Florida polling:
And that R+6 poll is Mason-Dixon, who has been extremely Romney-tilted in every survey they've done this year.
Once again, all the Florida polls show Obama doing about a point better than after the first debate. That's nearly tied but not quite.
@electionate said:
And that R+6 poll is Mason-Dixon, who has been extremely Romney-tilted in every survey they've done this year.
Once again, all the Florida polls show Obama doing about a point better than after the first debate. That's nearly tied but not quite.
Good news for Susquehanna. Romney will totally turn this race around in three days.
When more people die from obama's katrina while he's out being the campaigner in chief, we'll see what happens.
So is there any way to see the actual raw data of these polls? Like, before they weight the polls?
Angelus Errare
Banned
ROFL at that old woman who was about to cry talking about being anti-homosexual, anti abortion, loves god.
Good news for Susquehanna. Romney will totally turn this race around in three days.
hey that trend line seems pretty steady
almost as if you stop looking at one poll alone and then take all the data points together then paint a story
almost as if trying to chicken little or hyperbole over a single poll is pretty useless in an age of poll aggregates eh
I can see how it might look like that after the endorsement, but a newspaper whose most popular opinion writer is probably George Will, and who employes Jennifer Rubin, maybe the dumbest and hackiest pro-Romney writer I've seen this election in serious media, I'll respectfully disagree.
It doesn't help that Romney is a pretty terrible candidate, running an extremely dishonest campaign. You expect dishonesty in a politician (that's why that article also slams Obama), but Romney turns it up to 11.
You can usually see a good amount of poll internals when they release full crosstabs.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Marine One and Marine Two
RustyNails
Member
Wow, CNN's ballwashing for Republicans has gone blatant. Check out their frontpage. Their top headline has a picture of Scott Brown with the heading
CNN fuckoffanddiekthx
Link
The Autumn Wind
I like to think of it as a collective "fuck you" to Rick Scott.
Stopped reading at John Avlon
538 updated again 30 minutes ago, now up to 83.7%. Hopium.
$16M in the GOP primary alone apparently.
$16M in the GOP primary alone apparently.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Nate is as addicted as we are. Obama's highest in the Nov. 6 forecast was 87.1% so we are almost back to where we were pre-debates.
I've got a love/hate relationship with her political campaigns. I love the fact that she pisses away her own money to try and buy a position and fails, but I hate the fact I have to deal with the fact she bombards the airwaves so that all we see are attack ads from her.
A line from the latest 538 post that deserves special consideration:
In other words, that possibility that the polls are "using the wrong turnout model" or are in some other way systematically skewed towards the Democrats?
That possibility is already taken into account in that 81% win percentage.
If you assume that the polls are trustworthy in aggregate?
You get Sam Wang's percentages.
edit: Nate added the Mason-Dixon poll and the Marist poll to Florida. Whaddya know, the win chance there stayed static. Ohio is up to 84%
nyt said:
In other words, that possibility that the polls are "using the wrong turnout model" or are in some other way systematically skewed towards the Democrats?
That possibility is already taken into account in that 81% win percentage.
If you assume that the polls are trustworthy in aggregate?
You get Sam Wang's percentages.
edit: Nate added the Mason-Dixon poll and the Marist poll to Florida. Whaddya know, the win chance there stayed static. Ohio is up to 84%
I'm going to go with the secret service number, if anyone is going to know the real number odds are it's them.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...rats-hold-senate-edge-prior-to-final-weekend/
"In our private conversations with Democratic and Republican leaders, we see two diametrically opposed visions of the electorate almost parallel universes and two visions of how the election will shake out. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats AND the Republicans are confident of victory for their party in what is a close presidential contest. Democrats see favorable demographics and sturdy leads in enough states to get Obama over the magic 270-vote mark, while Republicans discern rumblings of a 1980-style wave that will not only ruin Obama, but also drown Democratic Senate candidates and ruin the reputations of many pollsters, particularly on the state level."
"In our private conversations with Democratic and Republican leaders, we see two diametrically opposed visions of the electorate almost parallel universes and two visions of how the election will shake out. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats AND the Republicans are confident of victory for their party in what is a close presidential contest. Democrats see favorable demographics and sturdy leads in enough states to get Obama over the magic 270-vote mark, while Republicans discern rumblings of a 1980-style wave that will not only ruin Obama, but also drown Democratic Senate candidates and ruin the reputations of many pollsters, particularly on the state level."
Byakuya769
Member
How are we sure that the Secret Service wouldn't lie for President Obama? Didn't he allow them unlimited Brazilian hookers?
Yeah they are providing his security, you would think they would know.
Ahh.. the classic "All the Pollsters Are Wrong" gambit. Let's see how it works out this time around!
They really do live in a bubble.
Well they did get busted under his watch so I doubt it, unless he bought them all a bunch of blow of Halloween.
That's my thinking. They're among the best trained armed guards in the world, I'd bet they could tell you exactly how many people were in a full room just by knowing it's dimensions. If anyone has a reason to keep a good count of the people in a room it's them.
It's pretty clear Romney likes the Secret Service better than Obama, just look at their American Flag lapel pin.
Funny side note, lots of the Fox hosts wear them too, personally I think it makes them feel important.
@fivethirtyeight said:
332 -- OH, VA, CO, NV, WI, IA, FL, NH; or in other words every swing state except North Carolina
303 -- 332 minus FL
347 -- 332 plus NC
348 -- 332 plus NC and NE-2
333 -- 332 plus NE-2
290 -- 332 minus FL, VA
281 -- 332 minus VA, CO
294 -- 332 minus FL, CO
318 -- 332 minus FL plus NC
Feeling good about my map.
Yeah I mean they would NEVER exaggerate a crowd right lol
Their part of the electorate loves living in a fantasy
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked