• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gotchaye

Member
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ Basically, I don't even understand the underlying point. Independents are already counted in the polls.

That, and "the polls are assuming the 2008 electorate" is, as far as I know, just false. Ras is the only one with any sort of party weighting. There's some weighting by ethnicity, I think, but since polling methodology hasn't changed very much since 2008 that can be validated by comparing how Hispanics, say, were responding to pollsters in 2008 with how they're responding now.
 

Diablos

Member
Has this been posted?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ristie-is-tearing-me-apart.html#ixzz2B7uzByTu
DES MOINES (The Borowitz Report)—A new Mitt Romney is emerging in the closing days of the campaign, aides say: a man who is increasingly “being eaten alive with jealousy” by President Obama’s budding relationship with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

While Mr. Romney has told reporters that he is “totally fine” with Gov. Christie flying around in a helicopter with President Obama, privately he has told aides, “Seeing him with Chris Christie is tearing me apart.”

The trouble began earlier this week, a Romney aide said, when Mr. Romney saw Mr. Christie on CNN mention that President Obama “had given him his number at the White House.”

“Mitt was like, ‘Fine, whatever, do we have to watch this?’ and then basically ran out of the room,” the aide said. “It was completely awkward.”


Making matters worse, the aide said, “Chris Christie isn’t returning his calls.”

“Mitt was trying to explain his position on FEMA to reporters yesterday and he got all excited because his phone started vibrating,” the aide said. “It turned out it was just Ann.”

Mr. Romney, who has been seen doodling Chris Christie’s name in the margins of his briefing books in recent days, has apparently decided on a new course of action: to make the New Jersey governor jealous.

“He’s been calling [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo,” the aide said. “But Cuomo won’t call him back either. It’s all so sad.”
Hahahahahaha, what a little girl Mitt is.

This is comedy gold. You could seriously mistake it for an Onion article. I am loling so hard.
 

RDreamer

Member
You'll only get "lol puddles" responses. Dems will outvote republicans but not by enough to save Obama in every state. Romney is not just winning the independent vote, he's crushing the Election Day vote. It won't be enough for Romney to win Nevada or Iowa but Ohio, Florida, and Virginia look good for him

What are you basing this on, or are you just (obviously) pulling it out of your ass? You can sit there and hope that Romney wins Ohio all you want, but it sure as fuck doesn't "look" good for him at all.
 
Has this been posted?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ristie-is-tearing-me-apart.html#ixzz2B7uzByTu

Hahahahahaha, what a little girl Mitt is.

This is comedy gold. You could seriously mistake it for an Onion article. I am loling so hard.
Fanfic incoming.

RDreamer said:
What are you basing this on, or are you just (obviously) pulling it out of your ass? You can sit there and hope that Romney wins Ohio all you want, but it sure as fuck doesn't "look" good for him at all.
He's basing it on his inner desire to see Romney win so he can say he was right both about (1) Obama losing and (2) Hillary should have been the nominee.
 

pigeon

Banned
Blue tinged in general or just because they call cell-phones? That sort of blue-tinge doesn't seem unfair.

Blue compared to the polling average. It's definitely possible that there's a small systematic bias in most polls (and thus in the average) towards the Republicans because of cell phones, English-only interviews, likely voter screens not considering early voting, etc.

Genuine question, though: can anybody actually think of a systematic problem the polls might have that would cause them to be tilted towards Democrats and away from Republicans across the board? And not the bullshit 2008 turnout thing either -- if Romney wins, there basically has to be some reason why the polls are all wrong. Are there any actual possible things that suggest themselves?
 

Gotchaye

Member
Genuine question, though: can anybody actually think of a systematic problem the polls might have that would cause them to be tilted towards Democrats and away from Republicans across the board? And not the bullshit 2008 turnout thing either -- if Romney wins, there basically has to be some reason why the polls are all wrong. Are there any actual possible things that suggest themselves?

The best I can do is that likely voter screens can be finicky. Especially with restrictions on early voting relative to previous years in several important states, it may matter which side has more people willing to stand in line for a few hours on Tuesday. The effort required to vote is different this year than previously such that an historically-accurate test for what constitutes a likely voter could be systematically biased this time around.

That and Republican governors and secretaries of state in important states could mess with the process, but that's not really a polling issue.
 

RDreamer

Member
Blue compared to the polling average. It's definitely possible that there's a small systematic bias in most polls (and thus in the average) towards the Republicans because of cell phones, English-only interviews, likely voter screens not considering early voting, etc.

Genuine question, though: can anybody actually think of a systematic problem the polls might have that would cause them to be tilted towards Democrats and away from Republicans across the board? And not the bullshit 2008 turnout thing either -- if Romney wins, there basically has to be some reason why the polls are all wrong. Are there any actual possible things that suggest themselves?

I can't think of anything outside the voter suppression possibility, that people would come to the polls wanting to vote but then couldn't. Other than that I really don't see much of a possibility of them missing a large Republican block through systematic errors and getting it wrong in that direction.
 
Once this election is called, one of the first things I do – besides first calling out Diablos, CS, Cheebs, and PD (oh, most especially PD) – is make fun of Gallup.

Don't forget Facebook rage posts!

I'm calling out all the conservative assholes on my FB feed.
 
Once this election is called, one of the first things I do – besides first calling out Diablos, CS, Cheebs, and PD (oh, most especially PD) – is make fun of Gallup.

Diablos seems like he's the only one actually concerned others are just purely trolling
 
Just got back from early voting, +1 for Obama in Iowa. The crowd today definitely skewed a lot younger than when I've voted on election day.

Crossing my fingers that we can get Steve "I've never heard of anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape" King out of office.

That, and "the polls are assuming the 2008 electorate" is, as far as I know, just false. Ras is the only one with any sort of party weighting. There's some weighting by ethnicity, I think, but since polling methodology hasn't changed very much since 2008 that can be validated by comparing how Hispanics, say, were responding to pollsters in 2008 with how they're responding now.

My understanding is that most of them weight by things like ethnicity, age, sex, etc to cover gaps in their polling, but they almost never weight by party affiliation since it can be so volatile and subjective.
 
Just got back from early voting, +1 for Obama in Iowa. The crowd today definitely skewed a lot younger than when I've voted on election day.

Crossing my fingers that we can get Steve "I've never heard of anyone getting pregnant from statutory rape" King out of office.
Too bad your early vote counts for nothing ;( Just ask PD.
 

Gotchaye

Member
My understanding is that most of them weight by things like ethnicity, age, sex, etc to cover gaps in their polling, but they almost never weight by party affiliation since it can be so volatile and subjective.

I think that's true. My point was that this type of weighting isn't the same as assuming the 2008 electorate. I imagine what goes on is that a pollster sees that some group is showing up in polls as making up 20% of likely voters, but was 30% of voters in the 2008 election, and in 2008 polls showed up as 15% of likely voters. So then they might adjust the result and predict that the group will make up 40% of the 2012 electorate. But that wouldn't be assuming the 2008 electorate; that's adjusting the 2012 estimate based on the known bias in 2008 polling.
 
So do you guys think Michelle will start loving her husband when he wins? It's his lifelong dream which will be fulfilled, ever since he started his political career.
 

RDreamer

Member
I think that's true. My point was that this type of weighting isn't the same as assuming the 2008 electorate. I imagine what goes on is that a pollster sees that some group is showing up in polls as making up 20% of likely voters, but was 30% of voters in the 2008 election, and in 2008 polls showed up as 15% of likely voters. So then they might adjust the result and predict that the group will make up 40% of the 2012 electorate. But that wouldn't be assuming the 2008 electorate; that's adjusting the 2012 estimate based on the known bias in 2008 polling.

I'm pretty sure that's not what they do. Pollsters don't estimate turnout beforehand. How they poll, at least as far as I know, is by polling the entire electorate based on the census. They get the demographics right based on the census, not on who they think will vote and how much. Then they use a likely voter screen of questions to tell who will vote. So, if the polls now are saying the group will make up 20% of the electorate that's not because they looked at previous years and adjusted something. That just means that group is saying they will vote or are very likely to vote.
 

pigeon

Banned
It's worth noting that, while the Romney campaign is claiming that they're confident and saying that their internal polls show Romney winning everywhere, they certainly aren't ACTING like a campaign that is confident of victory. If Romney was leading slightly in Ohio, he wouldn't be in Pennslvania and he wouldn't have cut the Jeep ad or the revenge ad; if Romney was confident in Florida, he wouldn't have put out the Hispanic-targeting socialism ad; if Romney were confident his message were working he wouldn't be debuting both Libya and protection-racket politics on the stump in the last few days, etc. Romney's behaving exactly as though his internals show him losing unless a miracle happens. Obama, similarly, is behaving exactly like a campaign that just needs to cover an existing lead for three more days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom