• 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.
We like to laugh at right for their poll truthing, but even here more often than not criticism/skepticism isn't based on actual research on the topic, but rather gut assumptions, not unlike the claims made by the right. The above two posts are pretty good examples.

Most polling models assume 2008 turnout? Typical polls are based around urban areas? You "think" there may be a small advantage for the left? You aren't sure if polls account for attitudes? These are clearly poorly researched, wrong or even nonsensical assumptions.

Most polling models do include a 72-73% white turnout, and this is based on 2008 data. Thanks for the snarky reply though.
 

syllogism

Member
Most polling models do include a 72-73% white turnout, and this is based on 2008 data. Thanks for the snarky reply though.
Citation please. Not only do you have to show that "most models" "include" 72-73% white turnout, but that it is based on "2008 data" rather than just adjusting demographics to census and then applying some kind of likely voter screen. The latter is quite different as that's exactly what pollsters try to do; determine the likely 2012 electorate, which has nothing to do with 2008 data.
 

C4Lukins

Junior Member
We like to laugh at right for their poll truthing, but even here more often than not criticism/skepticism isn't based on actual research on the topic, but rather gut assumptions, not unlike the claims made by the right. The above two posts are pretty good examples.

Most polling models assume 2008 turnout? Typical polls are based around urban areas? You "think" there may be a small advantage for the left? You aren't sure if polls account for attitudes? These are clearly poorly researched, wrong or even nonsensical assumptions.

I do not make these assumptions for my own benefit. It is based on Bush's two most recent wins. I guess I could look it up for myself, but I do not have the energy right now. I could be completely wrong. I just remember Bush expecting to lose to Gore based on polls. And I remember Florida being called for Gore while the polls were still open in Florida. Because they ignored the panhandle which was in a different time zone as the rest of Florida, and is filled will small towns that add up to millions of voters if you ignore them and were quite conservative overall.

And these are not assumptions. These are things I have witnessed in my lifetime. It does not mean that the media has not fixed the problem. I am just saying that historically over the past three elections, The margin of error seems to have benefits Republican candidates. But again as I said earlier, Obama seems to have a much better hold in these swing states then either Gore or Kerry so even if that anomaly does occur it will probably not be enough to benefit Romney. I just watched FoxNews panicking in the same way MSNBC did over the first debate today, and I think even they see the writing on the wall.
 

syllogism

Member
I do not make these assumptions for my own benefit. It is based on Bush's two most recent wins. I guess I could look it up for myself, but I do not have the energy right now. I could be completely wrong. I just remember Bush expecting to lose to Gore based on polls. And I remember Florida being called for Gore while the polls were still open in Florida. Because they ignored the panhandle which was in a different time zone as the rest of Florida, and is filled will small towns that add up to millions of voters if you ignore them and were quite conservative overall.

And these are not assumptions. These are things I have witnessed in my lifetime. It does not mean that the media has not fixed the problem. I am just saying that historically over the past three elections, The margin of error seems to have benefits Republican candidates. But again as I said earlier, Obama seems to have a much better hold in these swing states then either Gore or Kerry so even if that anomaly does occur it will probably not be enough to benefit Romney. I just watched FoxNews panicking in the same way MSNBC did over the first debate today, and I think even they see the writing on the wall.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-have-no-history-of-consistent-partisan-bias/
 

verbum

Member
I was wondering, in a state like Ohio, are these pollsters calling the same people over and over again?
I'm sure each poll uses a list to make sure sure they don't call the same people as last week but would each poll call and talk to the same people as another poll did last week?
My point is that we may be seeing the same group of people being polled by various polls each week. Is this happening or do the polls have a mechanism to prevent this?
 

coldfoot

Banned
You gotta be shitting me
This only applies to a world with free college education of course. People who could have gone to college but did not are living very spoiled lives in the USA.

An ideal world is one which constantly pushes people to better themselves. Unions make sure that this doesn't happen.
 

verbum

Member
This only applies to a world with free college education of course. People who could have gone to college but did not are living very spoiled lives in the USA.

A survey conducted by Bloomberg in 2010 show that the school of hard knocks was the number one source (tied with the University of California) for CEOs of S&P 500 companies. Harvard was the #3 source (along with the universities of Texas, Missouri, and Wisconsin). The school of hard knocks features CEOs who never graduated from college.

Of the top 400 richest Americans in 2011, 27 graduated from high school but did not attend college. Another 36 were college dropouts.


You are an asshole. Get out and see the world.
 

coldfoot

Banned
You obviously missed the part when I excluded people who are smart enough to start or run their own businesses. I am only talking about people who receive a salary. You are an asshole btw for calling me the same without properly reading.
 

Korey

Member
Is it just me or does Nate's Electoral Victory percentage not make any sense? If you only gave Obama states where Nate has him at over 85% likelihood to win he squeaks by with 271 votes, giving all other states below that threshold. Yet despite this the odds of Obama winning are also just 85%?

Can you rephrase the question? I don't get what you're trying to say in the bolded part
 

Arksy

Member
Sorry, I just don't think that someone without a college education deserves to be anything more than lower middle class unless they start their own business of course.

The hell? I'm not sure if you're serious but that's a ridiculous position to take. Why should level of education dictate anything?
 

giga

Member
3DoR+
 

gkryhewy

Member
You obviously missed the part when I excluded people who are smart enough to start or run their own businesses. I am only talking about people who receive a salary. You are an asshole btw for calling me the same without properly reading.

I can't believe you're still going on about this bullshit twelve hours later. Your views are reprehensible, willfully ignorant, and cartoonishly naive about how labor markets actually work.
 

coldfoot

Banned
I can't believe you're still going on about this bullshit twelve hours later. Your views are reprehensible, willfully ignorant, and cartoonishly naive about how labor markets actually work.
Saying stuff without really explaining why doesn't work. I have been to other countries and saw how public and utility workers work. Their counterparts in this country are a bunch of spoiled lazy brats. I hope we one day have robots to replace them and their laziness.
 

Slime

Banned
So it's looking like it'll be either 290 or 303, based on how conservative you want to be with VA (or, uhh, RCP vs. 538).

Hope it's like 2008 and we get a surprise like IN. I still think Sam Wang is going to be wrong about FL, but it would be nice if he wasn't.
 

Amir0x

Banned
I was wondering, in a state like Ohio, are these pollsters calling the same people over and over again?
I'm sure each poll uses a list to make sure sure they don't call the same people as last week but would each poll call and talk to the same people as another poll did last week?
My point is that we may be seeing the same group of people being polled by various polls each week. Is this happening or do the polls have a mechanism to prevent this?

There have been like 18,000 Ohio poll respondents across all polls so far in a state with millions upon millions of voters. The likelihood that any of them are being re-called is pretty low, I'd say, particularly if the pollster is worth his salt.


I love how the range can be 0.1 - 5 points, it makes no matter, if POTUS is leading in poll aggregate, 91%!

I wonder how much higher it is if you relegate it to people only in the 2-5 point lead range, which is Obama's Ohio lead.
 
During regular times, I have seen highway overpasses and roads being built, gas/cable lines being dug into the ground, etc. They employ 2x the people needed who do half the job at 4x the salary here.

Ah, the mysterious "they" in the mysterious country with mysterious currency.
 
I do wish there was more focus put on Congressional races.
The chances of any switch in control in either houses seem to have been low during the whole campaign. It wasn't enough of a horse race for the media I guess. The dynamics of congress will continue to be what they have been the last two years.

I feel that if Obama had secured a bigger lead (by not messing up the first debate), there might have been more talk of down ticket influence and a possible house flip. Right now there doesn't seem to be much to report. Some individual upsets perhaps, but nothing that will greatly change the way congress is working at the moment.
I can't be the only one who's still irritated at the fact that Mitt essentially got away with writing off over half the country.
He got away with writing off large parts of his own constituency. I can't believe the Obama campaign didn't manage to make that his downfall.
 
The chances of any switch in control in either houses seems to have been low during the whole campaign. It wasn't enough of a horse race for the media I guess. The dynamics of congress will continue to be what they have been the last two years.

I feel that if Obama had secured a bigger lead (by not messing up the first debate), there might have been more talk of down ticket influence and a possible house flip. Right now there doesn't seem much to report. Some individual upsets perhaps, but nothing that will greatly change the way congress is working at the moment.


Obama will have political capital, just like Bush claimed he did when he won his second term. He'll be able to do whatever he wants now, with or without congress.
 
The chances of any switch in control in either houses seems to have been low during the whole campaign. It wasn't enough of a horse race for the media I guess. The dynamics of congress will continue to be what they have been the last two years.

I feel that if Obama had secured a bigger lead (by not messing up the first debate), there might have been more talk of down ticket influence and a possible house flip. Right now there doesn't seem much to report. Some individual upsets perhaps, but nothing that will greatly change the way congress is working at the moment.

Yup. Had Obama destroyed Mitt in all three debates, I guarantee you taking the House would've been certainly possible.
 
The chances of any switch in control in either houses seem to have been low during the whole campaign. It wasn't enough of a horse race for the media I guess. The dynamics of congress will continue to be what they have been the last two years.
I don't think that's it. Who controls Congress never really seems to matter when discussing politics on the mainstream level, and getting stuff done. Romney and Obama are promising to do all these things, but never has it entered the question how they would get around a divided Congress.
 
Obama will have political capital, just like Bush claimed he did when he won his second term. He'll be able to do whatever he wants now, with or without congress.
I hope so, but it seems to depend a lot on Boehner right now and whether he's going to fight for his country or his party. So far every time I read his statements, tweets, whatever, I don't see anything that indicates he's going to start working with the president. Perhaps he's just keeping a brave face in the face of the elections, but we'll see soon enough whether he's going to play ball I guess.
I don't think that's it. Who controls Congress never really seems to matter when discussing politics on the mainstream level, and getting stuff done. Romney and Obama are promising to do all these things, but never has it entered the question how they would get around a divided Congress.
That's true. I suppose that's one of the reasons for the whole ''Congress' approval rating is low, yet incumbents are loved in their own districts'' situation you guys have. People are not informed enough about what's keeping the country back and more importantly who. Another failure on the part of the media.
 

coldfoot

Banned
You obviously haven't been to many parts of Russia, China and Mexico if you think they have great infrastructure.
Only to big cities where they have decent infrastructure, their workers work day and night to finish something rather than just giving business for companies who make fences and orange barrels like they do here.
 
Only to big cities where they have decent infrastructure, their workers work day and night to finish something rather than just giving business for companies who make fences and orange barrels like they do here.

Well, your premise is that US workers suck balls, so I guess that's all that can be said about that and no need to go further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom