The definitive work on the oversampling of Ds in the polls.

[/dev/null]

OC very impressive analysis

 

I agree

 

It's poured sand into the vajayjays of some of the Obamabots on this board. But if they put down the Blue Kool-Aid® for a moment and look at this objectively, they'd give props to OC too.

 

They may disagree with his assumptions and conclusions but at least he has put the time and effort into researching and backing up his claims.

 

[Nanker]

[/dev/null]

Mitten's internal polls show him up in Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire and tied in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Nevada is lost and North Carolina, Florida, Virginia are in the bag

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228359/Romney-campaign-internal-polling-puts-Republican-nominee-point-ahead-Ohio.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

We'll soon see who's got the more accurate polling model

[TakeYouToTasker]

Here's my first contribution to the polling data fiasco:

 

I have a very close friend that has made a career of working for Democratic Senatorial and Congressional campaigns in the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He told me today, and I quote, "I've never been less optimistic about the outcome of a Presidential election.". He's horrified at the D+11 #'s being floated about, as his internal numbers, at their 2012 apex were running at D+6, and have fallen since that point. He believes his party leaders will be blindsided by "...their erroneous belief that they are still dealing with the 2008 electorate, when the actual demographics more closely reflect 1988, and are not accounting for the Romney campaign's momentum.". He's completely convinced of a landslide victory for Romney.

Edited November 5, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc]

Yeah, when I heard that Romney and Barry were tied at 49% with a D+11 sampling bias...

[OCinBuffalo]

Here's my first contribution to the polling data fiasco:

 

I have a very close friend that has made a career of working for Democratic Senatorial and Congressional campaigns in the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. He told me today, and I quote, "I've never been less optimistic about the outcome of a Presidential election.". He's horrified at the D+11 #'s being floated about, as his internal numbers, at their 2012 apex were running at D+6, and have fallen since that point. He believes his party leaders will be blindsided by "...their erroneous belief that they are still dealing with the 2008 electorate, when the actual demographics more closely reflect 1988, and are not accounting for the Romney campaign's momentum.". He's completely convinced of a landslide victory for Romney.

<crickets>

 

Guess nobody has anything to say about this...on election eve...for an hour....

 

 

hehe...you don't get to drop something like this on us...without questions!

 

1. What kinda crosstabs does he have? Meaning, what's the breakout of his polling data? What % of the electorate will be white vs. minority? What does he have for each side in terms of "extremely likely to vote"? Give...me..data! NOW!

 

2. Only a moron doesn't know D+11 is wrong...unless you are push polling Greenwich Village, and your first question is "Do you support protecting the civil rights of Americans to marry whomever they wish"? I want to know what he has...is it D+5...or D+2? What?

 

3. Does he believe that Gallup, and now, Rassmussen is right....is this an R+1-2 electorate? (If it is, everybody on this board will be showing their face tomorrow night.) Or, does he think that's wrong?

[B-Man]

 

 

"El...mo, we won't go "

 

"El...mo, we won't go"

 

 

.

[jjamie12]

2. Only a moron doesn't know D+11 is wrong...unless you are push polling Greenwich Village, and your first question is "Do you support protecting the civil rights of Americans to marry whomever they wish"? I want to know what he has...is it D+5...or D+2? What?

 

The only thing I've seen that gives me pause is that there is a theory that there has been a shift from R's to Independents in the past few years, which *could* (I haven't thought that much about this yet, but on its face seems somewhat reasonable) explain why a D+8 turnout could happen again, even with the enthusiasm gap you've described. It would also explain the inconsistencies that you've seen in the underlying numbers -- namely, that Romney is crushing it with Independents (which, under this theory, would be naturally more conservative than in '08) and could still lose the election because the turnout would still be D+8 or whatever. It's a theory I've heard that makes sense. I have no reason to believe that the 'average' Independent is more conservative this time around, but I ALSO have no reason to believe that they aren't.

 

Anyway. It's a theory I've heard that seems to explain what I would consider to be irregularities in the polling. We'll see tomorrow (or Wednesday) I suppose.

[OCinBuffalo]

The only thing I've seen that gives me pause is that there is a theory that there has been a shift from R's to Independents in the past few years, which *could* (I haven't thought that much about this yet, but on its face seems somewhat reasonable) explain why a D+8 turnout could happen again, even with the enthusiasm gap you've described. It would also explain the inconsistencies that you've seen in the underlying numbers -- namely, that Romney is crushing it with Independents (which, under this theory, would be naturally more conservative than in '08) and could still lose the election because the turnout would still be D+8 or whatever. It's a theory I've heard that makes sense. I have no reason to believe that the 'average' Independent is more conservative this time around, but I ALSO have no reason to believe that they aren't.

 

Anyway. It's a theory I've heard that seems to explain what I would consider to be irregularities in the polling. We'll see tomorrow (or Wednesday) I suppose.

 

Hold on....I'm looking up the "5 reasons why this Rs are actually Is theory is horseshit" analyses I have.

 

From memory...the first theory breaker is that even if that were true...then why do these polls routinely have not enough Inds then?

 

Edit: here you go: http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/02/no-independents-are-not-just-discouraged-republicans/

 

They can discount the source all they like...but the math...is the math. Or, in this case...90% of the people...is not 100% of the people.

 

To wit:

Second, notice something about the math here: Marshall is citing a collection of surveys that say the population is 32.5 D/25.2 R/33 I at present – which adds up to 90.7% of the people. What happened to the other 9.3%? As of the line in the middle representing the 2010 election, he shows the population as 34.2 D/30.2 R/28 I – again, 92.4% of the people, with 7.6% unaccounted for. Around Election Day 2008, it shows 39.4 D/30.6 R/25.2 I – 95.2% of the population, with 4.8% unaccounted for. It’s impossible to translate those kinds of large omissions into a useful tool for analyzing the electorate. (In fact, Marshall shows independents outnumbering Democrats – and if that happens, I promise you, Obama is toast).

 

Third, it doesn’t match up to the actual voter turnout. Exit polls in 2008 show 39% D and 31% R, numbers consistent with the chart, but 29% rather than 25% I. For 2010, it’s way off: Marshall’s chart has the population at 30.2% Republican and a D+4 advantage for Democrats, when in fact we know the exits showed a D 36/R 36/I 28 electorate. Somehow, the 7.6% of the people not accounted for turned out to almost all be Republicans. Marshall makes no effort to test how any of these surveys (or his rolling average of surveys) has matched up historically to the actual electorate, unlike my comparison of the track record of the Gallup and Rasmussen party ID surveys (both of which he mysteriously leaves out of his average) dating back over multiple elections. I will trust the people who have done this before and been proven reliable.

Edited November 6, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

 

 

The only thing I've seen that gives me pause is that there is a theory that there has been a shift from R's to Independents in the past few years, which *could* (I haven't thought that much about this yet, but on its face seems somewhat reasonable) explain why a D+8 turnout could happen again, even with the enthusiasm gap you've described. It would also explain the inconsistencies that you've seen in the underlying numbers -- namely, that Romney is crushing it with Independents (which, under this theory, would be naturally more conservative than in '08) and could still lose the election because the turnout would still be D+8 or whatever. It's a theory I've heard that makes sense. I have no reason to believe that the 'average' Independent is more conservative this time around, but I ALSO have no reason to believe that they aren't.

 

Anyway. It's a theory I've heard that seems to explain what I would consider to be irregularities in the polling. We'll see tomorrow (or Wednesday) I suppose.

 

 

I believe I read somewhere that 2008 had R-29% and D-37%. They now believe it's R-36% and D-35%.

[OCinBuffalo]

I believe I read somewhere that 2008 had R-29% and D-37%. They now believe it's R-36% and D-35%.

Gallup is where that comes from. Backed up by Rassmussen recently.

 

And, if you look at this: http://baseballcrank...ics_why_i_2.php (which is the original post of this thread...just on the guy's website instead of at Red State, or RCP...who thought enough of it to put it on their front page...which is where I saw it)

 

You see that if anything, Gallup has been dead on over the years...and Rassmussen has, if anything, underestimated R turnout by 2-3 over the same timeframe.

Edited November 6, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Cinga]

I believe I read somewhere that 2008 had R-29% and D-37%. They now believe it's R-36% and D-35%.

 

with R/R also leading big among independents....

 

If all this is true, it may be a very early night tomorrow...

[B-Man]

HOW FAR HAVE WE COME IN 4 YEARS?:

 

From “hope” to “revenge.” From uniting to dividing. Do you really think 4 more years of this will make America stronger, more united?

 

My guess is that no one says “yes,” yet many will still vote for Obama not with the “hope” of “uniting” America, but with the expectation of extracting “revenge” and “fundamentally transforming” this country in the name something akin to “social justice”– a great Marxist, utopian vision that pits citizen against citizen, breeds hatred and division, and redistributes wealth from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

Obama’s vision is a recipe for the demise of the greatest country the world has ever known. It will only intensify if he is given 4 more years without the specter of political accountability via reelection. The damage will be done.

 

The last 4 years, encapsulated in a picture:

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/157002/

[TakeYouToTasker]

He believes that the most accurate public polling data belongs to Rassmussen, and that's all the scoop you get.

[Doc]

HOW FAR HAVE WE COME IN 4 YEARS?:

 

From “hope” to “revenge.” From uniting to dividing. Do you really think 4 more years of this will make America stronger, more united?

 

My guess is that no one says “yes,” yet many will still vote for Obama not with the “hope” of “uniting” America, but with the expectation of extracting “revenge” and “fundamentally transforming” this country in the name something akin to “social justice”– a great Marxist, utopian vision that pits citizen against citizen, breeds hatred and division, and redistributes wealth from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

Obama’s vision is a recipe for the demise of the greatest country the world has ever known. It will only intensify if he is given 4 more years without the specter of political accountability via reelection. The damage will be done.

 

The last 4 years, encapsulated in a picture:

 

 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/157002/

Another 4 years and the Divided States of America begins on an inexorable path to becoming Greece.

[/dev/null]

Another 4 years and the Divided States of America begins on an inexorable path to becoming Greece.

 

How will Obama pass the time over the next four years without having to run a re-election campaign?

[jjamie12]

Hold on....I'm looking up the "5 reasons why this Rs are actually Is theory is horseshit" analyses I have.

 

From memory...the first theory breaker is that even if that were true...then why do these polls routinely have not enough Inds then?

 

Edit: here you go: http://www.redstate....ed-republicans/

 

They can discount the source all they like...but the math...is the math. Or, in this case...90% of the people...is not 100% of the people.

 

To wit:

The idea is that R's have turned I because they're frustrated with the Republican party (and would, presumably, be less likely to vote in the election). That's why you would poetentially see this type of turnout.

 

As an example --

 

Last election there are 200 people:

D - 80

R - 60

I - 60

 

They all vote -- so D +10

 

They switch to (20 R's move to I):

 

D - 80

R - 40

I - 100

 

and the I's (who are are disillusioned with R's, but more conservative than before) and D's are less enthusiastic about the vote.

 

Now the vote would go something like:

 

D - 60

R - 40

I - 70

 

In this model you still have a D + 10 or so turnout. Even if there is a 10+ % vote for Romney among I's (so something like 40-30 votes in the I for Romney) that's not enough votes there for him to overcome the loss of all the R's from last election. Result would be 90 votes for D, 80 votes for R.

 

So. All the remaining R's voted -- Higher enthusiasm than last election. 75% of the D's voted -- Lower enthusiasm than last election. 70% of I's voted -- Lower enthusiasm (as the result of a lot of I's being disillusioned R's). This would explain how the models could still be correct, even when accounting for all the things that we're seeing in the underlying data being 'suspect'.

 

I'm not saying that's right -- I'm merely pointing out how it *could* be right. This is the only thing that is keeping me from thinking that this election is in the bag for Romney. I have no basis for having an opinion on whether or not that shift from R to I happened, or whether or not (even if it did happen) create the effect that the models seem to be predicting. In short -- I will be fascinated to see what the turnout numbers are going to be on Wednesday. I'll probably spend way more time than I should looking at these things because either 1) Professional pollsters are really, really bad at their job. or 2) They are actually really, really good at their jobs. I can't wait to find out which.

Edited November 6, 2012 by jjamie12

[frostbitmic]

I only got called by one polling group (forget who) after they asked me to push 1 for Obama, 2 for Romney, 3 for someone else or 4 for undecided, they hung up on me when I pushed 3.

[Doc]

How will Obama pass the time over the next four years without having to run a re-election campaign?

Gee, I don't know. Golfing?

[Nanker]

The idea is that R's have turned I because they're frustrated with the Republican party (and would, presumably, be less likely to vote in the election). That's why you would poetentially see this type of turnout.

 

As an example --

 

Last election there are 200 people:

D - 80

R - 60

I - 60

 

They all vote -- so D +10

 

They switch to (20 R's move to I):

 

D - 80

R - 40

I - 100

Sum = 220

 

and the I's (who are are disillusioned with R's, but more conservative than before) and D's are less enthusiastic about the vote.

 

Now the vote would go something like:

 

D - 60

R - 40

I - 70

 

In this model you still have a D + 10 or so turnout. Even if there is a 10+ % vote for Romney among I's (so something like 40-30 votes in the I for Romney) that's not enough votes there for him to overcome the loss of all the R's from last election. Result would be 90 votes for D, 80 votes for R.

 

So. All the remaining R's voted -- Higher enthusiasm than last election. 75% of the D's voted -- Lower enthusiasm than last election. 70% of I's voted -- Lower enthusiasm (as the result of a lot of I's being disillusioned R's). This would explain how the models could still be correct, even when accounting for all the things that we're seeing in the underlying data being 'suspect'.

 

I'm not saying that's right -- I'm merely pointing out how it *could* be right. This is the only thing that is keeping me from thinking that this election is in the bag for Romney. I have no basis for having an opinion on whether or not that shift from R to I happened, or whether or not (even if it did happen) create the effect that the models seem to be predicting. In short -- I will be fascinated to see what the turnout numbers are going to be on Wednesday. I'll probably spend way more time than I should looking at these things because either 1) Professional pollsters are really, really bad at their job. or 2) They are actually really, really good at their jobs. I can't wait to find out which.

 

You ignore the fact of lots of Rs and Is that were disenchanted with the mealy old man candidate (albeit a war hero) and his MILF running mate's seeming less-than-prepared for prime time (of course we didn't know the real Jokin' Joe then either) and either didn't vote and/or didn't get others to vote or contribute to the campaign. Lots of people voted for BO because they were enthralled with the concept of racial equality and were impressed that the country was at a place where they could actually vote for a black man for President. A similar phenomenon will occur when the first woman is nominated by her party as candidate for that office.

 

Obama's been a disappointment on too many levels to deserve a second term as the most powerful man in the world. He held the baton and the country diminished under his watch. We have to let him go.

 

Gee, I don't know. Golfing?

 

I was thinking fundraising for his Presidential library.