Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*This poll uses the same methodology as Rasmussen, Gravis Marketing, and Citizens United...which is just making up a number that sounds good to the pollster.
*unlike your favorite polls, which pretend that the peaking wave from 2008 is still there.
Your poll, my polls, all of them...will be scored for accuracy on November 6th. The underlying issue is the composition of the actual electorate, and none of the pollsters know what that will be. But Gallup has done a fair amount of research on it, and it ain't great for Obama.
*unlike your favorite polls, which pretend that the peaking wave from 2008 is still there.
Your poll, my polls, all of them...will be scored for accuracy on November 6th. The underlying issue is the composition of the actual electorate, and none of the pollsters know what that will be. But Gallup has done a fair amount of research on it, and it ain't great for Obama.
Quote:
What if turnout doesn’t look like it did in 2008? Instead, what if the share of the votes that each state contributed was the same as in 2004, a better Republican year?
That doesn’t help to break the discord between state and national polls, unfortunately. Mr. Obama would lead by two percentage points in the consensus forecast weighing the states by their 2004 turnout.
Or we can weigh the states by their turnout in 2010, a very good Republican year. But that doesn’t help, either: instead, Mr. Obama leads by 2.1 percentage points based on this method.
Yeah. Nate Silver is cooking the books, obviously.
In 1998 a firm with methodology concocted by Nobel prize winners, using elaborate quantitative models, lost $4 billion and caused severe disruption in the world financial markets. They call them "models" because they are not reality.
Right. In case you wanted to know how polling works.
Quote:
Most pollsters don’t weight their polls to match a preconceived electorate. Instead, they take a demographically representative sample based on actual figures from the US census and then let respondents speak for themselves about whether they’re voting for Obama or Romney. For illustrative purposes, consider the Bloomberg/Selzer poll. They started by taking a sample of all American adults, weighted to match the demographics of all adults in the US census, like, race, education, and marital status. To produce a likely voter sample, they then would have excluded adults who weren’t registered to vote and then asked a series of questions to help determine who was likely to vote.
You are clueless. We are not talking about some scary rhetoric coming from the right. His own administration is admitting this
I've posted multiple sources showing Obama is planning to cut a deal to lower SS benefits. So I'm not sure where you are getting that he will not overtly cut benefits.
You are linking to articles from 2011.....things that never came to pass and per even your 2nd link aren't "cuts" but rather tethering the CPI (which I alluded to) and increasing the age which is again, not a cut for the existing recipients.
Besides, we are talking about all the claims that electing ROMNEY means SS will be cut....not that Obama was pondering some non-overt future benefit changes over a year ago in budget discussions.
I realize they did a thread merge here, you might want to get your bearings before calling me clueless. Thanks!
Not sure if this one is posted yet: Obama up 8 in WPR/St. Norbert poll of Wisconsin. If you think it sounds high for Obama, this is in line with another poll put out by a local group, Marquette University, yesterday. Sometimes the locals have the best handle on things.
Yeah, sure. One of us is going to learn a lot on November 6th.
Why wait when you can learn something on November 1?
Pollsters just don't assume a certain voter turnout model. Yeah, it's logical that a 2008 voter turnout model would lead to skewed results (conservatives can selectively use logic apparently), but that's not what's happening. This is a problem that's rather easy to avoid. You just take Census data, get together a "random" sample based along certain demographics, and then eliminate unregistered voters from the sample. So if NYC is 28% Hispanic, 22% Black, 13% Asian, I would make sure that my "random" sample reflects that breakdown. There's nothing sinister or nefarious about this. It's the way that polling has been done for years.
It's funny how people can all of a sudden become experts in a subject area when they disagree with something. A few weeks ago, we saw conservatives pointing out the discrepancy between the household and establishment surveys conducted by BLS, as if the professional economists and statisticians in its employ aren't aware that the discrepancy exists every single month. Now we have Republicans telling pollsters what they should and shouldn't be doing after a very cursory reading of polling methodology on an internet blog.
You should also call up NASA while you're at it and tell them that objects re-entering the earth's atmosphere get really hot. We don't want them to forget those heat shields. Or how about call up Johns Hopkins and drop some knowledge on some cardiothorasic surgeons. I mean, you probably watched a video of open heart surgery on the Discovery Channel once, so you should be more than qualified to weigh in.
Why wait when you can learn something on November 1?
Pollsters just don't assume a certain voter turnout model. Yeah, it's logical that a 2008 voter turnout model would lead to skewed results (conservatives can selectively use logic apparently), but that's not what's happening. This is a problem that's rather easy to avoid. You just take Census data, get together a "random" sample based along certain demographics, and then eliminate unregistered voters from the sample. So if NYC is 28% Hispanic, 22% Black, 13% Asian, I would make sure that my "random" sample reflects that breakdown. There's nothing sinister or nefarious about this. It's the way that polling has been done for years.
It's funny how people can all of a sudden become experts in a subject area when they disagree with something. A few weeks ago, we saw conservatives pointing out the discrepancy between the household and establishment surveys conducted by BLS, as if the professional economists and statisticians in its employ aren't aware that the discrepancy exists every single month. Now we have Republicans telling pollsters what they should and shouldn't be doing after a very cursory reading of polling methodology on an internet blog.
You should also call up NASA while you're at it and tell them that objects re-entering the earth's atmosphere get really hot. We don't want them to forget those heat shields. Or how about call up Johns Hopkins and drop some knowledge on some cardiothorasic surgeons. I mean, you probably watched a video of open heart surgery on the Discovery Channel once, so you should be more than qualified to weigh in.
Sheesh! One of the oldest and most respected polling organizations in the world, Gallup, has consistently been reporting voter preference results that are out of the mainstream this election season. I'm not saying that I know more than Nate Silver, I'm just saying that either Gallup or Nate Silver is wrong--and it just might be Nate Silver, we can't know yet but we will find out. I'm not a rocket scientist so I won't be calling NASA, nor a cardiac expert so I won't be calling Johns Hopkins. I do posess a decent BS detector, however, and I kmow that just because a number comes out of a computer model calculated to a tenth of a decimal point doesn't make it true.
I am afraid that Silver has this right and hopeful that Gallup has it right. The only evidence that will convince me who is right is election returns. But you've made a gallant effort, well-documented.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
