JPT pointed out that one of the CBS/NYT polls had a pretty questionable "weighting" method that seemed to overwhelmingly favor Obama. I decided to look in to it and compare the different methodologies for myself, just to see how bad the biases were on each side.

The CBS/NYT methodology definitely seems out of line with the rest of the polls, and it slants heavily to the left with a projected turnout that doesn't account for the increasing number of independent-identifying voters. It definitely adds about 2 points to Obama's likely outcome.

On the other extreme, we have Rasmussen.

I tried to get specific data about their methodology, but they're by far the least transparent of all. In fact, if you want the complete data and methods, you'll have to subscribe.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.

What they do reveal is that they only call land lines and people who are randomly selected from a "demographically diverse panel."

There's a sucker born every minute, they say.

Will this thread turn into 2016 elections soon? Or will we be preparing for the mid term one?

Originally Posted by millennialX

Will this thread turn into 2016 elections soon? Or will we be preparing for the mid term one?

Well, this thread was opened on 9-20-2010. I suspect somebody will splurge and open new threads. I'm kind of hoping we take a few days off, though.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, this thread was opened on 9-20-2010. I suspect somebody will splurge and open new threads. I'm kind of hoping we take a few days off, though.

I have a feeling we might be talking about this election for a long time after it is over... maybe years from now, maybe years from when 2000 is forgotten...

The latest from NC: http://www.mountainx.com/article/466...Warren-Wilson-

This thread should reasonably go from prediction to an account of the election -- and once the election is resolved, perhaps analysis of causes of the win for whoever did. We will have plenty to discuss -- most significantly for this board, the generational distribution of votes.

Unless Mitt Romney defeats President Obama this time and Barack Obama chooses to run against him as a challenger -- and he would be a formidable challenger should Romney have a troubled Presidency -- the election of 2016 is likely to be vastly different from 2012. If Mitt Romney can make America more prosperous through lower pay and more working hours, sell-off of public assets to profiteers, wars for profit, and tax cuts to the super-rich, then he will be on the way to a landslide. Sometimes one can win the super-megabucks lottery.

The Republicans are not going to allow a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Anything further to be said about personalities and trends going into the 2016 Presidential election belongs in its own thread. I shall start that thread.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

JPT pointed out that one of the CBS/NYT polls had a pretty questionable "weighting" method that seemed to overwhelmingly favor Obama. I decided to look in to it and compare the different methodologies for myself, just to see how bad the biases were on each side.

The CBS/NYT methodology definitely seems out of line with the rest of the polls, and it slants heavily to the left with a projected turnout that doesn't account for the increasing number of independent-identifying voters. It definitely adds about 2 points to Obama's likely outcome.

On the other extreme, we have Rasmussen.

I tried to get specific data about their methodology, but they're by far the least transparent of all. In fact, if you want the complete data and methods, you'll have to subscribe.


What they do reveal is that they only call land lines and people who are randomly selected from a "demographically diverse panel."

There's a sucker born every minute, they say.

As much as the left whines about Rasmussen, they've been very consistent all year. They've showed a tight race within a few points one way or the other. When polls like Pew were showing stuff like Obama +8 and +11 all year, it's easy to see why the left would hate reality. But the other polls have all moved towards Rasmussen as the election has neared, not the other way around. The poll that has shown the biggest (and possibly unlikely) Romney surge has been Gallup. But they also showed bigger Obama leads earlier.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

JPT pointed out that one of the CBS/NYT polls had a pretty questionable "weighting" method that seemed to overwhelmingly favor Obama. I decided to look in to it and compare the different methodologies for myself, just to see how bad the biases were on each side.

The CBS/NYT methodology definitely seems out of line with the rest of the polls, and it slants heavily to the left with a projected turnout that doesn't account for the increasing number of independent-identifying voters. It definitely adds about 2 points to Obama's likely outcome.

On the other extreme, we have Rasmussen.

I tried to get specific data about their methodology, but they're by far the least transparent of all. In fact, if you want the complete data and methods, you'll have to subscribe.


What they do reveal is that they only call land lines and people who are randomly selected from a "demographically diverse panel."

There's a sucker born every minute, they say.

IMO any poll that only calls land-lines should be thrown out, because the demographic that only has a cell phone and no land-line skews young and thus Democratic.

Well, we know which side the bookies are all on:

Barack Obama to be re-elected President in 2012: 66.9%

Here's some past predictions from them:

Intrade has offered since 2002 the widest range of markets for political events, such as "George W. Bush to win 2004 US Presidential Election".


In the 2004 presidential election, the market favorite won the electoral vote in every state. This occurred when, even as late as election day, many pollsters and analysts were predicting a John Kerry victory. In Florida, a number of polls put Kerry ahead in that state, or said the race was too close to call. The betting markets, however, correctly and consistently showed Bush would win Florida comfortably.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As much as the left whines about Rasmussen, they've been very consistent all year. They've showed a tight race within a few points one way or the other. When polls like Pew were showing stuff like Obama +8 and +11 all year, it's easy to see why the left would hate reality. But the other polls have all moved towards Rasmussen as the election has neared, not the other way around. The poll that has shown the biggest (and possibly unlikely) Romney surge has been Gallup. But they also showed bigger Obama leads earlier.

Gallup and Pew are using the same sort of sampling methods and they aren't messing around with the data to get "a more representative sample" than the ~3100 randomly selected, registered voters they're surveying for each poll. That leaves a +/-2% margin of error and according to the latest release Gallup has Romney at +1 and Pew has Obama at +3. While both are on the edge of the MoE, they're also still consistent with each other: they can both be "right" in as far as they are claiming accuracy.

Being precise, that is, getting consistent results from your measurements like Rasmussen does, doesn't mean much except that your tools are calibrated precisely. Whether or not precise measurements are anywhere near accurate is an entirely different matter altogether, and it requires using the right precise tools to measure the right things.

Eight Election Myths You Probably Believe

Right now is the stage in every American election season when most of us are pretty sure that this whole democracy thing was a mistake. So many terrible ads, so many lies, so many news stories focusing only on the stupidest elements of the process. Why do we even bother?

Well, damn it, we're here to tell you that it's not as bad as you think. In fact, some of what we hate most about the American democratic process aren't flaws at all -- they're actually what make the whole thing tick.

So let's knock down some of the more cynical myths, shall we?

Read more: 8 Election Myths You Probably Believe | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_20134...#ixzz2BNTSekNF

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Eight Election Myths You Probably Believe



~Chas'88

I don't think they quite made the case:

"Yes, the $1.4 billion price tag for 2012 seems like a lot compared to previous elections, like 1996, when Clinton and Bob Dole spent just $90 million combined. That's quite a bit, but only about one-third of what Americans spent that year on potato chips"

Come on, what's so wrong with potato chips? It depends how you make them.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Thanks for the immediate example of "dumb as dirt."

No one is suggesting regulating winds and tides beyond perhaps putting less carbon in the air and slowing global warming. But there is more, much more, that could be done by investing in infrastructure to protect low-lying major metropolises. Then there's the continued govt investment in weather satellites and other instrumentation, research, that could make our predictions much more precise on when and where. And then there's the investment in FEMA and emergency capacities at the federal, state and local levels.

And then, the most important thing, that the vast majority of people, including you, just can't get is the power of a fiat currency. Just why is it that the feds can spend on dealing with these disasters so easily? And without the lease likelihood of any one actually paying for it with either higher taxes or with inflation.

Quit being a bonehead.

It is not easy to understand why folks like Justin and Copperfield, who are so smart about science, and who claim things like astrology and spirituality are total bunk, but when they apply all this logic to politics, they sometimes come up with some of the stuff Justin and Copperfield do. I guess it's all about what you want to believe.

I am glad to see Gallup is finally down to earth, one day before the election.

Here's the poll averages for today.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As much as the left whines about Rasmussen, they've been very consistent all year. They've showed a tight race within a few points one way or the other. When polls like Pew were showing stuff like Obama +8 and +11 all year, it's easy to see why the left would hate reality. But the other polls have all moved towards Rasmussen as the election has neared, not the other way around. The poll that has shown the biggest (and possibly unlikely) Romney surge has been Gallup. But they also showed bigger Obama leads earlier.

Rasmussen has been very consistent. At any list of polls you look at, Rasmussen is consistently the Republican outlier. At the end Rasmussen and Gallup are the only ones saying Romney is leading. Pew was showing +4 Romney a few days ago; now they are back to +3 Obama. All the polls are saying the race tightened after the 1st debate; that's all. Gallup was showing Obama leading until they switched to their likely-voter methodology that excludes a lot of voters that might vote Democratic.

The day before the election, it is probable tOo late to have an impact but Bloomberg just crack the case on Romney's federal income taxes.

HE PAID NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES FOR 15 YEARS - FROM 1996 THROUGH 2009.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...donations.html

Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations

Any guesses why he might have started paying in 2010.

If this guy get elected tomorrow, just remember this every time you see that withholding on your paycheck.

What an a-hole.

The new CNN poll released today has a tie, 49-49. When you look at the data you see this:

Likely Voters (Obama - Romney - Other/neither)

D: 93 - 5 - 2
R: 1 -99 - 0
I: 37- 59 - 4

Romney leads among independents by 22 points.

Here's their Party ID breakdown (%) among "likely voters":

D: 41
R: 30
I: 29

A D +11 electorate.

This was the Party ID from the 2008 exit poll:

D: 39
R: 32
I: 29

D +7. Obama won Independents by 11 points.

This is what happens if CNN's Party ID is wrong, and instead it looks like 2008:

Romney: 50.7
Obama: 47.3
Other: 1.9

Here's what happens if Party ID/turnout looks like 2004:

Romney: 53.8
Obama: 44.4
Other: 1.8

The CNN poll also shows that 42% of registered Republicans describe themselves as "extremely enthusiastic" about voting, compared to 37% of Democrats.

Crazy stuff.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Gallup and Pew are using the same sort of sampling methods and they aren't messing around with the data to get "a more representative sample" than the ~3100 randomly selected, registered voters they're surveying for each poll.

Actually, Pew does a huge amount of convoluted re-weighting to their sample. I know because I just looked at their data. I'm not sure how much Gallup does.

Well playwrite, could this be the item (you posted above) that makes a predicted landslide possible?

(quote)
CNBC’s stock analyst Jim Cramer sometimes has some wild predictions, but his call for President Barack Obama to sweep the election Tuesday by a landslide has pundits on both sides of the aisle shaking their heads.

Cramer predicted, in The Washington Post’s list of predictions from media personalities, that Obama will take a whopping 440 votes in the electoral college over 98 for Republican contender Mitt Romney.

Cramer, who is uncharacteristically quiet about his prediction, would say only “the presidential race is nowhere as close as the polls suggest.”

There’s a wide range of personalities on the Post’s poll, from the paper’s political editor Chris Cillizza, who gives Obama the nod; Guy Kawasaki, technology entrepreneur and former chief evangelist for Apple, who picked Obama; and Leslie Sanchez, Republican strategist and former Bush adviser, who picked Romney. Fox News analyst and The Hill columnist Juan Williams also picked the president.

While most of the personalities picked Obama, Cramer’s landslide prediction stood out — even from the Langley High School 12th-grade government classes of McLean, Va. — which predicted a close contest.

Of course, critics are confused by Cramer’s prediction, the Atlantic reports.

“I really can’t fathom how Jim Cramer is coming up with that,” said Business Insider’s Joseph Weisenthal. “I can’t even make a fantasy map where that’s remotely plausible.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com: http://www.newsmax.com/US/Jim-Cramer...#ixzz2BNpS4sSi
Follow us: @newsmax_media on Twitter | newsmax on Facebook
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

(unquote)

Now I wonder, what states would Romney win that could add up to only 98? Now there's a fun fantasy!

Let's see:

It would have to include most of these dubbed "solid states" by Real Clear:

Alabama (9) Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6) Idaho (4)
Kansas (6) Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8) Mississippi (6)
Nebraska (4) North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7) Tennessee (11)
Texas (38) Utah (6)
West Virginia (5) Wyoming (3)

That's 127. So how do you take away 29 electoral votes from this list?

Texas would be too many. Wait, I have to revise this; they already took off NB CD2

TN 11
KY 8
AK 3
ND 3
NB 4

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Actually, Pew does a huge amount of convoluted re-weighting to their sample. I know because I just looked at their data. I'm not sure how much Gallup does.

I didn't see any info there on their methodology. What I did see is that their final results matched the actual vote pretty well, if anything giving the Republican an edge in many years. For 2008 they were spot on.

Ahh, here's a nice one to explode the prime false myth of Republicans.

repugnicans vote WEDNESDAY...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Actually, Pew does a huge amount of convoluted re-weighting to their sample. I know because I just looked at their data. I'm not sure how much Gallup does.

What Pew is showing is the difference between the people they polled and the expected demographic breakdown based on other survey data. So if anything, the Pew poll slightly over-represents men, ages 25-44, and people with lower education levels.

But that is the total polled population, which is then broken down to registered voters and likely voters based on the person's response. Among self-described likely voters, women and college graduates are over-represented in proportion to their part of the general population.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Live stream debate Johnson vs Stein right now:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica/featured

My hand will be steady, but will have a terrible time coloring in the dot at 6:00AM in the morning. Obamagasm or Mittens will not deter me from voting for Gary Johnson in Virginia.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Live stream debate Johnson vs Stein right now:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica/featured

They are addressing the issues that the other two candidates refuse to discuss. Very important debate. It's an education in the root of our problems.

Monday evening update: Nate Silver pushes Obama’s chances above 90 percent