• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

CBS/NYT/QN Today

Fisher said:
What I am doing is expecting it to be an irrelevant statistic because the EC count matters more than the national polling numbers.
Click to expand...
That is an even bigger leap to make. :(
 
AdamT said:
This latest poll denial business is totally insane. I don't know why I'm surprised. It's small potatos compared to the Republican global warming denial lunacy.

So FYI, this is what's going on here: some folks on the right realized that Romney is going downhill fast. The realized that if they didn't do something fast it could have a real impact on his already flagging fundraising, and also impact early voting which starts soon in some states. Solution? Just invent a whacko theory that the poll results aren't reeeaaally the poll results! After all, the base has already shown itself willing to reject SCIENCE, and is already convinced that the only people who tell the truth are far right wing talking heads. So hey ... why not?! The polls are fake (wink wink)!

Something is seriously broken in the conervatives' collective head.
Click to expand...


I'll admit that I absolutely don't know statistics, or in depth macro economic theory like you do Adam, but could you explain to me why it is that a poll that over samples demo's by up to 13 pts. is accurate in any world?
 
AdamT said:
This latest poll denial business is totally insane. I don't know why I'm surprised. It's small potatos compared to the Republican global warming denial lunacy.

So FYI, this is what's going on here: some folks on the right realized that Romney is going downhill fast. The realized that if they didn't do something fast it could have a real impact on his already flagging fundraising, and also impact early voting which starts soon in some states. Solution? Just invent a whacko theory that the poll results aren't reeeaaally the poll results! After all, the base has already shown itself willing to reject SCIENCE, and is already convinced that the only people who tell the truth are far right wing talking heads. So hey ... why not?! The polls are fake (wink wink)!

Something is seriously broken in the conervatives' collective head.
Click to expand...

How did you describe it when the Democrats were doing something similar?

Axelrod: Gallup poll has 'methodological problems' | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
j-mac said:
I'll admit that I absolutely don't know statistics, or in depth macro economic theory like you do Adam, but could you explain to me why it is that a poll that over samples demo's by up to 13 pts. is accurate in any world?
Click to expand...
1) The word oversample is being grossly misused.
2) How these “oversamples” are determined to be such-and-such a size tend to be fundamentally flawed. Things like “the registered Dem % and GOP % have to be equal”, which makes zero sense when one of the parties greatly outnumber the other in registration. Further even official registration numbers are suspect is some jurisdictions that do little or no curating of their registration rolls.
3) Especially when you get to the point of filtering to only likely voters, the top line question of who you are voting for can drive the party ID rather than the other way around.
 
VA doesn't even allow party registration and polls of them skew as much as 10% between outlying polls. They all cannot be correct as the margins of error are not that wide.
 
I just find it odd conservatives calling the polls off, however in 2010 the polls were dead on when tea bag party won some seats. Just odd?
 
j-mac said:
I'll admit that I absolutely don't know statistics, or in depth macro economic theory like you do Adam, but could you explain to me why it is that a poll that over samples demo's by up to 13 pts. is accurate in any world?
Click to expand...

They aren't oversampling Democrats, is the short answer. Obviously any poll that shows a Democrat with the lead is likely to show more people self-identifying as Democrats, just as any poll with a Republican in the lead is likely to show more people self-identifying as Republicans. If you weight the poll for party indentification what you are doing, essentially, is conforming the poll result to expected voter turnout (or known registrations, in that sort of poll) and thus changing the result based upon your preconceived expectation. Or in other words, you are simply defeating the purpose of polling. Not a great idea.

Instead, what they try to do is ask questions designed to figure out who is most likely to vote, and if that group contains more Dems than Republicans, or vice versa, it is what it is.
 
Vallista said:
I just find it odd conservatives calling the polls off, however in 2010 the polls were dead on when tea bag party won some seats. Just odd?
Click to expand...

No less odd than when the Democrats were 'calling the polls off' five months ago...and went so far as get the DOJ involved no less...

And let's not forget Ms Pelosi's disregard of the 'off polls' IN THE 2010 election proclaiming the Democrats will retain the House. A little off with her prediction wouldn't ya say? Odd indeed

ps. You are aware of the irony of the proposal in your sig... i.e. the DNC's support of abortion will reduce THEIR growth much faster than the RNC's pro-life position...you might want to rethink that...;)
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
No less odd than when the Democrats were 'calling the polls off' five months ago...and went so far as get the DOJ involved no less...

ps. You are aware of the irony of the proposal in your sig... i.e. the DNC's support of abortion will reduce THEIR growth much faster than the RNC's pro-life position...you might want to rethink that...;)
Click to expand...


I don't care what DNC thinks. Polling has gotten better and better. I trusted the 2010 polls then and I trust them now. When Fox is polling Obama ahead, are they really fixed? I mean really? Conservatives need to stop cry about this. The polls are dead on. this doesn't mean things can't change. So please spare me the crying. Its getting old.

EDIT: P.S I don't want to rethink that.;)
 
The Prof said:
cbs/nyt/qn today:

CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll

PN: obama +7, sample D+11

OH: obama +10, sample D+9

FL: obama +9, D+9

OH turnout in 08 was D+5, in 04 it was R+5

in 2010 (tsunami tuesday, when republicans won five house seats, a senate seat, the governorship and seized control of the lower house---with a new margin of 58-41, while holding on to the upper chamber, now 23-10), voter turnout in OH was D+1 in november, 2010

in FL, turnout was D+3 in 08, R+4 in 04, and in 2010 the party took 4 house seats, a senator, a governor and earned veto-proof majorities in both chambers

PN succumbed as well to the 2010 wave---five congressmen, a senator, governor corbett and new control of the state house, 114-89, while holding the senate, 30-20

voter enthusiasm per qn today:

PN: R's +17

OH: R's +10

FL: R's +4

voter registration has moved net +400K for R's in FL since 08, +200K in PN, and net voter registration is down significantly in cuyahoga county, cleveland, democrat heart of the buckeye state

independents, qn:

OH: romney +1

FL: romney +3

PN: no data

recent polls out of OH:

gravis: sample D+10.3, obama +1

wp: D+9, obama +8

fox: D+6, obama +7

ucin: D+10, obama +5

arg: D+10, obama +1

nbc: D+10, obama +7

avg: D+9.2, obama +4.8

numbers don't brag, numbers don't complain, numbers speak for themselves

Report, Ohio Sep 21-22, 2012(1)

Washington Post Poll (washingtonpost.com)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...ored-over-romney-among-likely-voters-in-ohio/

Divided state still a toss-up | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

Ohio 2012 Presidential Ballot

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/ohio_poll_september.pdf
Click to expand...

Careful
Its a trap.jpg

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average

9/7 - 9/24

--

45.6 Dems

44.6 Reps

Democrats +1.0
 
IndepCentristMA said:
No, I am suggesting that FOX News and CNN polls have consistently been anti-Romney... all throughout this entire race...

Perhaps the anti-Mormon sentiment in the the bible belt and the reserved fears that Romney isn't an ultra social conservative may not be appealing to many of their normal polled participants, but that reside in states that are heavily in the Romney column...

Perhaps, they are using liberally biased data...

I don't know the reasoning, but their polls have persistently been anti-Romney all election process long...
Click to expand...

...reflecting, of course, the fact that the American electorate has been "....persistently been anti-Romney all election process long..." or, more aptly, just that the American electorate has not warmed up to Romney all election long, with their mood actually getting cooler toward him.

People are free to rationalize this all they want. We have have our escapes from reality. But, the reality is that Romney's chances of winning are currently slipping. The climb back into the race is getting steeper and time is running it out. It isn't lost for Romney, but the way right wing pundits are already telling us what Romney has done wrong are certainly signs that they have all measured the distance from their seats to the exits.

All is not lost, but neither is all well in Romneyville.
 
Last edited:
Vallista said:
I just find it odd conservatives calling the polls off, however in 2010 the polls were dead on when tea bag party won some seats. Just odd?
Click to expand...
The polls were far from dead on... most were predicting a pickup of around 50 seats and the result was 63...
 
Taylor said:
The polls were far from dead on... most were predicting a pickup of around 50 seats and the result was 63...
Click to expand...
There were an unusually large number of close races in the House of Rep 2010, so a lot of variability was expected. 538.com had the average around 53-54 IIRC but the chances of a 60-and-change seat pick-up at about 1 in 3 chance.
 
Vallista said:
I don't care what DNC thinks. Polling has gotten better and better. I trusted the 2010 polls then and I trust them now. When Fox is polling Obama ahead, are they really fixed? I mean really? Conservatives need to stop cry about this. The polls are dead on. this doesn't mean things can't change. So please spare me the crying. Its getting old.
Click to expand...

So the DNC (which I presume you support based on your 'lean' and POV) cries about polls and you 'don't care what DNC thinks' and the Conservatives (which I presume you are against again based on your 'lean' and POV) cry about the polls and you say they 'need to stop cry about this'. Does this not appear hypocritical to you? REALLY?

EDIT: P.S I don't want to rethink that.;)
Click to expand...

That's fine with me...the Democratic party will continue to decline, based on their pro-choice position...one baby at a time...carry on! :lamo
 
AdamT said:
They aren't oversampling Democrats, is the short answer. Obviously any poll that shows a Democrat with the lead is likely to show more people self-identifying as Democrats, just as any poll with a Republican in the lead is likely to show more people self-identifying as Republicans. If you weight the poll for party indentification what you are doing, essentially, is conforming the poll result to expected voter turnout (or known registrations, in that sort of poll) and thus changing the result based upon your preconceived expectation. Or in other words, you are simply defeating the purpose of polling. Not a great idea.

Instead, what they try to do is ask questions designed to figure out who is most likely to vote, and if that group contains more Dems than Republicans, or vice versa, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

This is an outstandingly cogent post. I sincerely applaud you for it…it supports my (and Sarah Palin’s) view that ‘polls are for strippers’.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
LMFAO..... I'm wondering what the purpose of your post even was...

First off, I did not give the example of FL... I gave the example of FL, MI, and OH… same case every time…
Click to expand...
EDIT: Actually looks like I took Florida because it was top of the list and easy pickens. You an AND claim, so I took the easy opportunity of pulling all it apart by focusing on just the first one (thus keeping it shorter, rather than bogging down with taking them all apart). So I took apart, because…
You point out that 538 predicted Romney as the winner by 15 at 6pm on the day of the actual vote… big deal…
Click to expand...
It is relevant (AKA “a big deal”) since that prediction was based on the public polling data that you claimed didn’t accurately anticipate the outcome.
Then you say well it was historically close (big deal), or that the trend swung in Romney’s favor as the election drew closer...

The point is still, polls 2 weeks ahead of the vote had Newt by 10 points… and Romney won by 15…
Click to expand...
That same process was repeated every time, as MSM polls continued to bias against Romney…
Click to expand...
Wrong. Because the PUBLIC polling (and other) data, with solid analysis, nailed the Florida outcome to an uncanny extent.

What happened was the race changed. Romney bombarded FL with ads (and Newt didn’t/couldn’t respond in kind), plus Romney did well on the debate. Being a Primary race, it could move quickly with fairly large shifts fast…and when the public polling data came in the movement was seen prior to the election.
So, what you’re saying is, it’s hard to predict races, and that Romney’s internal polling numbers reflected the ultimate numbers ahead of what the MSM pollers were able to realize?
Click to expand...
Arrrg, please reread carefully. It is harder to predict Primary races AND it was nailed by a guy using only “MSM pollers” (I guess, because WTF that actually means ??? ), and not Romney’s internal numbers.

The same guy has Romney dead in the water right now, near zero chance of winning the election if held today. The only real chance he’s giving Romney is an opportunity for a turn-around. Right now for example about 30% of his prediction is based on economic indicators, and converting that into vote percentage on Nov 6th.

Given that Romney’s polling is headed in the wrong direction, and time is running out (economic indicators approaching zero meaning as you near Nov 6th, because they really just represent the chance to change people’s opinion rather than what change really happens as reflected in the polls), his chances are evaporating fast.

— — —

Or, in short, you don’t have a sniff of a hint of clue…and it appears your [lack of] reading comprehension is a good place to start on reversing that.
 
Last edited:
Dwight said:
EDIT: Actually looks like I took Florida because it was top of the list and easy pickens. You an AND claim, so I took the easy opportunity of pulling all it apart by focusing on just the first one (thus keeping it shorter, rather than bogging down with taking them all apart). So I took apart, because…

It is relevant (AKA “a big deal”) since that prediction was based on the public polling data that you claimed didn’t accurately anticipate the outcome.


Wrong. Because the PUBLIC polling (and other) data, with solid analysis, nailed the Florida outcome to an uncanny extent.

What happened was the race changed. Romney bombarded FL with ads (and Newt didn’t/couldn’t respond in kind), plus Romney did well on the debate. Being a Primary race, it could move quickly with fairly large shifts fast…and when the public polling data came in the movement was seen prior to the election.

Arrrg, please reread carefully. It is harder to predict Primary races AND it was nailed by a guy using only “MSM pollers” (I guess, because WTF that actually means ??? ), and not Romney’s internal numbers.

The same guy has Romney dead in the water right now, near zero chance of winning the election if held today. The only real chance he’s giving Romney is an opportunity for a turn-around. Right now for example about 30% of his prediction is based on economic indicators, and converting that into vote percentage on Nov 6th.

Given that Romney’s polling is headed in the wrong direction, and time is running out (economic indicators approaching zero meaning as you near Nov 6th, because they really just represent the chance to change people’s opinion rather than what change really happens as reflected in the polls), his chances are evaporating fast.

— — —

Or, in short, you don’t have a sniff of a hint of clue…and it appears your [lack of] reading comprehension is a good place to start on reversing that.
Click to expand...

Is easy pickens related to T Boone Pickens in some way? BTW... it's probably not wise to finish a post in which you apologize for being taken to task for your glaring comprehension mistakes... by making another with more glaring comprehension mistakes, and end it with an accusation about someone else not being able to follow comprehension...

You picked FL because you thought you had sound analysis to disprove my comment, but you didnt...

They didn't pick Romney to win FL at 6PM on the night of the election because of advanced public opinion polling, they did so because of exit polls at the voting locations... That's an entirely different analysis... and none of the polls being discussed atm reflect exit polls... If exit polls were coming out saying Obama won by 5 pts... that would be a whole other story... we are talking about advanced public opinion polls, which are in constant fluctuation, and are persistently mistaken by known biases and an inability to capture a true representation of the voting populace..

Again, that very poll had Newt +10 just a week prior to the vote... and Romney won by 15...

I will give you that it's harder to predict primaries... but in 3 separate crucial primaries, which were being polled by all the major media polling agencies Romney came in down double digits just a couple weeks from the vote, and won each... some by a wide margin...

He is 2-3 pts from winning this election... and with a whole month left... including the 3 debates, the 1 vp debate, the September jobs report (scheduled to come out ), and the October jobs report (scheduled to be released friday November 2nd)... don't tell me there isn't enough to swing votes in this election...

You can say there are no economic indicators to change, just wait until the massive layoffs for Sept 1 reflect a massive drop in employment released ahead of the 2nd debate... then another jobs report coming out November 2nd for October, just days prior to the election...

But, if you want to cling tight to your public opinion polls taken in mid September, go right ahead... Obama has this won, no need to pay attention to the rest of this... just stay home on voting night... it's all wrapped up... okay...
 
 
IndepCentristMA said:
They didn't pick Romney to win FL at 6PM on the night of the election because of advanced public opinion polling, they did so because of exit polls at the voting locations... That's an entirely different analysis... and none of the polls being discussed atm reflect exit polls...
Click to expand...
No.
Prediction initially posted at 7:44—AM—, EST.

Before the polls opened. You are wrong. So very, very wrong.

Time for you to suck it up and admit it.
 
Dwight said:
No.
Prediction initially posted at 7:44—AM—, EST.

Before the polls opened. You are wrong. So very, very wrong.

Time for you to suck it up and admit it.
Click to expand...

Oh... yes... im so wrong... LMFAO...

Again, you keep changing sources as evidence over the wrong discussion... its too funny...

To recap... I said that advanced public opinion polling is inaccurate and fluctuates, so a 2-3 pt lead with over a month and a half is still open to swings, especially with the noteable events that traditionally have lead to bumps or poll swings...

I gave the example of 3 key races in the primary which swung by more than 15 pts in just a couple weeks...

You countered that it didn't happen in FL, that the polling agencies got it right...

Earlier, you posted a source that said at 6PM of voting day that Romney will win by 15pts (which was based on exit polls)...
Now, you posted a source that say at 7AM of voting day that Romney will win by 15pts (pretending this refutes that 6pm was based off exit polls)...

You're still missing the entire point of the discussion... that public opinion polls in mid september do not decide a race... and that there's more than enough time for the numbers to change...

So now to the relevant point... did they did or did not have a 10 pt lead for Newt Gingrich 1 week prior to the FL primary?

They did...

So my chosing the FL example as a race with public opinion polling swinging 25 pts within 1 week is still factual... correct?

Correct...

So, that Romney has already had 3 races in which public opinion polls changed from trailing by double digits a couple weeks from the election to winning the election by a comfortable margin is still relevant as far as turning a 2-3 pt public opinion poll gap in a month and a half's time...?

Yes,

Thank you...


(Still you haven't shown a single source which even touches the fact that the campaign internal numbers are more accurate than the mainstream media public opinion polls... a subject you've pretended does not exist...)


Are there there still events which can swing voters opinions ahead of election day?

Yes... there are several...

There are of course the debates, 3 presidential debates, a vice presidential debate, 4 in total, each of which can swing opinions.

There are the economic reports, several of those will be coming as well... There will be 2 monthly job reports, for September, released October 5th, and for October released Nov 2nd (just days prior to the election). The September jobs report will also close out the quarter... a quarter in which 2 of the 3 months had lower than predicted job creation numbers as it is. It will also close out FY numbers, for those who judge presidencies from October thru September. Then there will be the Q3 economic reports, which the mid-quarter reports that came out for Q3 already were quite bleak, and likley have worsened. There is a significant amount of economic reporting which can swing the election as well.

Then there is the 24hr entertainment news agency coverage of the events. Every word these guys say gets magnified and taken out of context. There are also the daily news events which can change the status of the race (as the US Embassy attacks seems to be).

There are also the October surprises... Mother Jones already thinks they've got theres... but there's still plenty of news to be released... a video from May surrupticiously recorded and released in September shows the lengths so many people go through to time these things out to influence political winds... However, the life cycle of news events in this day and age is typically 36 hrs... then people move on to the new schtick...

Like I said... go right on believing this is over if you want... I'm pleased with that... you can even take Nov 6th off, since Obama has a comfortable lead... no need to vote...
 
Dickieboy said:
That's fine with me...the Democratic party will continue to decline, based on their pro-choice position...one baby at a time...carry on! :lamo
Click to expand...

that is really not funny.
 
Dickieboy said:
So the DNC (which I presume you support based on your 'lean' and POV) cries about polls and you 'don't care what DNC thinks' and the Conservatives (which I presume you are against again based on your 'lean' and POV) cry about the polls and you say they 'need to stop cry about this'. Does this not appear hypocritical to you? REALLY?



That's fine with me...the Democratic party will continue to decline, based on their pro-choice position...one baby at a time...carry on! :lamo
Click to expand...

I didn't say that at all. Polls better today then they ever been. I'm not going to cry for days because one candidate isn't favored.

P.S The Democratic isn't the party declining. Tea baggers have taken that title. So yea, I'm not rethinking anything. :golf (he shoots, he scores! Get the idea?)
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Oh... yes... im so wrong... LMFAO...

Again, you keep changing sources as evidence over the wrong discussion… its too funny…
Click to expand...
It is the same site. You misread the page I linked, you made a mistaken assumption. YOUR mistake, because it doesn’t talk about exist polls at all. You fabricated out of thin air something to try justify what you wish was true. So I provide another link to a page you could have easily reached from there via the links.

To recap the bottom line.

You.

Are.

Wrong.

… and lack the class and/or mental capacity to admit it.

Buh-bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom