• 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!

Poll bias

Where did all the biased polls go?

  • They never existed in the first place, it was just excuse making from whiney people

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • They are still there, Romney is beloved by all, darn media! (except fox)

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Polls suck and never work right!

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Rootabega

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Total voters
    13
duhu said:
Oxymoron? rofl

There are no facts in the article. It is nothing but rhetoric for hacks to eat up.

ahahahahahaha no, just no.

The only way to judge the accuracy of polls for this election at this point in time is based on history. And, historically, most polls (not all) overrate Democratic support. But believe whatever you want to chief, I don't care. lol
Click to expand...

Wow you suck at arguing. Are you actually going post a valid argument or teenagery lolspeak?
 
Anagram said:
Actually, that isn't quite true. Although the final average in national polls in 2008 overestimated Democrats by .3%, the average of all state polls overestimated Republicans by 1.4% and by 2.3% in swing states. In 2010 every polling company but one overestimated Republican support.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where you got that, since there are 10+ polls in 2008 that overestimated Obama's support 1 - 4 points, and only 3 or 4 underestimated Obama's support, by only 1 or 2 points at that.
 
duhu said:
I have no idea where you got that, since there are 10+ polls in 2008 that overestimated Obama's support 1 - 4 points, and only 3 or 4 underestimated Obama's support, by only 1 or 2 points at that.
Click to expand...

I just did the math. Running through RCP's final averages and actual results.
 
megaprogman said:
So now that Romney is doing better in polling, where did all the claims of poll rigging go?
Click to expand...

Silly rabbit..polls are still for strippers...now, 'biased polls'? Not sure what strippers do with them...
 
megaprogman said:
So now that Romney is doing better in polling, where did all the claims of poll rigging go?
Click to expand...

they have now graduated into claiming that the bureau of labor statistics is a conspiracy.
 
Dickieboy said:
Silly rabbit..polls are still for strippers...now, 'biased polls'? Not sure what strippers do with them...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be poles?
 
Anagram said:
What? Cell-phone only households are rapidly growing, and it seems like a good idea to correct for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure cell phone only households completely exploded when Romney started taking a lead in polls.

:roll:
 
Donahue said:
Yeah, I'm sure cell phone only households completely exploded when Romney started taking a lead in polls.

:roll:
Click to expand...

The amount of cell phone only households has doubled since 2007. Polling more of them seems like a good idea to me.
 
Anagram said:
The amount of cell phone only households has doubled since 2007. Polling more of them seems like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

Over-sampling Democrats is a good idea.

Under-sampling Republicans and independents is a good idea.

Changing the methodology weeks before the election is a good idea.

At what point do you just come out and admit you don't care what they do so long as the Democrats come out ahead?
 
I'm fairly certain that Vermin Supreme is going to win this election despite what the polls say.
 
Donahue said:
Over-sampling Democrats is a good idea.

Under-sampling Republicans and independents is a good idea.

Changing the methodology weeks before the election is a good idea.

At what point do you just come out and admit you don't care what they do so long as the Democrats come out ahead?
Click to expand...

First off, I'm a Republican who's voting for Romney, I just happen to love polling and statistics. I am in no way endorsing Democratic policies, which for the most part I think are bad for the country.

On the other hand, I do believe that polls are usually right. Oversampling Democrats isn't what is actually happening. Party Affiliation isn't something that should be weighted in a poll, because it is an attitude, and not an immutable demographic. It really doesn't matter when the methodology of a poll changes, if the changes are for the better. Cell-phone only households have been rapidly increasing, and correcting for that is a good idea.
 
The polls are still biased in favor of the Democrats from overssampling this group. It is now such a landslide for Romney that even this oversampling cannot skew the results. It only lessens the margin that Romney is ahead by - perhaps 10+ points.
 
RenoCon said:
The polls are still biased in favor of the Democrats from overssampling this group. It is now such a landslide for Romney that even this oversampling cannot skew the results. It only lessens the margin that Romney is ahead by - perhaps 10+ points.
Click to expand...

Weighting by party affiliation is a bad idea for a pollster. Also, I think there is no chance Romney's up by anywhere near that much.
 
Anagram said:
First off, I'm a Republican who's voting for Romney, I just happen to love polling and statistics. I am in no way endorsing Democratic policies, which for the most part I think are bad for the country.

On the other hand, I do believe that polls are usually right. Oversampling Democrats isn't what is actually happening. Party Affiliation isn't something that should be weighted in a poll, because it is an attitude, and not an immutable demographic. It really doesn't matter when the methodology of a poll changes, if the changes are for the better. Cell-phone only households have been rapidly increasing, and correcting for that is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Except it does.

People tend not to donate money to or turn out for lost causes. The timing of their change is pretty suspect; especially considering just how many in the mainstream media get tingling sensations in their inner thighs for Pres. Obama. If it wasn't an issue in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and almost all of 2012 then why is it suddenly an issue at the very point when Mitt Romney begins to cut into Pres. Obama's lead?
 
Donahue said:
Except it does.

People tend not to donate money to or turn out for lost causes. The timing of their change is pretty suspect; especially considering just how many in the mainstream media get tingling sensations in their inner thighs for Pres. Obama. If it wasn't an issue in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and almost all of 2012 then why is it suddenly an issue at the very point when Mitt Romney begins to cut into Pres. Obama's lead?
Click to expand...

It was. They've been steadily increasing the amount of cell phones polled during the past few years.
 
Anagram said:
It was. They've been steadily increasing the amount of cell phones polled during the past few years.
Click to expand...

And the 20% increase in nonwhites sampled this month?

Let me take a stab at your opinion on this one: Good idea?

:roll:

Maybe I'm just a cynic but I just have a difficult time believing the media that has fawned over Pres. Obama throughout his term is making all of these last minute adjustments that "coincidentally" boost his numbers for the sake of accuracy.
 
Last edited:
The other thing to remember that according to the census bureau for the last 30 years there are more dems than reps by a wide margin in this country. So do the math
 
Donahue said:
And the 20% increase in nonwhites sampled this month?

Let me take a stab at your opinion on this one: Good idea?.
Click to expand...

Well, Gallup doesn't weight it's likely voter samples by race, so it isn't really something they intentionally did. As far as I can tell it only increased the amount of non-white voters from about 27% to 30%.
 
wolfman24 said:
The other thing to remember that according to the census bureau for the last 30 years there are more dems than reps by a wide margin in this country. So do the math
Click to expand...

I performed a curtsy search on census.gov and found nothing to substantiate this. Further I reviewed the 2010 census form and found that there was no place to indicate party affiliation. Can you please supply a link to said data? thx

BUT if you are willing to consider another source:

Trend in Party Identification | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

This shows the D/R ratio in 2002 (certainly within the 'last 30 years) was 31%/30%, not the 'wide margin' you claim. Per this source this year it is 32%/24% which I will conceed is a significant margin...but certainly not wide.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
I performed a curtsy search on census.gov and found nothing to substantiate this. Further I reviewed the 2010 census form and found that there was no place to indicate party affiliation. Can you please supply a link to said data? thx

BUT if you are willing to consider another source:

Trend in Party Identification | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

This shows the D/R ratio in 2002 (certainly within the 'last 30 years) was 31%/30%, not the 'wide margin' you claim. Per this source this year it is 32%/24% which I will conceed is a significant margin...but certainly not wide.
Click to expand...

All I can tell you is that I saw it on PBS about a week ago and then heard in again on CBS news. They reported their information came from the "census bureau". MSNBC has also been stating this but not identifying thier source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom