Post #34 is a good example. Fact: 17 polls overstated Obama's support and were off badly. Do tell, why should we believe those pollsters now?
Since you obviously didn't read it the first time, I'll just repeat what I said before: Similarly, getting one poll wrong doesn't prove a poster is biased, except in regards to that one poll. And the others were not all "off badly" as you claim. Your own link says that the average pollster had Obama winning by 7.5% instead of 6.15%. It's not a huge error. Should we believe pollsters because they were off by 1.36% (well within the stated margin of error for most polls) on one poll? Well, it's not a reason to disbelieve them. I generally think a fair bit of caution is needed when looking at any poll, no matter how reputable the pollster. barfo
17 pollsters using similar methodology (you called it science) and getting it very wrong says a lot about the methodology. 7.5% vs. 6.15% is a ~25% error, which is very significant. In fact, it's about in line with 25% of republicans staying home in 2008. See post #30.
Are you actually claiming that all pollsters who overestimated Obama's winning margin used methodology similar to each other, but different from Rasmussen? I think that might be an assertion that you don't have the facts to back up. Feel free to prove me wrong. Uh, ok. Your initial post in this ridiculous thread was claiming that the pollsters were making errors of 7 or more percentage points. Glad you now agree that was horseshit. barfo
Post #7. And yes, there is a strong similarity used by the polling firms that are in error - weighting the raw data as if 24% of the electorate is republican, based upon 2008 exit polling data. Something Rasmussen does not do. You have a comprehension problem. If the error is 7 or more percentage points, the polls are that biased. Where the unskewed polls may have an issue is the enthusiasm of the voters. Obviously, the polls can be Romney +7, but if 25% of the republicans stay home and don't vote, he's not going to win by 7.
If turnout matches 2008 in terms of race, party identification and gender, then President Obama will win. It will be by a lower margin this time, but he will win. However, if the composition of the turnout has changed the ways the polls say they have (polls on party identification, intensity of interest, etc.), then Gov. Romney is in much better shape than most of the polls would lead us to believe.
I don't think you've shown that all other polling firms weight the data solely or primarily based on 2008. You've asserted that, but I don't believe you. Right, but in the one and only poll you are willing to discuss (the one Rasmussen got right, in 2008) the error/bias was nowhere near 7 percentage points. Actually, the polls can't be Romney +7, because that would be a bullshit result. That's why NO pollster, not even your beloved Rasmussen, is reporting Romney +7. It's because it isn't true. or even if they don't... He's not going to win by 7. Or at all, unless something significant happens in the next few weeks. barfo
Yes, because pollsters pay no attention to polls, so they have no idea of changing demographics and interest and party ID. They certainly don't try to factor that information into their poll results. barfo
How is that LOL barfo? Seems to me he's explicitly saying that he wasn't doing what you accused him of (applying the 2008 turnout). He said he just took the answers people gave as their party ID. That may or may not make him a good pollster, but it isn't any feather in your argument's cap. barfo
It's a state poll. And there you now have 3 pollsters (the other 2 in the video you don't want to watch) saying Democrats are being oversampled. I like this pollster's answer: HH: I mean, when does it become unreliable? You know you’ve just put your foot on the slope, so I’m going to push you down it. When does it become unreliable? PB: Like the Supreme Court and pornography, you know it when you see it. And this one: HH: Do you expect Democrats, this is a different question, do you, Peter Brown, expect Democrats to have a nine point registration advantage when the polls close on November 6th in Florida? PB: Well, first, you don’t mean registration. HH: I mean, yeah, turnout. PB: Do I think…I think it is probably unlikely.
Gallup surveyed 177,670 adults and finds... http://www.gallup.com/poll/156437/heavily-democratic-states-concentrated-east.aspx August 3, 2012 So far in 2012, 44% of all U.S. adults have identified as or lean Democratic and 40% are Republican. And here's a good explanation of how the pollsters use (but obscure) the 2008 exit polling data: http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/are-public-opinion-polls-exaggeratin-oba According to Chris Jackson at Ipsos-Reuters, “most research organizations use a combination of prior voting behavior, interest in the election and self-report likelihood to vote to categorize likely voters. ...Some pollsters also use ‘voter lists’ or commercial lists of people who voted in the last election instead of screening these individuals from the population.” Rasmussen gives a vague explanation here, “The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions. Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area.” ABC News explains, they “develop a range of ‘likely voter’ models, employing elements such as self-reported voter registration, intention to vote, attention to the race, past voting, age, respondents’ knowledge of their polling places, and political party identification.” As Huffington Post’s Mark Blumenthal reports, “CNN has published no explanation of how they select likely voters.” "Without seeing the demographic composition of the likely voters in each poll, it appears that several polls are extrapolating 2008 turnout beyond what will actually occur in 2012. Consequently, these polls may overestimate Democratic turnout and thus Obama’s lead in the polls. "
yes.... and your point is? No. You are totally misrepresenting what this guy said. He said he just polled people and asked them what party they belonged to, and they said D. That's completely different than adjusting the sample to fit a previously defined D vs. R breakdown. He's obviously not very good in the interview, and maybe he doesn't believe his own poll. But this is totally at odds with what you were objecting to before. This isn't 'skewing' of the results. This is reporting the results without any skew. barfo
Wow. The most heavily democratic states are in the east. That's fucking amazing. No one ever would have guessed that, unless they ever looked at any poll or voting data for a minute or two. Did you read that link you provided? It says that maybe pollsters are overstating Obama's lead by 1.5 percentage points. Maybe 1.5. Not 7. 1.5. barfo
Dude, if you want to feel good about your chances, just click the heels of your ruby slippers together and repeat the phrase, there's no place like home...much simpler and you won't look half as silly.
You answered your own question from post 56 in post 57. And the 1.5 difference is in likely voters polls, which they are reporting as pretty much even. That is, the pollsters who do report likely voter poll results.
I didn't quite realize that we were just rehashing the republican conspiracy theory of the day, but here's a recap on our debate. http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/republicans-to-pollsters-too-many-democrats-in-your-surveys-20120925 barfo
