Mitt's co-chair to campaign says peace out, sucka!!!

538.com

But you go ahead and keep telling yourself he has a chance.

 

sorry, wrote down the wrong address.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

but hey, keep using the talking points. To quote John Lennon, whatever gets you through the night G.

When you have hard line conservatives throwing him under the bus, and complaining that in this election (of all elections) the R's are losing, only you look the fool G.

 

you should take a class in "reality".

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

It's a safe bet that Obama has around 233 EV's.

Washington 12, Oregon 7, California 55, New Mexico 5, Hawaii 4, Minnesota 10, Illinois 20,Michigan 16, New York 29, Pennsylvania 20, Maine 11, RI 4, Ct 7, New Jersey 14, Delaware 3, Maryland 10, WDC 3, Vermont 3.

I think it's a safe bet that those are going for Obama.

Added together, that's 233.

So you're telling me that he won't be able to make up 37 EV's by winning Florida, and a combo of either Ohio or Virginia, or Colorado and one of the other 2?


Really?

 

well, he's far more accurate and logical than you are, so yeah. He was pretty much on the ball for the whole McCain/Obama election.

 

Here's a fair question.

Silver is absolutely a Democrat and very biased along those lines. He literally cheers for good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans. He downplays good news for republicans too. I follow him on twitter and read his articles fairly regularly.

Anyhow, I think it's quite possible that this kind of obvious bias along with misuse of the polling data can help shape public opinion. A stream of "Romney's dropping in the polls" feeds on itself and he drops further, or really does drop.

And you really do need to look at the polling methodologies used. They survey 1000 people. 500 say "Romney" and 500 say "Obama" but the poll results are 56% Obama, 44% Romney. That's because they fudge the result by multiplying Obama's results by 1.5 (or some number like that) and divide Romney's by the same. They figure there are 1.5x more democrats than republicans or some other justification.

The thing is, the flaw in that logic is Democrats voted for Reagan. And Bush, and W. Republicans voted for Clinton, and obviously quite a few did for Obama.

 

and you got this "they multiply #'s by 1.5" from where?

(I think it rhymes with "bass" and "class" and "my ass")

 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/

Stage 1. Weighted Polling Average

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/poll-methodology

Weighting

Weights– the adjustments made to ensure a poll’s subjects are comparable by age, race
and other demographic qualities to the overall population — are computed in two stages.
First, an initial weight, or pre-weight, is computed to make sure all subjects in the sample
have an equal chance of being called. This is followed by demographic balancing using a
rim weighting procedure.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/02/weighting-and-other-poll-controversies.php

Weighting and Other Poll Controversies

(an excellent read)

http://www.dailykos.com/special/Methodology

Typically, poll respondents represent a greater proportion of whites, older people, and women than found in the American public as a whole. Because of this, PPP weights its polls for race, age, and gender to ensure its surveys properly represent the population. (Note: PPP does not weight for party identification.) Based on a combination of census numbers, voter participation in past elections, and poll response, PPP develops target ranges for the share of poll respondents that should fall into each of these categories.

After contacting a sufficient number of respondents, PPP uses a random deletion process to achieve an appropriate gender and race balance, which generally involves removing excess cases of white and female voters. PPP then uses a statistical formula to adjust for age imbalances, which creates the final results. Even though the final results are weighted, the number of respondents by gender, race, and age is not necessarily identical every week.

Using a statistical formula to weight the results can result in a round number of respondents in each demographic category because the Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation Poll generally has a base of 1,000 respondents. However, an examination of the raw data (which is also provided each week) demonstrates that this pattern does not exist at the individual respondent level, but rather is merely a by-product of weighting.

(&c)

 

You are funny, Denny. You constantly quote Gallup and Rasmussen, which are definitely run by Republicans, but you don't ever suggest that maybe their results might be biased (even though all evidence suggests they are).

Your argument doesn't make sense. They don't change the votes of the people they poll. If they poll D's who say they are going to vote for Romney, then THAT result also gets multiplied by the demographic adjustments. They don't just call and say "Romney or Obama? Ok, bye". They also collect information on party affiliation, age, gender, etc. etc.

barfo

 

To the contrary, Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster in 2008. Link.

I don't make any claims about Gallup's polls. Except that he's been polling for a long long time - since I was a kid. However, they were not the most accurate in 2008, and overestimated Obama's support (biased, indeed!).

No, they call and say "Romney or Obama" and when there's no answer, they record "Obama".

Anyhow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/gallup-poll-race-barack-obama_n_1589937.html

 

How does the debate go?

Romney: Your economy sucks
Obama: You suck

That's the campaigns' strategies so far. Romney provides too little specifics on his own. Obama does not want it to be a referendum on his performance.

Who wins this exchange?

Romney should trivially be able to produce a slew of stats showing the economy is bad. That should at least make him look in command of the facts.

The people watching may take Obama's word that Romney sucks, but he'll be standing right next to him and people can judge for themselves.

 

As of election day. He's pretty clearly not the most accurate pollster *right now*. I predict that Rasmussen's numbers will gradually come in line with the other pollsters by election day, and he'll get a pretty good final result again. And only fools will believe that Romney was actually winning in late September just because Rasmussen said so. Whether his polls are bogus today due to intentional bias or accidental bias is unknown to me, but it certainly must be tempting to put your thumb on the scale in September, knowing that you'll only be judged by your November accuracy.

barfo