FuzzyLumpkins

In the Rotation
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Go red team go!

It's based on aggregate statistics. What do 1 in 4 mean?

When it comes down to it looking at electoral votes, aggregate polling data and margins of error, Romney loses in 3 out of 4 scenarios. This article acts like Silver's basis is opinion. It's not.
 
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
0
Silver weights his polls and many of the polls are still using '08 turnout models of D +8 to +10. That's highly unlikely.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Go red team go!

It's based on aggregate statistics. What do 1 in 4 mean?

When it comes down to it looking at electoral votes, aggregate polling data and margins of error, Romney loses in 3 out of 4 scenarios. This article acts like Silver's basis is opinion. It's not.

Don't use large words like aggregate you'll confuse them.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

In the Rotation
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Silver weights his polls and many of the polls are still using '08 turnout models of D +8 to +10. That's highly unlikely.

Highly unlikely based on what? I have read a couple of reports stating that the demographics are markedly the same.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Oh yeah, pollsters are going off of the 2008 model.

I really don't know where you fucks are getting this shit. Like do you think statisticians and pollsters were all sitting around using outdated models while peeps on the DCU are like "well here's your problem right here you're using outdated models!" Damn if only we had been on DCU sooner!

Is this another made-up Republican talking point or something? You guys keep repeating it like it's gospel where the hell are you getting it from?
 
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
0
I know, it wasn't on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost so you don't know about it. Thankfully you have us here to keep you informed.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
By all means inform me, then.

Show me where all these polls are using 2008 turnout data.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
By all means inform me, then.

Show me where all these polls are using 2008 turnout data.

Democrats had a 9 point advantage in 2008 among voter participation.

When you look at polls that are over-sampling democrats by 8 and 9 points in their polls, something is wrong with your model. Republican voter enthusiasm is at what it was in 2010 when the republicans cleaned up.


Gallup(not sure if they're the only firm) is saying that republicans have a +1 advantage this year, so if a polling outfit is going to over-sample one side, the accurate(if the +1 is correct) thing to do would be to over-sample Republicans by a point.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
I'm not going to do all your leg work. You can even use Google.
nothing
Democrats had a 9 point advantage in 2008 among voter participation.

When you look at polls that are over-sampling democrats by 8 and 9 points in their polls, something is wrong with your model. Republican voter enthusiasm is at what it was in 2010 when the republicans cleaned up.

Ok so show me where these polls are doing this? I haven't seen it.

And if you are familiar with burden of proof, as Bach clearly is not, then you know it's up to the person making the claim to prove the claim is true.

According to fivethirtyeight, which is compiling these polls and weighting them, likely voter adjustment is a pretty standard part of these polls.

* The likely voter adjustment. Throughout the course of an election year, polls may be conducted among a variety of population samples. Some survey all American adults, some survey only registered voters, and others are based on responses from respondents deemed to be “likely voters,” as determined based on past voting behavior or present voting intentions. Sometimes, there are predictable differences between likely voter and registered voter polls. In 2010, for instance, polls of likely voters are about 4 points more favorable to the Republican candidate, on average, than those of registered voters, perhaps reflecting enthusiasm among Republican voters. And surveys conducted among likely voters are about 7 points more favorable to the Republican than those conducted among all adults, whether registered to vote or not.

So where are you getting this idea that these pollsters are sitting around thumbing their asses and oversampling the wrong demographic? Are we really that much smarter than the pollsters at the DCU?
 

FuzzyLumpkins

In the Rotation
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
That is quite ironic VA. I am more than willing to analyze what I believe to be true especially when it is questioned. I do not fear the truth.

First think I did when looking at your post was to look for information to get down to the bottom of this.

The only one clinging to anything is you. You are essentially saying, "I think what I want to think and am not going to bother examining much less affirming it."

Oh and btw you guys name dropped Gallup. Well here is Gallup from 4 days ago:

2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008
Composition of electorate by race, age, gender essentially the same
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- The composition of the electorate for the 2012 presidential election is looking quite similar to what it was in 2008 as well as 2004, according to an analysis of the demographics of Gallup's likely voter sample since Oct. 1. Thus, key elements of President Obama's electoral coalition, such as racial minorities, women, young adults, and postgraduates will likely turn out at rates similar to those in 2008.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx

They do show the figures of the partisans but I have to agree with SP here: where is the evidence that the professionals are still going by 2008 data? That's a whopper of an assertion and as much play as polling is getting this cycle that is easy front page material.

i dug further. i have to say the 5 minutes on Google was strenuous. Good think I am a naturally curious person that is interested in the truth.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-romney-have-an-edge-from-likely-voter-polls/

Does Romney Have an Edge From Likely Voter Polls?
By NATE SILVER

Is Mitt Romney’s position more advantageous than some polls imply?

That’s what Mark Blumenthal of The Huffington Post suggested in a column on Wednesday. He noted that many of the polls out now were conducted among registered voters. But when pollsters switch over to likely voter models, which account for their estimate of how likely each respondent in the survey is to vote, as the election draws closer, they may be expected to show slightly more favorable results for Mr. Romney, enough to potentially matter in a close election.

I mostly agree with Mr. Blumenthal. In fact, our forecast model builds in a “likely voter adjustment” — it is already shifting those registered voter polls a bit toward Mr. Romney.

But it would also be possible to overestimate how much difference this might make. In the past six presidential election years, the shift to likely voter models has always helped the Republican candidate, but the difference has also always been small, usually amounting to a net of one or two percentage points in the margin between the two candidates.

There’s also another important question to answer: Are likely voter polls actually more accurate than registered voter ones?To study this, I looked for as many instances as I could in our polling database for when pollsters included both registered voter and likely voter numbers in the same survey release. In other words, I looked for cases where the pollster said “Michael Dukakis leads George Bush by two points among registered voters, but trails him by one point among likely voters.” But we’re not comparing, say, a Quinnipiac University survey of registered voters with a Rasmussen Reports survey of likely voters. We want cases where the same polling firm released both sets of numbers at the same time.

This is the optimal way to study this problem, in my view. The “house effects” that different polling firms exhibit can be substantial. Each cycle, some pollsters will have results that are consistently more favorable to either the Democratic or Republican candidate than the consensus of surveys, even before applying their likely voter adjustment. Often, these effects are fairly large — three percentage points in one direction or another, and occasionally more — so they can swamp any impact from the use of a likely voter model. These house effects could lead you to falsely attribute the differences to the use of a likely voter model when instead they have some other cause.

Unfortunately, polling firms are not always in the habit of releasing both registered voter and likely voter numbers in the same survey, even though this gives you a lot more of an idea about the assumptions behind the poll. (Perhaps a few polling firms would prefer that you not know how the sausage was made.) Moreover, in some cases where polling firms have released this data, it has been lost to the ages: polling databases sometimes preserve only the likely voter number.

Still, we have a reasonably robust database of polls that did print both sets of numbers. The database includes national and state surveys. The key is in how the two sets of numbers, the registered voter and likely voter results, compare with each other, rather than what they are in any absolute sense.

As you can see from the chart below, they tend to follow a pretty consistent pattern. Over the past six presidential election cycles, likely voter polls have been 0.7 points to 2.5 points more favorable to the Republican candidate than registered voter polls.

If you look at the four years in which our database has the most robust coverage (1992, 2000, 2004 and 2008), the band of outcomes has been even narrower. The likely voter models shifted the results to the Republican candidate by a net of 1.1 percentage points to 2.1 percentage points.

Why do Republicans have this advantage? Because, for many years, the demographic groups that have tended to vote Republican have also tended to have demographic characteristics — for instance, being older, whiter and wealthier — that correlate with having a higher propensity to vote.

At the same time, it is probably not realistic to expect large shifts in the numbers in presidential election years. In those years, 83 percent to 90 percent of Americans who say they are registered to vote claim to have actually voted. Those numbers may be a pinch high since voters can exaggerate their propensity to vote, as well as their propensity to be registered. But the actual figure is probably about 80 percent.

With these relatively strong participation rates, polling firms should generally not be removing all that many registered voters from their pool when they draw up their sample of likely voters, so the partisan advantage for one or another candidate isn’t likely to change all that much.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-polls_n_1680827.html

There is your Huffington Post article in question. It should be noted that the article was back during the Summer and the effect of not using 'likely voters' in the estimates is no longer the case in any case.

On a final note --and you are not going to like this-- but sitting back watching Fox News every day and sitting back and believing what you want to believe without having the courage to examine and affirm it is damn irresponsible
 

FuzzyLumpkins

In the Rotation
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Google is your friend, SP. I'm kinda busy right now, but this was linked to RCP, I'll try and find others when I have time this afternoon.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-graph-shows-why-obama-is-ahead-in-the-polls/

Sheik a conservative pollster saying that there is some absolute proportion of 'likely voters' being GOP is fun and all but that is a far cry from making the claim that likely voter demographics are not taken into consideration. The use of the word 'may' should be noted.
 
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
0
On a final note --and you are not going to like this-- but sitting back watching Fox News every day and sitting back and believing what you want to believe without having the courage to examine and affirm it is damn irresponsible

lol

This coming from guys sucking up their info from DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, MSNBC, etc.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Sheik a conservative pollster saying that there is some absolute proportion of 'likely voters' being GOP is fun and all but that is a far cry from making the claim that likely voter demographics are not taken into consideration. The use of the word 'may' should be noted.

That dude's fucking closing revealed that he has no point.

The leads us to the real issue, which is whether these pollsters’ likely voter models are correct. I found it extraordinarily difficult to track down how these pollsters define “likely voters”, and they only report party ids for all survey respondents, not likely voters. We want to know if these surveys (below) which show Obama leading, have accurate likely voter models, and if the share of likely Democratic voters is reasonable. From these data alone, we can’t tell.

So the author has no fucking idea how they define or account for likely voters but that won't stop him from barking out the republican "they're using 2008 models" talking point.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

In the Rotation
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
lol

This coming from guys sucking up their info from DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, MSNBC, etc.

Try Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, the Economist, and the Christian Science Monitor. I don't watch much TV much less TV news but if I do I watch CBS and only then because I knew the man that ran the Middle East Bureau a decade ago.

I don't fit into your box of a worldview, pumpkin. I reject all of your paradigms.
 
Top Bottom