NJ: Parties Wonder Which Side's Polls Reflect Reality

Personnally my money would be on the Gallup and Rassmussen models.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/parties-wonder-which-side-s-polls-reflect-reality-20121101

"......There's no question that President Obama's 2008 campaign, which focused on turning out new low-propensity voters in minority communities, helped inflate nonwhite voters' influence in the electorate. In Virginia alone, the nonwhite share of the electorate spiked from 21 percent in 2006 to 30 percent just two years later, a virtually unprecedented leap. The question is how many of those voters come back to the polls in 2012.

Republicans and Democrats alike believe the African-American vote is unlikely to change between 2008 and 2012. But they differ dramatically on the number of Hispanic voters who will show up at the polls—a key factor in critical battleground states like Colorado and Nevada. Republicans believe turnout will be down, depressed by Obama's failure to pursue immigration reform during his first term. Democrats think the booming number of Hispanic residents means their share of the electorate will only increase.

The same argument applies to younger voters. In 2008, 18 percent of the electorate was made up of voters between 18 and 29 years old. That's higher than the percentage has been in recent presidential years, when the youth vote has made up around 15 or 16 percent. Republicans believe the younger share of the electorate will slide slightly, and that Obama will win fewer of those voters anyway.

The manifestation of these disagreements is evident in polling weights. Most Republican pollsters are using something close to a 2008 turnout model, with the same percentage of white, black, and Hispanic voters as the electorate that first elected Obama. Most Democratic pollsters are a little more bullish on minority turnout, which helps explain some of the difference between the two sides......"

Comparing 2006 turnout to 2008 is stupid... Presidential election vs non-Presidential election is apples to oranges.

I don't disagree turnout will be less for Obama than it was in 2008, but to what degree is what will decide the election.

Regardless, Rassmussen and Gallup are outliers right now. The results Tuesday will make some pollsters look really bad. The only question is who.

I see confirmation bias and it's cognitive cousins playing a very dominant role in most people's politics.

I don't like really focusing on individual polling companies. I've lately been focusing more on people like Nate Silver who step back and look at everything and then crunch the numbers.

Personally, based on looking at all the different polling I think there are 3-4 states the Rassmussen lists as 'toss-up' states that should be filed under 'Leans Obama'. I think come Wednesday morning they won't be in the top 5 as far as accuracy goes.

Like it's been posted above, it's not fair to really compare off years to Presidential elections but Rassmussen in 2010 were pretty inaccurate and biased toward Republicans and I don't think they corrected for that since then.

I'm looking forward to reality intruding, no matter it's flavor.

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/

unforgiven...how did Ras do in the POTUS race last time?

Nate plays games on weighing for state races in which polling in fewer states seems to increase his scores

it's like comparing GM to Telsa

Rassmussen's latest result has it an even tie, which seems right in line w/ most of the other polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

The lastest Gallup has it +5 Romney, but that was several days ago now and before the Hurricane, and I'm not sure what their margin of error is.

Nationally, all of the public polls are essentially saying the samething, except for MAYBE Gallup.

Rasmussen has the electoral college 237-206 for Obama (the rest too close to call).

CNN puts it at the SAME exact thing.

Gallup doesn't do an electoral map that I can find.

Rassmussen's latest result has it an even tie, which seems right in line w/ most of the other polls.

.

yep, I don't understand why some claim it as biased

btw the MOE is usually 3 or less for Ras

They are working with a D+3 weighing(national)......should be interesting

I'm not really concerned with national popular vote numbers. It's all about the electoral college. If we're talking strictly popular vote then Rassmussen is much closer to reality than Gallup.

If you look at their EC board Rassmussen has it tied up in Ohio and Wisconsin, Romney up by a point in Iowa, up by 2 in New Hampshire and up by 3 in Virginia and Colorado.

I'm aware of margins of error and all that but those numbers are out of line with the majority of pollsters. We'll have to wait till election day to see who was right and who was wrong, but those numbers just seem out of whack.

yep, I don't understand why some claim it as biased

btw the MOE is usually 3 or less for Ras

They are working with a D+3 weighing(national)......should be interesting

I've walked you through this before w/ respect looking at the data from the 2004 election.

Months and even weeks out, Rasmussen tends to be biased with respect to the other polls for the Republican. The last month or so, it changes (not by much), and then he ends up with the right answer the last week or two before the election.

Even a few weeks ago, he had Romney leading something like +7 (which was more than any other poll, including Gallup).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Since then, it has been adjusted down and come in line with the other polls.

I'm not really concerned with national popular vote numbers. It's all about the electoral college. If we're talking strictly popular vote then Rassmussen is much closer to reality than Gallup.

If you look at their EC board Rassmussen has it tied up in Ohio and Wisconsin, Romney up by a point in Iowa, up by 2 in New Hampshire and up by 3 in Virginia and Colorado.

I'm aware of margins of error and all that but those numbers are out of line with the majority of pollsters. We'll have to wait till election day to see who was right and who was wrong, but those numbers just seem out of whack.

Out of Whack? Only if you believe Obama is going to outperform his numbers from 2008.

Out of Whack? Only if you believe Obama is going to outperform his numbers from 2008.

Not at all, my point was that on those states Rassmussen is 2-5 points more in favor of Romney in each state than the average poll.

Take Ohio for example, it's 49-49 according to Rassmussen while 95%+ of other pollsters in the past week+ have Obama up by 2-5 points. It's pretty much the same thing state by state, they're giving Romney 2-5 points per state more than the average. In the tossup states he has Romney winning by 2-3 points and in the states that lean Obama by 3-4 points in other polls he has them tied up or even +1 for Romney.

I realize these are within margins of error and he's not giving them to Romney but if someone that didn't know better looked at the Rassmussen EC map they would think this is a dead heat that Romney could easily win.

The eight states he lists as 'toss-up' states are Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado. Out of those eight states only one single state does he give Obama better than a tie (Nevada). Five out of the remaining seven are listed as favoring Romney by 1-3 points. Again, yes...MoE.

If you look at Nate Silver's website he has Obama as the statistical favorite in every single one of those states with the exception of Florida.

Not at all, my point was that on those states Rassmussen is 2-5 points more in favor of Romney in each state than the average poll.

Take Ohio for example, it's 49-49 according to Rassmussen while 95%+ of other pollsters in the past week+ have Obama up by 2-5 points. It's pretty much the same thing state by state, they're giving Romney 2-5 points per state more than the average. In the tossup states he has Romney winning by 2-3 points and in the states that lean Obama by 3-4 points in other polls he has them tied up or even +1 for Romney.

I realize these are within margins of error and he's not giving them to Romney but if someone that didn't know better looked at the Rassmussen EC map they would think this is a dead heat that Romney could easily win.

The eight states he lists as 'toss-up' states are Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada and Colorado. Out of those eight states only one single state does he give Obama better than a tie (Nevada). Five out of the remaining seven are listed as favoring Romney by 1-3 points. Again, yes...MoE.

If you look at Nate Silver's website he has Obama as the statistical favorite in every single one of those states with the exception of Florida.

Again you have to go back to original premise of the article. Who is right? The polls you and Silver reference assumes that Obama will out perform his 2008 numbers (all of them). If that premise is correct Obama will win and win the majority of those states. If the other premise is correct that he won't outperform his 2008 numbers then it comes down to Ohio as the toss-up. And if Gallup is correct and the Republicans outperform the Dems then Obama will lose.

The article is right. On election night one side will be wrong and look silly.

The probabilities are on Obmama's side, but the Redskins were overwhelming favorites when we scored against the Giants late in the 4th. We know how that ended.

Romney has a chance. Right now stats says 1/5. We will see Tuesday.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 04:54 PM ----------

Again you have to go back to original premise of the article. Who is right? The polls you and Silver reference assumes that Obama will out perform his 2008 numbers (all of them). If that premise is correct Obama will win and win the majority of those states. If the other premise is correct that he won't outperform his 2008 numbers then it comes down to Ohio as the toss-up. And if Gallup is correct and the Republicans outperform the Dems then Obama will lose.

Nate's model actually accounts for the polls being off or "biased" (in a statistical way). He talks about it a lot. Hence he gives Romney a 18% chance. He calculates that 18% is roughly the chance the polls are all completely off. If polls were perfect, he would give Obama 100% chance.

If you look at Nate Silver's website he has Obama as the statistical favorite in every single one of those states with the exception of Florida.

woah, woah, woah.

The Right have decided that Silver's figures are bunk now because it doesnt agree that Romney is winning.

And Nate Silver is gay, so we cant take his opinion seriously.

[/sarcasm]

its the GOP's war on facts. Silver's numbers have no political bias, but the Right doesnt care.

Months and even weeks out, Rasmussen tends to be biased with respect to the other polls for the Republican. The last month or so, it changes (not by much), and then he ends up with the right answer the last week or two before the election.

.

They use a likely voter model in almost all their polls, many of the others switch close to the election

They appear biased early since they weed out registered voters unlikely to vote

add

The only time I see a 7 point lead was in january, in the interim other polls have shown larger leads for Romney than Ras

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

I think that if the polls are within a couple % of either winning on average then Romney will end up winning. I think you should consider it like Romney will get 3-5% more than the polls say in other words.

Many of the "hype" voters for Obama won't show up this time, IMO, and the "nutcase" side of the republican party are going to show up in force, even dragging along their 95 year old almost dead relatives or anybody they can talk into voting to add a vote as well. My crazy mother has been nagging everybody in the family to go out and vote Obama out for almost the whole 4 years.

Here's the deal. I never vote, a lot of people never vote or usually just don't feel like it, but if we are walking down the street and are asked who we will vote for we will give an answer, then never show up. Those people this time are possibly going to show up for Romney just like they showed up for Obama last time because last time they hated Bush or anything republican enough to vote, and this time they hate Obama. Thats good for a few % swing IMO. I'm still not voting but if I did it'd be for Johnson and no it's not what Fox says, I don't even smoke weed, lol.

Also, the country has had its first minority, and first black president already. Some minorities wont show up to vote and a lot of hispanics will vote the other way.

Of course I could be totally wrong too but I doubt it. I just don't think those polls are ever that accurate. Then again Obama might have a 4-5% lead and he'll win anyway but it comes down to Ohio, Florida and 1 or 2 other states really.

Well, we will find out on Tuesday hopefully unless Ohio is the deciding factor; then we have to wait 10 more days.

I see confirmation bias and it's cognitive cousins playing a very dominant role in most people's politics.

100% agree. And it's only reinforced by their preferred media. Here's something from Friday, from 538.

(On my phone, this should be in quote box)

President Obama is now better than a 4-in-5 favorite to win the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. His chances of winning it increased to 83.7 percent on Friday, his highest figure since the Denver debate and improved from 80.8 percent on Thursday.

Friday’s polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida.

(End)

And which poll does Drudge cite at the top if the page? You guessed it: FL: R 51% O 45%...

So if Obama performs close to 538s projection, it encourages pubs to be distrustful of the outcome. How did he do so well when drudge was telling us bad poll numbers? It must be that he used acorn and Chicago style politics and voter fraud to steal the election!

Pollsters are not in the business off using outlandish projections to get their prediction wildly wrong. The op's theories on voter models are wrong. As has been explained to him in other threads. It is the work if a partisan news agenda, with very little basis in reality

I'll take your word on pollsters not being in the business of being wrong Bliz

Parsing the Polls

If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc#

If you are keeping score, in slightly less than four years President Obama has presided over an eleven-point decrease in his party’s standing with the American people, 15 points if you include those voters who “lean” one way or the other.

I'll take your word on pollsters not being in the business of being wrong Bliz

Parsing the Polls

If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc#

Yeah, that's a really big *if*.

I could equally point out that if Gallup is wrong then all the people who ignored all the other polls and pinned their hopes on Gallup will be very disappointed.

Posted it in another thread but here is the article written by ex-Bush aide Matt Latimer.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/03/mitt-romney-s-delusions-of-victory.html

"The lone standout is Gallup, which for the past few weeks had shown a single-digit lead for Romney. If Gallup knows something the rest of the polling world doesn’t, it will be a major news story and Gallup will cement itself as the pollster of record as it once was in its glory days. If not, what Gallup is doing to Republicans is cruel. Today they cling to those numbers tighter than Katie Holmes to her divorce lawyers."

I'll take your word on pollsters not being in the business of being wrong Bliz

Parsing the Polls

If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc#

If you are keeping score, in slightly less than four years President Obama has presided over an eleven-point decrease in his party’s standing with the American people, 15 points if you include those voters who “lean” one way or the other.

I don't pay attention to polls since I'm not in politics in any professional capacity, and am not "hobbyist" enough to care too much about them in general, so I am wondering in ignorance---is a point decline like that a historically dramatic figure? I could understand it being one of the large on record given the state of things. I think most of us believe that when the economy sucks, the guy in the WH is going to suffer no matter how much culpability he has either way, and the worse it sucks the more the suffering for him/her/it (not sure they've all been human---certainly some of the candidates are suspect).

I'll take your word on pollsters not being in the business of being wrong Bliz

Parsing the Polls

If Gallup is right, Tuesday will be a long night for the Democratic party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc#

If you are keeping score, in slightly less than four years President Obama has presided over an eleven-point decrease in his party’s standing with the American people, 15 points if you include those voters who “lean” one way or the other.

I don't pay attention to polls since I'm not in politics in any professional capacity, and am not "hobbyist" enough to care too much about them in general, so I am wondering in ignorance---is a point decline like that a historically dramatic figure? I could understand it being one of the large on record given the state of things. I think most of us believe that when the economy sucks, the guy in the WH is going to suffer no matter how much culpability he has either way, and the worse it sucks the more the suffering for him/her/it (not sure they've all been human---certainly some of the candidates are suspect).

I'll take your word on pollsters not being in the business of being wrong Bliz

LOL

not intentionally, at least. Which is exactly what the OP is accusing them of doing: using a model based on assumptions that are patently absurd and unbelievable on their face, intentionally yielding a result that is substantially less accurate and reliable than they are capable of reaching.

We all know the campaigns will do this from time to time, for marketing purposes. But I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that 90%+ of state polls are doing it.

Now I'm not saying those state polls are accurate. Hell, I have no idea and neither does anyone else. But if they are inaccurate, it is not because they are systematically assuming "Obama is going to outperform his numbers from 2008." In recent history, state polling has been reasonably accurate. That's why Nate Silver uses it as the basis for his model. Not because, as Erick Erickson would have us believe, he's nothing but a shill for the dems.

I'm not really concerned with national popular vote numbers. It's all about the electoral college. If we're talking strictly popular vote then Rassmussen is much closer to reality than Gallup.

If you look at their EC board Rassmussen has it tied up in Ohio and Wisconsin, Romney up by a point in Iowa, up by 2 in New Hampshire and up by 3 in Virginia and Colorado.

I'm aware of margins of error and all that but those numbers are out of line with the majority of pollsters. We'll have to wait till election day to see who was right and who was wrong, but those numbers just seem out of whack.

Swing and a miss for Rasmussen, badly. He refused to correct after blowing it in 2010, working on becoming irrelevant.

Swing and a miss for Rasmussen, badly. He refused to correct after blowing it in 2010, working on becoming irrelevant.

Yea. At this point, Rasmussen is sort of worthless.