Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Kilmer17s non confrontational election prediction-


Kilmer17

Recommended Posts

What assumption does the board have on the voter turn-out?

Do you believe Republicans will have a lower turnout vice the Democrats than in 2008?

I dug into a couple of polls, in Ohio for example Gravis, Purple Strategies, and PPD use that assumption. Was going to check Rasmussen but couldn't get the detailed info (Available only to platinum members).

I was wrong, I thought turnout would be lower this time. I think voting in non-storm affected states will be high. So I predict that. The only places where turnout might be lower is where FrankenSandy has struck.

---------- Post added October-30th-2012 at 12:37 PM ----------

I now predict Kilmer was right with his prediction that we will not know the results on 11/7 but not for his reason. I predict that some states will not hold their elections on election day and will delay voting due to FrankenSandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wrong, I thought turnout would be lower this time. I think voting in non-storm affected states will be high. So I predict that. The only places where turnout might be lower is where FrankenSandy has struck.

---------- Post added October-30th-2012 at 12:37 PM ----------

I now predict Kilmer was right with his prediction that we will not know the results on 11/7 but not for his reason. I predict that some states will not hold their elections on election day and will delay voting due to FrankenSandy.

But the question is as a percentage will Democrats surpass the advantage they had over Republicans in 2008. The Dems had a 7.1% voting edge over Republicans that year (In Ohio it was 6%). The polls I mentioned are assuming that advantage will be maintained or even expanded (PPD gives the Dems plus 10). I've read reports that the Republicans will have a plus 3 advantage (I couldn't find any polls that use this assumption though Gallup uses a plus 1 for Republicans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dug into a couple of polls, in Ohio for example Gravis, Purple Strategies, and PPD use that assumption. Was going to check Rasmussen but couldn't get the detailed info (Available only to platinum members).

Ras was on a D+3 for national

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before: 2008 There were Stadiums FULL of people lined up to see Candidate Obama. People passing out at each appearance,

Now: there are town halls and questions on policy.

Not sure you can say its the same enthusiasm without seeing the same enthusiasm. Hence, my prediction earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/color]I now predict Kilmer was right with his prediction that we will not know the results on 11/7 but not for his reason. I predict that some states will not hold their elections on election day and will delay voting due to FrankenSandy.

That can't be done. The states have to hold them all the same day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the question is as a percentage will Democrats surpass the advantage they had over Republicans in 2008. The Dems had a 7.1% voting edge over Republicans that year (In Ohio it was 6%). The polls I mentioned are assuming that advantage will be maintained or even expanded (PPD gives the Dems plus 10). I've read reports that the Republicans will have a plus 3 advantage (I couldn't find any polls that use this assumption though Gallup uses a plus 1 for Republicans).

It is my understanding that this is not at all how it works. As I understand it, the polls call a lot of people and ASK them what their party affiliation is during the phone call. If they are getting 5 percent more people who say they are Democrats, that is what the poll will reflect. If they get 5 percent more that say they are GOP, then that is what the poll will reflect. The only adjusting they do is demographic, i.e., the older people are, the more likely they are to actually vote rather than to just say they are going to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the question is as a percentage will Democrats surpass the advantage they had over Republicans in 2008. The Dems had a 7.1% voting edge over Republicans that year (In Ohio it was 6%). The polls I mentioned are assuming that advantage will be maintained or even expanded (PPD gives the Dems plus 10). I've read reports that the Republicans will have a plus 3 advantage (I couldn't find any polls that use this assumption though Gallup uses a plus 1 for Republicans).

If your question is "Will people who identify or are registered Dem outnumber those listed as Rep, by a bigger margin than in 08?"

Then yeah, I could see it.

Last several years, I've seen a whole lot of the most rabidly partisan Republicans, who are still just as rabidly partisan as ever, who claim not to be.

(I think it's because they get made fun of, and they think that if they claim to be independent (while still continuing to insist that Obama caused the recession, tripled the deficit, doubled government spending, nationalized the entire health care industry, forced the oil companies to double the price of gas, intentionally made the recession worse (so that people would need more government handouts), and intentionally hired al Qaeda to kill our Ambassador (because he was a Republican appointee), then people won't make fun of them any more.)

So, yeah, it would not surprise me at all if there aren't a whole bunch of places where the breakdown of "of the people who voted, what Party are they a member of?" is:

  • Democrat: 45%
  • Republican: 30%
  • Independent: 25%

Where the vote is:

  • Democrat: 45%
  • Republican: 54%
  • Independent: 1%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this is not at all how it works. As I understand it, the polls call a lot of people and ASK them what their party affiliation is during the phone call. If they are getting 5 percent more people who say they are Democrats, that is what the poll will reflect. If they get 5 percent more that say they are GOP, then that is what the poll will reflect. The only adjusting they do is demographic, i.e., the older people are, the more likely they are to actually vote rather than to just say they are going to vote.

I'm pretty sure, not certain but pretty sure, that is not how they do it. They establish a set criteria to poll for fill based on established assumptions and screen who they call with some initial questions (I've been screened out twice for two different reasons - once for party affiliation - I asked and was told they had filled their quota for that party at the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure, not certain but pretty sure, that is not how they do it. They establish a set criteria to poll for fill based on established assumptions and screen who they call with some initial questions (I've been screened out twice for two different reasons - once for party affiliation - I asked and was told they had filled their quota for that party at the time).

No. Most polls do it exactly how Predicto explained. Rasmussen and a handful of others do screen on party ID - but it is not common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My prediction is it's going to be a late night, but we will know who won by Wednesday morning

Obama - 276

Romney - 262

Pennsylvania (which I don't really think is in play...but some Rs seem to think so) and Ohio get called early for Obama, Virginia early for Romney. Pundits see the strength of Romney's win in Virginia (bucking polling) as a sign that he might just win this thing, but it's not to be. Romney eventually takes Florida, but it's hours before they make the call. Romney also gets Colorado, New Hampshire and 1 EV from Maine, but Obama takes Wisconsin, Nevada and Iowa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure, not certain but pretty sure, that is not how they do it. They establish a set criteria to poll for fill based on established assumptions and screen who they call with some initial questions (I've been screened out twice for two different reasons - once for party affiliation - I asked and was told they had filled their quota for that party at the time).

I have been reading a lot about this subject at fivethirtyeight and elsewhere. That isn't how the pollsters themselves explain it. They weigh for demographics (age, race, gender) but they just report the party of the people who responded based on what the people told them. Rasmussen is the only major pollster who adjusts for party affiliation (that I know of).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going outside the box here Mitt Romney loses in Ohio but wins Pennsylvania and Florida

I think something weird like that is going to happen. I have a feeling there is going to be some type of drama, where it looks like one of the candidates has the win, but then something odd happens, like what you said, which flips it. Like Romney being the first Republican to win without Ohio or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this is not at all how it works. As I understand it, the polls call a lot of people and ASK them what their party affiliation is during the phone call. If they are getting 5 percent more people who say they are Democrats, that is what the poll will reflect. If they get 5 percent more that say they are GOP, then that is what the poll will reflect. The only adjusting they do is demographic, i.e., the older people are, the more likely they are to actually vote rather than to just say they are going to vote.

It depends on the poll. Some use a predetermined formula to call voters registered as Ds and Rs in certain states. I know Pew and Quinni call random numbers and THEN try to determine voter likelihood and affiliation.

I've stayed out of those threads, but man, my college advisor and still friend (most of you read him in the op eds once in a while) is SCREAMING about how the actual numbers dont matter (sort of like what I say), it;s the MOVEMENT that matters. IE- If Obama goes from 2 to 5, that's a big deal. But Mitt winning Gallup every day by the same numbers is not a "hardening" of a lead, it just means they are polling the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can't be done. The states have to hold them all the same day.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/sandy-election-voting-delays/2012/10/30/id/462072

>>>Federal law mandates that presidential elections be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But if a state “has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such state may direct.”

<<<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at the "no enthusiasm for Obama" narrative a little skeptical-ish.

I think it's only natural that after 4 years in office, and the country still not quite "out of the woods yet" there isn't going to be the same buzz in the air that there was in 2008

It can't ever be like 2008 again, for many reasons, but that doesn't mean that Obama voters are not going to turn out in 2012, it might just simply mean that after 4 years of Obama being on the TV screen,and in our homes on a daily basis, the "aura" about him is gone.

Lets not forget, before 2008, a lot of us had known him mostly for his speech at the 2004 DNC, so there was something new and fresh about him as a Presidential candidate.

Whether you are voting for Obama enthusiastically, or because you don't like what you've seen from his potential replacement, it is still a vote for Obama, and likewise with Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at the "no enthusiasm for Obama" narrative a little skeptical-ish.

I think it's only natural that after 4 years in office, and the country still not quite "out of the woods yet" there isn't going to be the same buzz in the air that there was in 2008

It can't ever be like 2008 again, for many reasons, but that doesn't mean that Obama voters are not going to turn out in 2012, it might just simply mean that after 4 years of Obama being on the TV screen,and in our homes on a daily basis, the "aura" about him is gone.

Lets not forget, before 2008, a lot of us had known him mostly for his speech at the 2004 DNC, so there was something new and fresh about him as a Presidential candidate.

Whether you are voting for Obama enthusiastically, or because you don't like what you've seen from his potential replacement, it is still a vote for Obama, and likewise with Romney.

Maybe but the big assumption from the Obama campaign and many pollsters is that the Romney supporters are going to replicate the McCain turnout, in addition to assuming Obama has not only not lost any support he has increased support over 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe but the big assumption from the Obama campaign and many pollsters is that the Romney supporters are going to replicate the McCain turnout, in addition to assuming Obama has not only not lost any support he has increased support over 2008.

No one, inside the campaign or out, is assuming that. Everyone...pollsters, run of the mill dems, people inside the campaign, Obama himself...literally everyone recognizes that this will be a tighter race and he won't have as much support as he had in 2008.

This idea about those assumptions is a narrative for the conservative media to attack polls that don't say what they want the polls to say. That's about it. Not a shred of truth or reason to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then explain polls that have Democrats with plus 10 in their polling samples when the final difference in 2008 was plus 7.

It's already been explained. In this thread. In fact, on this page of this thread.

And in several others.

But it doesn't fit the Republican agenda. So you ignore it.

Now explain why nobody at ES is capable of setting the clocks on the servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, inside the campaign or out, is assuming that. Everyone...pollsters, run of the mill dems, people inside the campaign, Obama himself...literally everyone recognizes that this will be a tighter race and he won't have as much support as he had in 2008.

This idea about those assumptions is a narrative for the conservative media to attack polls that don't say what they want the polls to say. That's about it. Not a shred of truth or reason to it.

Then explain polls that have Democrats with plus 10 in their polling samples when the final difference in 2008 was plus 7. As I pointed out earlier in Ohio for example the three polls that have Obama slightly ahead use polls where the Democrats match or exceed Democrat participation in 2008. Axelrod , MSNBC and others are basing their prediction of victory on these polls.

I'm not saying they are wrong I was just asking the board if they believe the Democrats will outperform their 2008 performance vice the Republicans (of plus 7). Larry answered in the affirmative (The only one so far) but you and many others seem to be saying no (In which case confidence in an Obama victory should be a little less on this board than it is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that this is not at all how it works. As I understand it, the polls call a lot of people and ASK them what their party affiliation is during the phone call. If they are getting 5 percent more people who say they are Democrats, that is what the poll will reflect. If they get 5 percent more that say they are GOP, then that is what the poll will reflect. The only adjusting they do is demographic, i.e., the older people are, the more likely they are to actually vote rather than to just say they are going to vote.

I think I may have tracked down how the Pollsters establish their models. Looking at the Quinnipac poll released today the poll has the President up by 5 in Ohio, 1 in Virginia, and 1 in Florida. I'm sure that will please many on this board, but again it goes back to an assumption for this poll that the Democrats will exceed their performance by 33-50% over 2008. How they meet this assumption is by weighting the responses given party affiliation which tells me what they are reporting is not the actual raw percentage of the responses (ie more people could have actually responded for Romney in these polls but when weighted that dropped the over all percentage reported).

See below

Florida

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 30% 352

Democrat 37 350

Independent 29 333

Other/DK/NA 4 38

Virginia

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 27% 290

Democrat 35 349

Independent 35 395

Other/DK/NA 3 40

Ohio

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 29% 343

Democrat 37 396

Independent 30 334

Other/DK/NA 4 37

---------- Post added October-31st-2012 at 06:42 PM ----------

It's already been explained. In this thread. In fact, on this page of this thread.

And in several others.

But it doesn't fit the Republican agenda. So you ignore it.

Now explain why nobody at ES is capable of setting the clocks on the servers.

Turns out those explanations were apparently wrong. At least one pollster (Quinnipac) weights its' responses to meet the assumption that the Democrats will outperform their 2008 performance (I suspect all the major pollsters wieght resposnes to meet a model). You in fact are the only one so far in this forum that believes the assumption is valid which is ok and fully supports a prediction of an Obama victory, it also mirrors the Obama campaign belief. However those in this forum that are saying they don't believe those assumptions are correct are the ones whose optimism is a bit baseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I may have tracked down how the Pollsters establish their models. Looking at the Quinnipac poll released today the poll has the President up by 5 in Ohio, 1 in Virginia, and 1 in Florida. I'm sure that will please many on this board, but again it goes back to an assumption for this poll that the Democrats will exceed their performance by 33-50% over 2008. How they meet this assumption is by weighting the responses given party affiliation which tells me what they are reporting is not the actual raw percentage of the responses (ie more people could have actually responded for Romney in these polls but when weighted that dropped the over all percentage reported).

See below

Florida

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 30% 352

Democrat 37 350

Independent 29 333

Other/DK/NA 4 38

Virginia

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 27% 290

Democrat 35 349

Independent 35 395

Other/DK/NA 3 40

Ohio

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 29% 343

Democrat 37 396

Independent 30 334

Other/DK/NA 4 37

---------- Post added October-31st-2012 at 06:42 PM ----------

Turns out those explanations were apparently wrong. At least one pollster (Quinnipac) weights its' responses to meet the assumption that the Democrats will outperform their 2008 performance (I suspect all the major pollsters wieght resposnes to meet a model). You in fact are the only one so far in this forum that believes the assumption is valid which is ok and fully supports a prediction of an Obama victory, it also mirrors the Obama campaign belief. However those in this forum that are saying they don't believe those assumptions are correct are the ones whose optimism is a bit baseless.

I honestly believe you are misunderstanding this, but there is no point in belaboring it any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly believe you are misunderstanding this, but there is no point in belaboring it any further.

It doesn't seem that I'm misunderstanding this.

Here is how weighting is explained by PrecisionPolling.com: "It is frequently the case that the people who answered your poll are not fully representative of the region you were polling over. Weighting is a technique to adjust answers to account for over- and under-represented groups."

I'm going to wait to see how Sandy plays out but if everything remains the same by Monday I'll predict easy Romney victories in at least Florida and VA and a close Romney Victory in Ohio. That is based on my belief that Democrats will not come close to matching the turnout advantage they had over Republicans they had in 2008. It would not surprise me if the Republicnas end up with the advantage this time around (plus 2 or 3) and if the latter happens it will be a landslide for Romney..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem that I'm misunderstanding this.

Here is how weighting is explained by PrecisionPolling.com: "It is frequently the case that the people who answered your poll are not fully representative of the region you were polling over. Weighting is a technique to adjust answers to account for over- and under-represented groups."

I'm going to wait to see how Sandy plays out but if everything remains the same by Monday I'll predict easy Romney victories in at least Florida and VA and a close Romney Victory in Ohio. That is based on my belief that Democrats will not come close to matching the turnout advantage they had over Republicans they had in 2008. It would not surprise me if the Republicnas end up with the advantage this time around (plus 2 or 3) and if the latter happens it will be a landslide for Romney..

I know what weighting is.

But virtually every major pollster says that they do not do any weighting at all to adjust for party affiliation. They weigh for demographics but they don't change their results to change the republican/democratic mix that they get from their responses. If they get plus 8 Percent GOP responses, that's what they report. That's because party identification is one of the things that polling is supposed to be measuring - it changes from election to election.

Here's Pew talking about it.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what weighting is.

But virtually every major pollster says that they do not do any weighting at all to adjust for party affiliation. They weigh for demographics but they don't change their results to change the republican/democratic mix that they get from their responses. If they get plus 8 Percent GOP responses, that's what they report. That's because party identification is one of the things that polling is supposed to be measuring - it changes from election to election.

Here's Pew talking about it.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/

Did you not see what I posted from the poll itself?? That is exactly what Quinnipac did. Look at the Florida example again. They show the raw numbers and more Republicans than Democrats were interviewed (352 Rs, 350 Dems) but the poll ended with a 37 to 30 Democratic advantage . This is because they assess that is what the final turnout will be. It is an assumption and pretty sure most polls do this,. Quinnipac could be making the right assumption but is is still an assumption, Rassmussen for example has a different assumption and gives a plus 2 advantage to the Dems (he was interviewed and he mentioned this tonight). The question is who is correct. Gallup weighs their national projection giving the Republicans a plus 1 advantage. Bottomline party affiliation is in facted weighed to fit the model.

Florida

LIKELY VOTERS........

Weighted UnWeighted

Percent Frequency

PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Republican 30% 352

Democrat 37 350

Independent 29 333

Other/DK/NA 4 38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...