remirol
Senior Wrangler
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 8,089
ONE of 'em's wrong, for sure. But the state polls have generally been more reliable, and with good reason (the election is decided by the EC, not by popular vote).
Romney, Obama, Rasmussen
- Thread starter applecorped
- Start date
ONE of 'em's wrong, for sure. But the state polls have generally been more reliable, and with good reason (the election is decided by the EC, not by popular vote).
NotJesus
Unsaviory
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
The Beltline backed up from Gammon Road to John Nolen? That's a lot of support coming from Orchard Ridge and West Towne for sure.
No, it wasn't coming from my neighborhood.
This wasn't Obama's visit, (in '08) I was (living) downtown for that, it was kinda cool, the college kids were all worked up.
I didn't see it myself on the east side, but that's what an eastsider told me the day it all started at the capitol, there was a line of charter buses backed up in the right lane of the beltline when I got on it, (at Whitney Way) he said it was the same on the east side practically to the interstate exit.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
I was referring to this sort of data, a more composite account of his performance. I don't think there's any benefit for Rasmussen or Gallup to be 'tilted' either way, if they made errors in past elections my guess is they would correct for them. I suspect it not impossible others might be going on different assumptions, perhaps with 'help' to get the 'right' numbers.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
RCP Obama +0.1 - Rasmussen still Romney +2
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,547
Kaosium said:The Beltline backed up from Gammon Road to John Nolen? That's a lot of support coming from Orchard Ridge and West Towne for sure.
No, it wasn't coming from my neighborhood.
This wasn't Obama's visit, (in '08) I was (living) downtown for that, it was kinda cool, the college kids were all worked up.
I didn't see it myself on the east side, but that's what an eastsider told me the day it all started at the capitol, there was a line of charter buses backed up in the right lane of the beltline when I got on it, (at Whitney Way) he said it was the same on the east side practically to the interstate exit.
More outside agitators heading towards Madison soon.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_854c6e9c-2439-11e2-a96e-0019bb2963f4.html
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Here's a solid poll on Wisconsin showing an Obama lead of 3. It shows (basically) 35 Dem, 30 GOP and 35 Independent, which I recall being the basic make-up of the Wisconsin electorate, mind you it changes from election to election, but a Dem+5 result would hardly be unusual in WI. Note how margin of error works: that poll could mean that Obama has anywhere from 46-52% support with confidence of roughly 95%. Thus it could also be that Romney is leading 49-46, or that Obama has a commanding lead (at this stage) of 52-43. A good rule of thumb is that if the poll respondents are ~1000 then there's a six point 'swing' for the top number as that will give a MoE of (roughly) 3% and you have to double that for the difference as if one goes up/down the other will too, assuming a low population of 'unsure/undecided' as is the case in this poll.
Also since this poll appears to have hammered down the undecided with follow-ups, then the percent of still undecided who will back the challenger goes down to about 60%, in those polls where it's not followed up as many as 80% will back the challenger, however you can usually tell that because those are the polls where they'll have on the order of 20% still undecided. Those people usually aren't that undecided, they just don't like telling people over the phone, or they consider themselves 'fair' in that they'll allow for something to change their mind that probably won't happen.
So this poll suggests that it's most likely that were the election held today Obama would win on the order of 50% to Romney's 48% and perhaps 2% (probably less) will go for one of the other candidates. The partisan ID numbers are about what they ought to be, the 'direction of the country' question is about even, thus its not hiding some underlying dissatisfaction, however it seems there's a slight trend towards Romney from previous polls.
Also since this poll appears to have hammered down the undecided with follow-ups, then the percent of still undecided who will back the challenger goes down to about 60%, in those polls where it's not followed up as many as 80% will back the challenger, however you can usually tell that because those are the polls where they'll have on the order of 20% still undecided. Those people usually aren't that undecided, they just don't like telling people over the phone, or they consider themselves 'fair' in that they'll allow for something to change their mind that probably won't happen.
So this poll suggests that it's most likely that were the election held today Obama would win on the order of 50% to Romney's 48% and perhaps 2% (probably less) will go for one of the other candidates. The partisan ID numbers are about what they ought to be, the 'direction of the country' question is about even, thus its not hiding some underlying dissatisfaction, however it seems there's a slight trend towards Romney from previous polls.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Cool! I missed the one a month ago, perhaps I will wander down there to see this one.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Gallup has suspended polling since Monday.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
LOL! Seriously? I don't recall one thing about Obama having anything to do with that recall, and other than desperate Republicans, I don't think anybody else does, either!
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
I think that's the point he was making. The progressive - lib - union side in Wisconsin was very upset that Obama didn't use his bully pulpit to weigh in on their side or commit any of his considerable "personal" resources, e.g. the vaunted Obama ground team.
Mikedenk is, of course, hoping that Dems protest this by voting 3rd party (giving Rom/Ry the state).
Yes, that's it. Obama wouldn't even make a stop in Wisconsin, despite flying between Chicago and Minneapolis fundraisers twice in the week before the election. Here's the extent of his "support": "It's Election Day in Wisconsin tomorrow, and I'm standing by Tom Barrett. He'd make an outstanding governor. -bo,"
Powerful tweet, Mr. President. Very inspiring.
Not a surprise though, given that:
- Hillary had to beg him to stop dilly-dallying on Bin Laden and authorize a strike
- While our people got butchered in Benghazi, he apparently just sat there, frightened and paralyzed, then made sure to get some sleep before cruising off to a Las Vegas fundraiser.
Too bad Dems, you should've nominated Hillary. You would've been waltzing towards a cakewalk re-election and we all would've had a president with some balls.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
On the other hand here is the 'poll' the WSJ chose to...influence its headline today.
This poll is garbage, and in fact the WSJ relying on it might even depress Dem turnout, as it pretends that Obama is leading by eight. That might make some less likely to go to the polls as they figure the candidate they would've voted for will win easily without them bothering. This one the partisan ID is roughly what the Wisconsin electorate has been (over the course of many recent cycles) however it's not of 'likely voters' in fact it's not even of registered voters, it's a general population poll. Mind you in Wisconsin one can register the day of the election at the polls, but that's not exactly the best way to be determining between likely and less likely voters. Now here's the trump card, look at Question 2 on page 2:
90% responded they were absolutely certain to vote, 10% said they already had. Not a single one of the 1243 people they reached said they were 'very likely,' 50-50 or they didn't think they would vote. There's something obviously wrong with that, only about 70% of Wisconsin voters ever turn out, so a poll showing 100% of 1243 respondents saying that suggests something very strange must be going on. Marquette also polled for the recall, and they got much less bizarre results from that poll, 87% said they were absolutely certain to vote, although the actual figure was more along the lines of 60%.
How that occurred I couldn't tell you, it might not mean anything untoward regarding the pollsters, other than the fact they didn't notice that every single one of their respondents said they would vote or already had. It's not unusual at all, in fact it's expected, that many respondents might 'exaggerate' their likelihood of voting, but to get a result as astounding as that I cannot but suspect there might be another factor at work. One might be that Wisconsin has seen so much politicking--especially over the telephone--that many people simply won't respond at all anymore. The ones they do get aren't actually representative of the population, notably the independents which in this one must have skewed towards Obama against the grain of the rest of the nation; however that's not unlikely in WI either.
I dunno, but such a response at variance with reality ought to have caused someone at Marquette or the WSJ to wonder about the poll, as 1243 people all saying they were absolutely certain to vote or already had is basically impossible. Their sample pool may be polluted, the people doing the poll might be gundecking it--who knows, but what they should have known is getting 1243 people to all say they were certain to vote is basically an impossibility to achieve, despite the propensity of poll respondents to say they will when they won't. One way just occurred to me: perhaps they just polled those who'd already answered their poll with absolutely certain? They'd get a few who'd voted since early voting started, but the rest would probably give their previous answer. However they would also mean they were sampling their old samples and not getting anything random, which is not the best methodology in the business, as you don't want previous results polluting what is supposed to be a random sample.
This poll is garbage, and in fact the WSJ relying on it might even depress Dem turnout, as it pretends that Obama is leading by eight. That might make some less likely to go to the polls as they figure the candidate they would've voted for will win easily without them bothering. This one the partisan ID is roughly what the Wisconsin electorate has been (over the course of many recent cycles) however it's not of 'likely voters' in fact it's not even of registered voters, it's a general population poll. Mind you in Wisconsin one can register the day of the election at the polls, but that's not exactly the best way to be determining between likely and less likely voters. Now here's the trump card, look at Question 2 on page 2:
Marquette Law School Poll October 25-28 said:
90% responded they were absolutely certain to vote, 10% said they already had. Not a single one of the 1243 people they reached said they were 'very likely,' 50-50 or they didn't think they would vote. There's something obviously wrong with that, only about 70% of Wisconsin voters ever turn out, so a poll showing 100% of 1243 respondents saying that suggests something very strange must be going on. Marquette also polled for the recall, and they got much less bizarre results from that poll, 87% said they were absolutely certain to vote, although the actual figure was more along the lines of 60%.
How that occurred I couldn't tell you, it might not mean anything untoward regarding the pollsters, other than the fact they didn't notice that every single one of their respondents said they would vote or already had. It's not unusual at all, in fact it's expected, that many respondents might 'exaggerate' their likelihood of voting, but to get a result as astounding as that I cannot but suspect there might be another factor at work. One might be that Wisconsin has seen so much politicking--especially over the telephone--that many people simply won't respond at all anymore. The ones they do get aren't actually representative of the population, notably the independents which in this one must have skewed towards Obama against the grain of the rest of the nation; however that's not unlikely in WI either.
I dunno, but such a response at variance with reality ought to have caused someone at Marquette or the WSJ to wonder about the poll, as 1243 people all saying they were absolutely certain to vote or already had is basically impossible. Their sample pool may be polluted, the people doing the poll might be gundecking it--who knows, but what they should have known is getting 1243 people to all say they were certain to vote is basically an impossibility to achieve, despite the propensity of poll respondents to say they will when they won't. One way just occurred to me: perhaps they just polled those who'd already answered their poll with absolutely certain? They'd get a few who'd voted since early voting started, but the rest would probably give their previous answer. However they would also mean they were sampling their old samples and not getting anything random, which is not the best methodology in the business, as you don't want previous results polluting what is supposed to be a random sample.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Don't forget he is allowing Jeep to move their operations to China. Life in an echo chamber.
Thanks for your concern. But we got lucky that the Republicans nominated an ass who goes by the name Mitt Romney. You remember him, he's the guy who collects material items like can goods to give to the Red Cross when the Red Cross says explicitly they don't take material items like can goods. Oh, and he's the guy who **** ed up a trip to the Olympics, the guy who has to keep his mouth shut to even have any hope of winning the election.
Whatever Obama's problems he's not Mitt Romney. A guy so incompetent he can't beat an incumbent during hard economic times. That takes a real douche-bag.
Last edited:
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Hmm, haven't actually seen that particular bit of wharrgarbl before. Where's it come from?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
This is actually humorous; I've been pointed at a couple of conservative blogs that refuse to acknowledge that is wrong, and rather insist that Jeep will in fact be moving American jobs to China.