Latest Polling Information Reveals....

groo · October 29, 2012, 4:50pm

Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 4:50pm

[quote]groo wrote:
Hmm? So the margin of error numbers I gave you for Rasmussen in 2010 mean nothing to you?[/quote]

Rasmussen has been spot on in predicting Presidential races. Does that mean anything to you?

Gallup has been incredibly accurate over its 76 years, does that mean anything to you?

“Nooooo Nate Silver the math guy says bla bla bla bla…”

You are starting to amuse me.

I thank you.

groo · October 29, 2012, 4:54pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Hmm? So the margin of error numbers I gave you for Rasmussen in 2010 mean nothing to you?[/quote]

Rasmussen has been spot on in predicting Presidential races. Does that mean anything to you?

Gallup has been incredibly accurate over its 76 years, does that mean anything to you?

“Nooooo Nate Silver the math guy says bla bla bla bla…”

You are starting to amuse me.

I thank you.[/quote]

Back at ya :). Though there is a bittersweet bit of sadness in there for me that I have for all luddites.

smh23 · October 29, 2012, 4:55pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The amount of ire that meets even a mention of Silver’s name is pretty indicative of the toxic partisan hackery around here (and the country). I’d bet my life that no one around here had a problem with him when he was predicting a GOP rout in 2010. The guy’s a mathematician who runs one of the most popular forecast models, and this thread is called “the latest polling information reveals…” It shouldn’t shock anyone that his name comes up.

I don’t see what few moderates or liberals we have around here getting their panties all in a bunch over predictions of a Romney win.[/quote]

Silver is new to Presidential prognostication.
I showed you a model that has been correct since 1984 predicting a Romney win. You didn’t even acknowledge it.
I’ve pointed out why it was so easy to call the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, not to brag but I called that one on the money. 2008 was easy to call anyone could have done it and most who watch Presidential politics got that one right.
I’ve told you several times I prefer to stick to reliable polling companies. That is why I like Rasmussen and Gallup. Now go prove them wrong in Presidential forcasting and you will have my ear.

All you are doing right now is whining because you want Obama to win and you are afraid that he may not. But hang in there it isn’t over yet it’s a close race right?[/quote]

Hang on a minute. You’re being pretty dense here. Again, as before, you seem almost personally offended at the mere mention of the guy’s name, or the simple fact that not everyone is as willing to put blinders on and zero in on only Rasmussen and Gallup as you are.

And again–I’m not rooting all that hard for anyone. You, on the other hand, are getting more frantic by the day, and your posts are looking more and more like Romney campaign ads.

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 4:59pm

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

groo · October 29, 2012, 5:01pm

Ohio remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Based on the current projections, Romney would have to win Wisconsin if he loses Ohio in order to move into the White House.

The candidates have been locked in a very tight battle in Ohio since August. A week ago, Romney and Obama were tied in the Buckeye State with 48% support each. This is the first time Romney has taken even a modest lead in the race.

Nearly one-in-three Ohio voters (32%) have already cast their ballots. Obama leads 62% to 36% among these voters. Romney has a large lead among those who still plan to vote. The question of who wins Ohio may come down to whether enough Romney voters get to the polls on Election Day to overcome the president?s lead among early voters.

Is from your chosen pollster. Calling the state a tossup and stating if he loses Ohio he needs to win WI or he will lose.

I have no issue with Gallup. The issue I have with Rasmussen is the method of analysis they use adjusting for party affiliation which no other major polling company does.

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 5:01pm

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Hmm? So the margin of error numbers I gave you for Rasmussen in 2010 mean nothing to you?[/quote]

Rasmussen has been spot on in predicting Presidential races. Does that mean anything to you?

Gallup has been incredibly accurate over its 76 years, does that mean anything to you?

“Nooooo Nate Silver the math guy says bla bla bla bla…”

You are starting to amuse me.

I thank you.[/quote]

Back at ya :). Though there is a bittersweet bit of sadness in there for me that I have for all luddites.
[/quote]

In the strictest definition that would be you. You want to keep Obama in the White House at all costs. You want things to remain the same.

And…you might get your wish it’s a close election right?

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 5:08pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The amount of ire that meets even a mention of Silver’s name is pretty indicative of the toxic partisan hackery around here (and the country). I’d bet my life that no one around here had a problem with him when he was predicting a GOP rout in 2010. The guy’s a mathematician who runs one of the most popular forecast models, and this thread is called “the latest polling information reveals…” It shouldn’t shock anyone that his name comes up.

I don’t see what few moderates or liberals we have around here getting their panties all in a bunch over predictions of a Romney win.[/quote]

Silver is new to Presidential prognostication.
I showed you a model that has been correct since 1984 predicting a Romney win. You didn’t even acknowledge it.
I’ve pointed out why it was so easy to call the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, not to brag but I called that one on the money. 2008 was easy to call anyone could have done it and most who watch Presidential politics got that one right.
I’ve told you several times I prefer to stick to reliable polling companies. That is why I like Rasmussen and Gallup. Now go prove them wrong in Presidential forcasting and you will have my ear.

All you are doing right now is whining because you want Obama to win and you are afraid that he may not. But hang in there it isn’t over yet it’s a close race right?[/quote]

Hang on a minute. You’re being pretty dense here. Again, as before, you seem almost personally offended at the mere mention of the guy’s name, or the simple fact that not everyone is as willing to put blinders on and zero in on only Rasmussen and Gallup as you are.

And again–I’m not rooting all that hard for anyone. You, on the other hand, are getting more frantic by the day, and your posts are looking more and more like Romney campaign ads.[/quote]

You “feel” that I am personally offended by the mention of the guys name. Because you put great stock in what he says. I’ve just pointed out why I think there are better people to listen to. You’ve still not commented on that one methodology that has been correct since 1984 and they’ve predicted a Romney win. Are you “personally offended” by what they had to say? Or, do you just ignore stuff you don’t like?

Anyway, if you want to hang your hat on a mathematicians presidential predictions because he nailed 08’ like a real champ…LOL go ahead!

I will stick to what has been accurate over a long period of time. In the end they may be right or they may be wrong, but right now I (and millions others) feel it’s the best window that any of us have in trying to determine a winner in the upcoming Presidential race.

Like I said it’s a close election and anything can happen…right?

groo · October 29, 2012, 5:10pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.

groo · October 29, 2012, 5:13pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Hmm? So the margin of error numbers I gave you for Rasmussen in 2010 mean nothing to you?[/quote]

Rasmussen has been spot on in predicting Presidential races. Does that mean anything to you?

Gallup has been incredibly accurate over its 76 years, does that mean anything to you?

“Nooooo Nate Silver the math guy says bla bla bla bla…”

You are starting to amuse me.

I thank you.[/quote]

Back at ya :). Though there is a bittersweet bit of sadness in there for me that I have for all luddites.
[/quote]

In the strictest definition that would be you. You want to keep Obama in the White House at all costs. You want things to remain the same.

And…you might get your wish it’s a close election right?[/quote]

Yah but if wishes were fishes…I mean what good does a fabulously wrong prediction do? Much better in my opinion for Obama’s supporters to think that they are a bit down and need to ensure they get out to vote than to think they have it in the bag and not to worry.

That reminds me Zeb I better get out there and vote again a few times today here in Ohio. Early and often baby that’s how they teach it in Chicago.

smh23 · October 29, 2012, 5:14pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You’ve still not commented on that one methodology that has been correct since 1984 and they’ve predicted a Romney win.
[/quote]

I haven’t commented on it because a) I’ve been aware of it for months now and it simply isn’t anything “new” and b) I trust guesses based on polls slightly more than guesses based on economic data.

Edit: But obviously that model’s track record is stellar and I’d bet it’s giving the Obama people some nightmares.

Sloth · October 29, 2012, 5:18pm

Interesting.

“Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.”

Read more: Obama's fuzzy Ohio early vote math - POLITICO

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 5:19pm

[quote]groo wrote:
Ohio remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Based on the current projections, Romney would have to win Wisconsin if he loses Ohio in order to move into the White House.[/quote]

I agree and never said anything to the contrary. What Rasmussen did say is that for the first time Romney is up by 2 in Ohio. Up to today he has trailed or been tied with Obama.

By the way winning Wisconsin is not out of the question either. In fact, Romney may win both Wisonsin and Ohio.

True, but if you look at most reliable polls Romney was down by 8 points. That is a turn around of 10 points in about a month. That is called momentum…go run and ask Silver.

In 08 Obama lead by far more in early voting something like 3 to 1. And ended up beating McCain in Ohio by less than 300 thousand votes. The fact is democrats like early voting and do so at a much higher rate than republicans or independents. Obama better be ahead in early voting or Romeny would win by a large margin.

True, and republicans for some odd reason really want to see Obama defeated. So you tell me if you think they will turn out.

I agree with this and if you paid attention to this thread from the beginning I have set up various possibilities for Romney to win without Ohio. One of them is winning Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado. There are other possibilities as well. But winning Ohio is the easy way.

Gallup and Rasmussen have been fairly close through much of this race. Now why do you suppose that is?

smh23 · October 29, 2012, 5:21pm

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.
[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.

Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.

As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 5:25pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Interesting.

“Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.”

Read more: Obama's fuzzy Ohio early vote math - POLITICO
[/quote]

And Obama won Ohio by 262,000 votes in 2008. Hey, I’m no Nate Silver but I don’t see a democrat advantage seeing these numbers.

groo · October 29, 2012, 5:28pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.
[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.

Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.

As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]

This would be my Ohio analysis and would concur with the 19 early ballots I have so far cast.

Exit polling is the most unreliable sort of polling, that being said about 36 percent of the electorate has at least voted once already here in Ohio with exit polling claiming its running about 63 to 36 in Obama’s favor. Now those assumptions might be totally fucking wrong but if not Romney’s going to have to carry about 57 percent of the popular vote on election day to win. That is pretty big.

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 5:30pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.
[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.

Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.

As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]

At least I addressed why I thought that Silver was not the best go to guy for a Presidential election prediction.

You still have your fingers in your ears regarding my equivalent to your junk political Science.

Want to talk about this yet?

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/

Now I know Silver was correct about 2008 (wow that was a tough one) but these guys have been right since 1980.

Thoughts? Or do you just want to keep pretending that it doesn’t exist?

ZEB · October 29, 2012, 5:33pm

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Heh why not:

Nate Silver on Rasmussen’s performance in 2010:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight?s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen?s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen?s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases ? that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

and

Nate Silver: “While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush’s DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong. Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush’s margin in the states they surveyed, on average.”

And showing Rasmussen as middle of the road
http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf in 08
[/quote]

You attack Rasmussen using 2000?

Really now, how many called it right in 2000? How many said specifically that Gore would win the popular vote and Bush the electoral?

And I would bet if it were not for the (typical) left wing sleaze October surprise regarding the Bush DWI it would have been spot on.

You are a funny little man, just like your hero Nate Silver.

Here this is just for you:

Thats the thing he’s not my hero. And I’m really not that personally invested. I have long ago come to the conclusion that the vast majority if not all national politicians are mostly if not all self serving. At worst I will take a very gleeful pleasure if Romney wins and all of your dreams come true and we see the results from it. At best the status quo will stay the same and I can hear bitching and moaning for the next four years.

Anything that conflicts with your worldview you call into question by either an appeal to tradition or questioning its ethos.

I am perfectly ok with stating we’ll shortly see who’s model is more accurate. I think it’s Silver especially in regards to Rasmussen and their methodology. He already has a not statistically insignificant chance of Romney winning the popular and losing the electoral though its not the most probable outcome he’s predicting its there which seems to indicate he’s predicting a very tight race just not with the outcome your licking your finger and sticking in the air is.
[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you mention Silver’s name in any context other than an expression of pure hatred, he’s your hero and you are a deluded fool.

Again, a sign of the times. If an alternate version of Nate Silver–same credentials and track record–were predicting a Romney win, people on these boards would be lining up to blow him. I said it before: I doubt he was such a villain around here in 2010 when he was predicting a big GOP win.

As election day nears, nerves are really starting to fry. I expect that by November 6 we’ll all be shaking uncontrollably and posting gibberish.[/quote]

This would be my Ohio analysis and would concur with the 19 early ballots I have so far cast.

Exit polling is the most unreliable sort of polling, that being said about 36 percent of the electorate has at least voted once already here in Ohio with exit polling claiming its running about 63 to 36 in Obama’s favor. Now those assumptions might be totally fucking wrong but if not Romney’s going to have to carry about 57 percent of the popular vote on election day to win. That is pretty big.
[/quote]

Or put another way Romney needs 131,001 more votes than McCain got in 2008 to beat Obama in Ohio.

CornSprint · October 29, 2012, 5:35pm

[quote]kevinm1 wrote:

October surprise?[/quote]

…if they do delay the report until after the election it’s pretty much official that nothing important concerning the election is going to happen until election day itself.

groo · October 29, 2012, 5:37pm