PDA

View Full Version : Elections Gallup has it all tied up


Comrade Crapski
09-21-2012, 01:10 AM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Keep in mind, this is a poll of REGISTERED VOTERS, not likely voters. Registered democrats tend to be over sampled in polls of registered voters, and likely voters tend to vote for incumbents and/or republicans.

So Romney is actually in pretty good shape.

LOCOChief
09-21-2012, 06:15 AM
Best news I've seen in a while.

Romeo's Pants
09-21-2012, 06:17 AM
Keep in mind, this is a poll of REGISTERED VOTERS, not likely voters. Registered democrats tend to be over sampled in polls of registered voters, and likely voters tend to vote for incumbents and/or republicans.

So Romney is actually in pretty good shape.

Except, this isn't what will happen.

Because electoral college.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 08:31 AM
Sorry to rain on your parade, but according to Nate Silver of 538....heh:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/sept-20-obamas-convention-bounce-may-not-be-receding/#more-34814

A insightful comment, from that link:

With all of the focus on the latest swings, I think it's worthwhile to look at the bigger picture and the fundamental shifts that have occurred in the political landscape over the past year.

We have gone from the Right's gleeful assertion that the majority of the nation has embraced conservative principles and policies, to a calculated strategy that involves keeping everything vague so that voters won't know what the Republican candidate stands for.

We have gone from the standard Republican position that "anyone could beat Obama" to a desperate hope that all of the pollsters are wrong and that their candidate really has a miniscule lead.

Where we once had Republicans telling us that everyone saw Obama as a despised incompetent, we now see them relying on a billion-dollar ad blitz that they hope will make him just unpopular enough that they can gain an edge.

Where we once were told that Democrats wouldn't turn out to vote, Republicans are now hoping that Democrats can be *prevented* from voting.

We have gone from the assertion that Republicans can "save the nation" to a fervent, constant Republican prayer for disasters, war, and economic collapse.

These are *qualitative* shifts that are not suited to a quantitative model such as Nate employs. But they are fundamental shifts that influence the quantitative factors.

ChiTown
09-21-2012, 08:34 AM
Sorry to rain on your parade, but according to Nate Silver of 538....heh:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/sept-20-obamas-convention-bounce-may-not-be-receding/#more-34814

A insightful comment, from that link:

With all of the focus on the latest swings, I think it's worthwhile to look at the bigger picture and the fundamental shifts that have occurred in the political landscape over the past year.

We have gone from the Right's gleeful assertion that the majority of the nation has embraced conservative principles and policies, to a calculated strategy that involves keeping everything vague so that voters won't know what the Republican candidate stands for.

We have gone from the standard Republican position that "anyone could beat Obama" to a desperate hope that all of the pollsters are wrong and that their candidate really has a miniscule lead.

Where we once had Republicans telling us that everyone saw Obama as a despised incompetent, we now see them relying on a billion-dollar ad blitz that they hope will make him just unpopular enough that they can gain an edge.

Where we once were told that Democrats wouldn't turn out to vote, Republicans are now hoping that Democrats can be *prevented* from voting.

We have gone from the assertion that Republicans can "save the nation" to a fervent, constant Republican prayer for disasters, war, and economic collapse.

These are *qualitative* shifts that are not suited to a quantitative model such as Nate employs. But they are fundamental shifts that influence the quantitative factors.

LMAO - this place entertains.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 08:44 AM
LMAO - this place entertains.

If you liked that, here's Silver's lead paragraph--for those too lazy to click on the link:

President Obama’s position inched forward in the FiveThirtyEight forecast on Thursday. His chances of winning the Electoral College are 76.1 percent, according to the forecast, up from 75.2 percent on Wednesday. Mr. Obama’s projected margin of victory in the national popular vote also increased slightly, to 3.4 percentage points.

Comrade Crapski
09-21-2012, 08:51 AM
Sorry to rain on your parade, but according to Nate Silver of 538....heh:
rs. [/I]

The way you moonbats keep carting out that 538 thing is all I need to know it's a crock o' BS.

This predictive model has picked every winner since 1980:

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”

Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says


Heh.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2012, 08:56 AM
Sorry to rain on your parade, but according to Nate Silver of 538....heh:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/sept-20-obamas-convention-bounce-may-not-be-receding/#more-34814

A insightful comment, from that link:

With all of the focus on the latest swings, I think it's worthwhile to look at the bigger picture and the fundamental shifts that have occurred in the political landscape over the past year.

We have gone from the Right's gleeful assertion that the majority of the nation has embraced conservative principles and policies, to a calculated strategy that involves keeping everything vague so that voters won't know what the Republican candidate stands for.

We have gone from the standard Republican position that "anyone could beat Obama" to a desperate hope that all of the pollsters are wrong and that their candidate really has a miniscule lead.

Where we once had Republicans telling us that everyone saw Obama as a despised incompetent, we now see them relying on a billion-dollar ad blitz that they hope will make him just unpopular enough that they can gain an edge.

Where we once were told that Democrats wouldn't turn out to vote, Republicans are now hoping that Democrats can be *prevented* from voting.

We have gone from the assertion that Republicans can "save the nation" to a fervent, constant Republican prayer for disasters, war, and economic collapse.

These are *qualitative* shifts that are not suited to a quantitative model such as Nate employs. But they are fundamental shifts that influence the quantitative factors.

If there was ever any question which side of the bread his butter is on, this should dispel it. He creates fun statistical models but his analysis is not so hot.

That said, Gallup trails Rasmussen which saw a big move to Obama yesterday (for Mon-Wed results). Yesterday Obama was +5 or +6 for the day. Today, it has swung back to +2 or +3 Romney.

Comrade Crapski
09-21-2012, 08:59 AM
If you liked that, here's Silver's lead paragraph--for those too lazy to click on the link:


Idiot, no one cares. Nobody heard of nate silver until two weeks ago when all the moonbats simultaneously began talking about him.

If it wasn't Obama propaganda, you wouldn't keep talking about it.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2012, 09:00 AM
The way you moonbats keep carting out that 538 thing is all I need to know it's a crock o' BS.

This predictive model has picked every winner since 1980:

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The best analysis I read showed that comparatively, Obama is running about 1.3% behind where Bush was in terms of the head to head and job approval numbers. Obama, historically, is in the area where he can win or lose and it won't take a huge push in either direction to make it happen.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 09:03 AM
The way you moonbats keep carting out that 538 thing is all I need to know it's a crock o' BS.

This predictive model has picked every winner since 1980:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says


Heh.

Ooopp-sie, Poop-sie....you should check your "sources" more closely--especially ones trumpeted by mostly the Washington Times and like-minded RWNJ lapdogs and lackys:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/08/23/model-that-claims-it-correctly-predicted-last-8-presidents-picks-romney-in-2012/

Also, it’s false advertising to claim CU model has predicted the last 8 elections right. It’s a new model. Hasn’t predicted anything yet.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 09:11 AM
The best analysis I read showed that comparatively, Obama is running about 1.3% behind where Bush was in terms of the head to head and job approval numbers. Obama, historically, is in the area where he can win or lose and it won't take a huge push in either direction to make it happen.

That's the whole problem with RWNJ analysis is that it relies on "historical" indicators like job approval, unemployment, and real per capita income....all of can be useful, but by themselves are meaningless. Political climate, events, and the choice (and, yes, even likability) are what will drive the voting.

The cumulative sum of credible and methodologically sound polling would be a more accurate barometer....which most people understand. Unless of course, you are looking for any sliver of hope for their floundering poor choice of a candidate.

Comrade Crapski
09-21-2012, 09:17 AM
Ooopp-sie, Poop-sie....you should check your "sources" more closely--especially ones trumpeted by mostly the Washington Times and like-minded RWNJ lapdogs and lackys:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/08/23/model-that-claims-it-correctly-predicted-last-8-presidents-picks-romney-in-2012/

Also, it’s false advertising to claim CU model has predicted the last 8 elections right. It’s a new model. Hasn’t predicted anything yet.

Predict is the wrong word, however you conveniently forgot to cut and paste:

This reporter has reached out to both Bickers and Berry regarding Silver’s accusation. This post will be updated when a response is received.

UPDATE: I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: “Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections.”

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 09:31 AM
Predict is the wrong word, however you conveniently forgot to cut and paste:

This reporter has reached out to both Bickers and Berry regarding Silver’s accusation. This post will be updated when a response is received.

UPDATE: I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: “Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections.”

You are the one who said predict. What you don't seem to understand it there is a good chance this time the data they are using....is largely irrelevant, given the unique circumstances of this election. Analysis and prediction are all fine and good, but if it flies in the face of a multitude of polling that is methodologically sound polling taken over the course of weeks leading into the election....then we are likely looking at an outlier or abberation from the norm.

I've said all along--historically, Obama SHOULD lose this election. Just like W. SHOULD have lost in 2004. Lucky for Obama, the Republicans nominated their 2012 version of the 2004 John Kerry.

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 09:38 AM
That's the whole problem with RWNJ analysis is that it relies on "historical" indicators like job approval, unemployment, and real per capita income....all of can be useful, but by themselves are meaningless. Political climate, events, and the choice (and, yes, even likability) are what will drive the voting.

The cumulative sum of credible and methodologically sound polling would be a more accurate barometer....which most people understand. Unless of course, you are looking for any sliver of hope for their floundering poor choice of a candidate.

I would add that the biggest change is the media culture we live in now. People get their news instantly now not a day or even a week later and they get it from the Internet or cable news.

But if you want to use a historical analysis it was 1844 when the last time a person running for POTUS lost both his home state and his birth state and won the election.

Cave Johnson
09-21-2012, 09:48 AM
Idiot, no one cares. Nobody heard of nate silver until two weeks ago when all the moonbats simultaneously began talking about him.

If it wasn't Obama propaganda, you wouldn't keep talking about it.

Nate Silver's been dead on since 2008, FTR.

TEX
09-21-2012, 09:51 AM
Also, some registered democrats tend to be dead, but still manage to vote...

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 09:53 AM
....Nobody heard of nate silver until two weeks ago....

I missed this the first time...

Seriously? :spock:

LMAO

KC native
09-21-2012, 10:40 AM
Idiot, no one cares. Nobody heard of nate silver until two weeks ago when all the moonbats simultaneously began talking about him.

If it wasn't Obama propaganda, you wouldn't keep talking about it.

ROFL Please don't stroke out when Obama wins. I want to see you explain an Obama re-election.

BigCatDaddy
09-21-2012, 11:08 AM
ROFL Please don't stroke out when Obama wins. I want to see you explain an Obama re-election.

I can't. It's like Scott Pioli making it to year 5 as well.

J Diddy
09-21-2012, 11:27 AM
Also, some registered democrats tend to be dead, but still manage to vote...

Yes because democrats cheat and republicans never do.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120919/NEWS15/309190033/Former-McCotter-staffer-pleads-no-contest-in-petition-fraud-scandal

alnorth
09-21-2012, 12:15 PM
Predict is the wrong word, however you conveniently forgot to cut and paste:

This reporter has reached out to both Bickers and Berry regarding Silver’s accusation. This post will be updated when a response is received.

UPDATE: I am in receipt of an email from Michael Berry, one of the two professors behind the University of Colorado model. He writes: “Mr. Silver and others confuse a prediction with an estimate. Our model was developed after the 2008 election. The only election that we forecast is the 2012 election. When we populate the model with data from each of the election years from 1980 through 2008, we correctly estimate the winner in each of those elections.”

Its hilarious thinking like this which leads people to create complicated models to predict the stock market, touting that if they populate their model with past data, it performs wonderfully.

Those models immediately fail when asked to predict the future.

The problem is that there are a nearly-infinite number of models you could possibly put together, and if you put together seemingly-unrelated or loosely-related bits of trivia based on past outcomes, you are relying heavily on correlation implying causation.

At least with a model based on polls, the only bits of data you are using, is people asking voters "who will you vote for" instead of unemployment rates, GDP, etc without the necessary context that the voters are not blaming Obama for the economic downturn. At least the 538 model did perform very well 4 years ago, this heap of garbage you are touting is looking less and less credible by the day.

4 years from now, those jokers from Colorado might brag that their election model correctly showed the winner in every election but one.

alnorth
09-21-2012, 12:23 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Keep in mind, this is a poll of REGISTERED VOTERS, not likely voters. Registered democrats tend to be over sampled in polls of registered voters, and likely voters tend to vote for incumbents and/or republicans.

So Romney is actually in pretty good shape.

Little bit of cherry-picking isn't it?

We've got an overwhelming avalanche of bad polls for Romney, if you get enough polls, you'll occasionally get an outlier that hits the "5% of polls will be 2 standard deviations off" problem.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/325px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png

Pitt Gorilla
09-21-2012, 12:23 PM
The way you moonbats keep carting out that 538 thing is all I need to know it's a crock o' BS.

This predictive model has picked every winner since 1980:

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”

Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says


Heh.How, exactly, did a model that DID NOT EXIST "predict" anything? I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.

Edit: Looks as though others have already called out this clown for not knowing what he's talking about.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2012, 12:51 PM
Its hilarious thinking like this which leads people to create complicated models to predict the stock market, touting that if they populate their model with past data, it performs wonderfully.

Those models immediately fail when asked to predict the future.

The problem is that there are a nearly-infinite number of models you could possibly put together, and if you put together seemingly-unrelated or loosely-related bits of trivia based on past outcomes, you are relying heavily on correlation implying causation.

At least with a model based on polls, the only bits of data you are using, is people asking voters "who will you vote for" instead of unemployment rates, GDP, etc without the necessary context that the voters are not blaming Obama for the economic downturn. At least the 538 model did perform very well 4 years ago, this heap of garbage you are touting is looking less and less credible by the day.

4 years from now, those jokers from Colorado might brag that their election model correctly showed the winner in every election but one.

I suspect that Tom J '61, doesn't have the slightest grasp of the specifics you are talking about. But, hey, the mavens of talk radio are touting it, so it must be right!