Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did. Nevada is a strange fig - It's high Mormon presence shows a strong potential for a good turnout for Mitt Romney, while its high Latino vote bats for Obama in general.
6.7% Mormon is not all that high; besides, the other 93.3% obviously had a hand in electing Democrat Harry Reid to the Senate.
So Scott Rasmussen's poll is showing a +5% Obama bias?
Wouldnt know...dont subscribe. LOL. But election day bodes well for Romney.
I am firmly in the camp of voter turnout will decide election, and it wont be similar to 2008, but instead between 2008 and 2010, closer to 2010 according to early voting.
I and am not convinced that this is Rass moving to the actuals, as it could also be a MOE issue. Its a pretty shocking move...and that obviously causes some concern....
I'm unwilling to discredit everything going on in early voter enthusiasm among republicans and what I am seeing in other polls where turnout models are given. Sure it might be wishful thinking....but saw the Obama win in 2008 for what it was....and was not deluded in thinking McCain had a chance. This year I see it the other way around.....Romney has the edge.....and Obama is going to have a very difficult time.....just the way i see it. Dont expect support from the other side.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,464,466 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Didn't they have him up 5 points just a few days ago? It's clear that they're trying to salvage some shred of credibility now that it's clear where this race is headed.
Yup, they don't wanna wind up with the rep they got from last time.
But I am firmly in the camp of voter turnout will decide election, and it wont be similar to 2008, but instead between 2008 and 2010, closer to 2010 according to early voting.
Don't you know that turnout in midterm elections is always lower than turnout in presidential elections? The idea that 2012 will somehow mirror 2010 is ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer_x
I and am not convinced that this is Rass moving to the actuals, as it could also be a MOE issue. Its a pretty shocking move...and that obviously causes some concern....
There's the understatement of the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer_x
I'm unwilling to discredit everything going on in early voter enthusiasm among republicans and what I am seeing in other polls where turnout models are given. Sure it might be wishful thinking....but saw the Obama win in 2008 for what it was....and was not deluded in thinking McCain had a chance. This year I see it the other way around.....Romney has the edge.....and Obama is going to have a very difficult time.....just the way i see it. Dont expect support from the other side.
How can a poll be based on a "voter turnout model?" That doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't be able to accurately capture the electorate at that given moment in time. If you have over 100 polls in a single state, and fewer people self-identify as "Republican" in nearly all of them, then that's indicative of a larger problem with the Republican "brand." There's no reason that random sampling could not lead to the opposite result: more Republicans than Democrats. It's not that pollsters are assuming Democratic turnout will be X, it's simply that fewer people are identifying as Republicans.
Now it may be true that enthusiasm is higher among hard core conservatives. But hard core conservatives are not enough to win an election. And you don't get extra votes based on your enthusiasm.
I figured you might have noticed when you replied to my post in which I linked and talked about today's Rasmussn poll.
Quote:
But I am firmly in the camp of voter turnout will decide election, and it wont be similar to 2008, but instead between 2008 and 2010, closer to 2010 according to early voting.
I and am not convinced that this is Rass moving to the actuals, as it could also be a MOE issue. Its a pretty shocking move...and that obviously causes some concern....
I'm unwilling to discredit everything going on in early voter enthusiasm among republicans and what I am seeing in other polls where turnout models are given. Sure it might be wishful thinking....but saw the Obama win in 2008 for what it was....and was not deluded in thinking McCain had a chance. This year I see it the other way around.....Romney has the edge.....and Obama is going to have a very difficult time.....just the way i see it. Dont expect support from the other side.
It's the picking and choosing of polls you happen to like where you go wrong. You want to find accurante polls? Aggregate the lot of them and take the average.
But when some people don't like where that average points, they decide that only some of the polls are correct. And -- surprise, surprise! -- it always seems to be that those cherry-pickers always seem to determine that the really accurate polls just happen to be the ones most favorable to their guy.
Support? I don't expect support. I do expect people to be rational (knowing that many of them are incapable of it).
Anyway, back to your fixation on party ID in polls. Not that I think you'll care, but I'll at least give Gallup's Frank Newport a chance to explain it to you. He simply points out that the sample is assuming nothing -- respondents are simply asked their party ID. Self-described party ID is not an inherent trait but floats between elections. This whole "OMG, the pollsters Democrat/Republican turnout assumptions are all wrong!" conspiracy theory is nothing more than an inability to understand polling samples. Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: The Recurring -- and Misleading -- Focus on Party Identification
I figured you might have noticed when you replied to my post in which I linked and talked about today's Rasmussn poll.
It's the picking and choosing of polls you happen to like where you go wrong. You want to find accurante polls? Aggregate the lot of them and take the average.
But when some people don't like where that average points, they decide that only some of the polls are correct. And -- surprise, surprise! -- it always seems to be that those cherry-pickers always seem to determine that the really accurate polls just happen to be the ones most favorable to their guy.
Support? I don't expect support. I do expect people to be rational (knowing that many of them are incapable of it).
Anyway, back to your fixation on party ID in polls. Not that I think you'll care, but I'll at least give Gallup's Frank Newport a chance to explain it to you. He simply points out that the sample is assuming nothing -- respondents are simply asked their party ID. Self-described party ID is not an inherent trait but floats between elections. This whole "OMG, the pollsters Democrat/Republican turnout assumptions are all wrong!" conspiracy theory is nothing more than an inability to understand polling samples. Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: The Recurring -- and Misleading -- Focus on Party Identification
Various posters have tried to explain this to no avail. If a pollster were to reject or select respondents on party ID it would hardly be a random sample. As I have said before, if you want to attack polls, do it on the likely voter criteria they apply or their methodology (automated. landlines vs cells, etc). Pollsters do reject and select respondents on their LV criteria and therefore do influence the results.
You want to find accurante polls? Aggregate the lot of them and take the average.
Anyway, back to your fixation on party ID in polls. Not that I think you'll care, but I'll at least give Gallup's Frank Newport a chance to explain it to you. He simply points out that the sample is assuming nothing -- respondents are simply asked their party ID. Self-described party ID is not an inherent trait but floats between elections. This whole "OMG, the pollsters Democrat/Republican turnout assumptions are all wrong!" conspiracy theory is nothing more than an inability to understand polling samples.
Pretty much.
And this is why the "Obama is losing independents, he can't win!" thing is not logical. Since 2008, more people left the Republican party and started calling themselves Independents. But these people's beliefs haven't changed and they still vote Republican, so we see an increase in the percentage of Independents voting Republican. Still, there are now more registered Ds than Rs. So to win, Obama needs to carry as many Democrats as possible and get them to the polls, then snatch enough Independents to put him over the top - a number that does not have to be more than half since there are more Democrats to begin with. That's it. It looks like he's pulling it off in enough states to win, albeit by narrow margins.
I do think this will boil down to turnout however. So the fabled Democratic ground game has to come through big time in the swing states to make the polls happen methinks. Odds are he'll pull it off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
