Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Why National Polls ARE MUCH more reliable

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

Also, one other thing. Republicans tend to underestimate their chances in presidential elections. This is even true here:

"Obama will win :(

Get over it." - 16kadams

Typical Republican thinking his candidate will lose. The Democrats on the other hand overestimate their candidates. Why? Because "conventinal wisdom" of the media comes mostly from DC and New York, too largely Democratic areas. There many Democratic analysts and the small amount of GOP analysts do compare predictions with each other and its obvious that the Democrats had an advantage here. An example would be the 2004 race when Democrats overestimated Kerry, but Republicans were skeptical if Bush would be victorious. The same could be said for the Wisconsin recall election when Democrats were shocked in Walker's victory despite what the polls said.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:18:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only way to track the EC votes is by state polls.

http://www.electoral-vote.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama is usually over the magic number (275), Romney never has.
http://www.electoral-vote.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not meaning to sound cruel, but most people know that the election is in Obama's favor. About 3% of the electorate has said that they could change their mind before the election, and with the economy continuously improving, Obama has better chances of victory, even if he is outspent. Clinton was outspent by $100 million in 1996 for example.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:32:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:29:24 PM, Contra wrote:
Not meaning to sound cruel, but most people know that the election is in Obama's favor. About 3% of the electorate has said that they could change their mind before the election, and with the economy continuously improving, Obama has better chances of victory, even if he is outspent. Clinton was outspent by $100 million in 1996 for example.

Clinton defeated an incumbent. Just saying.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:35:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:32:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:29:24 PM, Contra wrote:
Not meaning to sound cruel, but most people know that the election is in Obama's favor. About 3% of the electorate has said that they could change their mind before the election, and with the economy continuously improving, Obama has better chances of victory, even if he is outspent. Clinton was outspent by $100 million in 1996 for example.

Clinton defeated an incumbent. Just saying.

Only because of Ross Perot.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:40:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:29:24 PM, Contra wrote:
Not meaning to sound cruel, but most people know that the election is in Obama's favor. About 3% of the electorate has said that they could change their mind before the election, and with the economy continuously improving, Obama has better chances of victory, even if he is outspent. Clinton was outspent by $100 million in 1996 for example.

Jobs getting worse won't be good for Obama.

CBO projects unemployment heading back up to 8.9% by the end of the year.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:46:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Holy crap. I just noticed that Clinton was a two term President. Lol.

I should really start following American history a little more.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 6:47:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:40:17 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:29:24 PM, Contra wrote:
Not meaning to sound cruel, but most people know that the election is in Obama's favor. About 3% of the electorate has said that they could change their mind before the election, and with the economy continuously improving, Obama has better chances of victory, even if he is outspent. Clinton was outspent by $100 million in 1996 for example.

Jobs getting worse won't be good for Obama.

CBO projects unemployment heading back up to 8.9% by the end of the year.

I heard 8.2%.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
thett3
Posts: 14,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:09:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:18:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The only way to track the EC votes is by state polls.

http://www.electoral-vote.com...

That website is dumb, placing Virginia and Ohio in the "likely democrat" column. Anyone familiar with politics knows that simply isn't true.

Obama *does* have the electoral vote advantage according to RCP, which is trustworthy.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:18:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:09:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:18:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The only way to track the EC votes is by state polls.

http://www.electoral-vote.com...

That website is dumb, placing Virginia and Ohio in the "likely democrat" column. Anyone familiar with politics knows that simply isn't true.

Obama *does* have the electoral vote advantage according to RCP, which is trustworthy.

That said, the OP is correct--state polls are much more difficult to accurately perform and less important. The important thing when it comes to the electoral map is to look at the voting index (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Right now, the race is at a statistical tie, which puts Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin as seriously in play.

Of course, demographic changes have occurred since that index was calculated, I doubt the New Mexico or Minnesota are seriously battlegrounds anymore, although Michigan now is.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:35:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:09:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:18:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The only way to track the EC votes is by state polls.

http://www.electoral-vote.com...

That website is dumb, placing Virginia and Ohio in the "likely democrat" column. Anyone familiar with politics knows that simply isn't true.

Obama *does* have the electoral vote advantage according to RCP, which is trustworthy.

Ohio poll -- Obama +3.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
http://rove.com...

Virginia -- Obama +2%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Anyone who follows politics knows its true.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:49:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 7:35:26 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/16/2012 7:09:20 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:18:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
The only way to track the EC votes is by state polls.

http://www.electoral-vote.com...

That website is dumb, placing Virginia and Ohio in the "likely democrat" column. Anyone familiar with politics knows that simply isn't true.

Obama *does* have the electoral vote advantage according to RCP, which is trustworthy.

Ohio poll -- Obama +3.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
http://rove.com...

Virginia -- Obama +2%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Anyone who follows politics knows its true.

Surely you don't think that having Obama up within the margin of error in most of those polls constitutes saying the state is "likely" Obama. Cmon man. Especially considering that many of the polls are from PPP...

RCP has those two (among others) as tossups, and rightfully so
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 7:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 6:47:19 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:40:17 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 7/16/2012 6:29:24 PM, Contra wrote:
Not meaning to sound cruel, but most people know that the election is in Obama's favor. About 3% of the electorate has said that they could change their mind before the election, and with the economy continuously improving, Obama has better chances of victory, even if he is outspent. Clinton was outspent by $100 million in 1996 for example.

Jobs getting worse won't be good for Obama.

CBO projects unemployment heading back up to 8.9% by the end of the year.

I heard 8.2%.

CBO budget and economic outlook 2012

http://www.cbo.gov...

Page 27. Q4 2012 = 8.9%
Q4 2013 = 9.2%
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:16:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1Hg, put your money where your mouth is and bet money on intrade.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...


Also, one other thing. Republicans tend to underestimate their chances in presidential elections. This is even true here:

"Obama will win :(

Get over it." - 16kadams

Typical Republican thinking his candidate will lose. The Democrats on the other hand overestimate their candidates. Why? Because "conventinal wisdom" of the media comes mostly from DC and New York, too largely Democratic areas. There many Democratic analysts and the small amount of GOP analysts do compare predictions with each other and its obvious that the Democrats had an advantage here. An example would be the 2004 race when Democrats overestimated Kerry, but Republicans were skeptical if Bush would be victorious. The same could be said for the Wisconsin recall election when Democrats were shocked in Walker's victory despite what the polls said.

Given that walker outspent his opponent by something like a factor of 12 pretty much ensured his victory, the fact that he barely won with that extreme of a money gap should actually be reason for concern for Romney.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 9:40:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

In the general election, more Republicans tend to show up to vote than Democrats. That does not mean Obama will win, it just means that in the polls it will show Obama leading when it maybe closer.

Polls will only be valuable after the debates and incumbents have had a long history of losing at the debates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...


Also, one other thing. Republicans tend to underestimate their chances in presidential elections. This is even true here:

"Obama will win :(

Get over it." - 16kadams

Typical Republican thinking his candidate will lose. The Democrats on the other hand overestimate their candidates. Why? Because "conventinal wisdom" of the media comes mostly from DC and New York, too largely Democratic areas. There many Democratic analysts and the small amount of GOP analysts do compare predictions with each other and its obvious that the Democrats had an advantage here. An example would be the 2004 race when Democrats overestimated Kerry, but Republicans were skeptical if Bush would be victorious. The same could be said for the Wisconsin recall election when Democrats were shocked in Walker's victory despite what the polls said.

Given that walker outspent his opponent by something like a factor of 12 pretty much ensured his victory, the fact that he barely won with that extreme of a money gap should actually be reason for concern for Romney.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:33:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 9:40:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

In the general election, more Republicans tend to show up to vote than Democrats. That does not mean Obama will win, it just means that in the polls it will show Obama leading when it maybe closer.

Polls will only be valuable after the debates and incumbents have had a long history of losing at the debates.

I just showed how the last election proved this theory of yours wrong. But feel free to simply ignore history.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:40:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:33:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:40:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

In the general election, more Republicans tend to show up to vote than Democrats. That does not mean Obama will win, it just means that in the polls it will show Obama leading when it maybe closer.

Polls will only be valuable after the debates and incumbents have had a long history of losing at the debates.

I just showed how the last election proved this theory of yours wrong. But feel free to simply ignore history.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Just the last election, not any other elections. You are ignoring the history here. 2008 has not been the only presidential election.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:43:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:40:40 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:33:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:40:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

In the general election, more Republicans tend to show up to vote than Democrats. That does not mean Obama will win, it just means that in the polls it will show Obama leading when it maybe closer.

Polls will only be valuable after the debates and incumbents have had a long history of losing at the debates.

I just showed how the last election proved this theory of yours wrong. But feel free to simply ignore history.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Just the last election, not any other elections. You are ignoring the history here. 2008 has not been the only presidential election.

And you forgot about the independents.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:01:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 10:43:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:40:40 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:33:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:40:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

In the general election, more Republicans tend to show up to vote than Democrats. That does not mean Obama will win, it just means that in the polls it will show Obama leading when it maybe closer.

Polls will only be valuable after the debates and incumbents have had a long history of losing at the debates.

I just showed how the last election proved this theory of yours wrong. But feel free to simply ignore history.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Just the last election, not any other elections. You are ignoring the history here. 2008 has not been the only presidential election.

And you forgot about the independents.

2004 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Bush held the lead in the polls since 8/25 and never lost that lead. In fact, in the months just before the election, he was leading as much as 5 - 6 points, and in just the week before, he was 2.9 above, yet only finish 2.4 above. When it came to the actually final polls, of the 14 that the RCP averaged, only 2 gave Kerry the lead, compared to 10 that gave Bush the lead. The final polls came in within 1% of the actual vote (over 3 times closer than you are giving credit for).

Now lets jump back to 2000 - http://www.ncpp.org...

Hey, look, even though Gore won the popular vote, 7 polls gave Bush the lead (one by as much as 5 points) and only 2 gave Gore the lead (the most by only 2 points). Seems like the polls falsely leaned towards republicans... again.

So maybe old polling was different, but our current trend is that the polls falsely give republicans more credit than due.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:06:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:01:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:43:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:40:40 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 10:33:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 9:40:37 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2012 8:27:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/16/2012 5:49:44 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
Many people believe that state polls are much more reliable than national polls here is why this is false. Just recently on FOX News they showed an entire map based on how the election would be today. However they had problems, first off not every state has a lot of pollsters. There have been no recent polls in South Carolina (last poll was in December), Texas (Nothing recent as well), Missouri (only 2 polls tracked by RCP) and South Dakota (only 1 poll tracked by RCP) as an example. Many other polls have been outdated. The only place where there is any polling is in the "battleground" states. It means that states that might be leaning to other side might still get little attention.

Only Elephant Watcher has figured out that looking at the much more frequent national polls makes much more sense. Unless the national poll average is below 1% for the leading candidate, then there is little to no need to look at state polls. The problem with some national polls however is that in presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. Thus, Elephant Watcher changes the polls with registered voters to give Romney an extra 3%.

This is false.

The RCP polls estimated Obama winning by 7.6% in the election off the national poplar vote. The final vote came out to a 7.3% win, off by only 0.3% about 1/10 of what you are claiming.

Also, the polls leading up to the election for a month, showed Obama bouncing around the 6 - 7 point lead range. On July 16th of 2008, the polls showed Obama with a 4.8% lead.

In the general election, more Republicans tend to show up to vote than Democrats. That does not mean Obama will win, it just means that in the polls it will show Obama leading when it maybe closer.

Polls will only be valuable after the debates and incumbents have had a long history of losing at the debates.

I just showed how the last election proved this theory of yours wrong. But feel free to simply ignore history.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Just the last election, not any other elections. You are ignoring the history here. 2008 has not been the only presidential election.

And you forgot about the independents.

2004 - http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Bush held the lead in the polls since 8/25 and never lost that lead. In fact, in the months just before the election, he was leading as much as 5 - 6 points, and in just the week before, he was 2.9 above, yet only finish 2.4 above. When it came to the actually final polls, of the 14 that the RCP averaged, only 2 gave Kerry the lead, compared to 10 that gave Bush the lead. The final polls came in within 1% of the actual vote (over 3 times closer than you are giving credit for).

Now lets jump back to 2000 - http://www.ncpp.org...

Hey, look, even though Gore won the popular vote, 7 polls gave Bush the lead (one by as much as 5 points) and only 2 gave Gore the lead (the most by only 2 points). Seems like the polls falsely leaned towards republicans... again.

So maybe old polling was different, but our current trend is that the polls falsely give republicans more credit than due.

You are wrong. Also, the 3% for Romney is not meant to be accurate, but just for the fact that of how the polling is NOW. Also, you must know that these polls are ONLY for likely voters polls not polls for registered voters. So there are some polls that are different than others.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...