ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Predictions

With the election rapidly approaching, let's get all the public figures on record.  I'll present my Electoral College prediction in my column tomorrow.  In the meantime, here are a few predictions that I've spotted floating around the Internet.  Feel free to add more in the comments and I'll update this accordingly.

Vox Day: Romney 305, Obama 233 

Nate Silver: Obama 315, Romney 223 (November 6)
Nate Silver: Obama 307, Romney 231 (November 5)
Nate Silver: Obama 288, Romney 250 (October 22)
Nate Silver: Obama 320, Romney 218 (September 30)
Dick Morris: Romney 351, Obama  187
White House Insider: Romney 300+
Michael Barone: Romney 315, Obama 223
John Scalzi: Obama 294, Romney 244 
InTrade: Obama 303, Romney 235 
Jim Cramer: Obama 440, Romney 98 

As much as I have criticized the cult of Nate Silver, I could not agree with the man more when he writes the following in his column entitled "For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased":
My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.

Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.  Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the leader in the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.
That's the primary difference between Silver's opinion and mine.  He puts a chance of anti-Republican poll bias at 16 percent.  Even though I am not a Republican and I do not support Mitt Romney, I think it is closer to 90 percent.  That still may not be enough to account for the gap between what the polls are reporting and how I expect events to transpire on Tuesday, but it does explain the difference.  So let's keep that in mind.  If Romney does win, the only possible conclusion is that the state polls must be biased.

For those who wish to bring up the 2008 election, I would remind everyone that I was incorrect about Hillary being the Democratic candidate, not about the Democratic candidate winning the general election.  It was always obvious that the Republican candidate - I thought it would be Pataki or a senator in the Dole mode - was intended to be a sacrificial lamb.  Nor should anyone forget that Silver's poll-based predictions entirely failed in 2010.

Labels:

89 Comments:

Anonymous Ulmer Miller November 04, 2012 5:29 AM  

Ah, the Electoral College... the only votes that count!

Anonymous AdognamedOp November 04, 2012 5:39 AM  

How does the widespread voter fraud, we all know goes on, factor into these predictions?

Anonymous Roundtine November 04, 2012 5:52 AM  

Has there been a year when the polls have been so wild? I remember 2000 being very close, but the polls weren't all over the map. Most elections aren't very close, they only seem that way because the losing side spins all the bad news.

This time, we have a dead heat nationally (which used to mean the Republican is up because he'd get 1 to 2% more on election day), yet state polls show wide variance.

Anonymous zen0 November 04, 2012 5:59 AM  

Just to add to the mix:

The Princeton Election Consortium uses state polls and gives a justification for doing so. They have Obama 323 Romney 215. The lead for Obama has increased every day for a week.

National polls and state polls: same methods, different predictive accuracy

(hat tip to commenter dh )

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 7:00 AM  

> I remember 2000 being very close, but the polls weren't all over the map. Most elections aren't very
> close, they only seem that way because the losing side spins all the bad news.

That election was much, much closer than what appears to be shaping up this year. State polls are supposed to have a lower margin of error, thanks to larger sampling. National polls have higher margins. In 2000 the race switched so much because the states were very closely divided, and the lead switched back and forth several times before election day.

> How does the widespread voter fraud, we all know goes on, factor into these predictions?

This is fantasy land. "Widespread" voter fraud would need to be in the range of an entire percentage point. If we are talking about ineligible voters voting, than it has no effect on the polls, because the people who lie to vote would lie to a pollster, and thus be part of the sample. If we are talking about double voting, it's not reflected in the polling. But in a swing state, say Florida, with 18 million residents and perhaps 10 million voters, 1% would be 100,000 voters. That's not in the realm of possibility.

There is another thing to consider, which is intense gerrymandering that happens every 10 years. This creates a huge number of non-competitive House seats, and those therefore depress turnout.

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 7:09 AM  

State polls are supposed to have a lower margin of error, thanks to larger sampling.

True. As Sean Davis showed, Silver has a very simple "model" that bets the farm on the assumption that the state polls are reliable. However, they were incorrect in 4 out of the 5 close state contests in 2008 and 2010. Silver got North Carolina but blew Indiana in 2008, then was wrong in Alaska, Colorado, and Nevada in 2010.

Anyhow, we'll see. I find it interesting that those projecting Romney see him north of 300, while those projecting Obama tend to be more conservative. That's the opposite of 2008.

I agree with regards to the voter fraud issue. Slight edge to Democrats, but both sides do it and have been doing it for decades.

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 7:13 AM  

Of course, anytime you find yourself in agreement with Dick Morris, it does tend to cause you to rethink your conclusions. However, I do think in this case he is probably correct and the pollsters will turn out to be wildly off this year because they are using voter samples much too heavily weighted towards Democrats.

The samples that weight by an average of the last four elections come out very differently than those using only 2008, as appears to be the norm.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 7:15 AM  

> So let's keep that in mind. If Romney does win, the only possible conclusion is that the state polls
> must be biased.

This isn't accurate. People take and win bets that are 1-and-16 all the time. These odds aren't all that long. In D&D as a kid, you could be assured that every now and then you would get a save on a D20 roll.

The actual possibilities are:

1. Romney wins, the state polls accurately reflected the state of the race within the 95% confidence interval and margin of error.

2. Romney wins, the states polls inaccurately reflected the state of the race within the CI and MoE. There was systematic error (aka bias, Nate Silver uses that word and it is not the best word to use; bias implies monkeying, which is probably not the case).

> Nor should anyone forget that Silver's poll-based predictions entirely failed in 2010.

This is not true. They did not "entirely fail". His 2010 record was:

Senate - projected Republicans 7 seat pickup, actual 6 seat pickup. His biggest gaffe was Nevada Senate, where he predicted a 3% loss by Sen. Reid, when in fact he won by 5.5%.

House - projected Republican gain of 55 seats, actual 63 seats.

Governors races - projected 36 of 37 races correctly.

I think to be fair, VD, if you want to criticize Nate Silver's model, you will put up your choices to be compared in this fashion. What did you 2010 predictions look like? And make your 2012 predictions specific, this means head to heads in the Senate, party-based figures in the House, and head to heads in the Governorships and Presidential race. Don't forget to include EV totals.

> Dick Morris: Romney 351, Obama 187

Honestly, it's odd that anyone listens to Dick Morris anymore, but this should be the nail in his coffin. Even Romney's campaign team isn't predicting 351 votes. They are hoping to crack to 300 to give him some "coattails".

Blogger Gilbert Ratchet November 04, 2012 7:20 AM  

Colby Cosh was saying something about how the switch to cell phones has screwed up polling. When everyone had a landline it was easier.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/29/mind-the-credibility-gap/

"The polling business has a problem: when most households had a single land-line telephone, it was relatively easy to sample the population cheaply and well—to estimate quantities like voter intentions in a clean, mathematically uncomplicated way, as one might draw different-coloured balls from a single urn to estimate the amounts of each colour amongst the balls on the inside. That happy state of affairs has, of course, been reduced to chaos by the cell phone.

"The cell phone, increasingly, does not just divide the population into two hypothetical urns—which is basically how pollsters originally went about solving the problem. Its overall effect (including the demise of the telephone directory) has affected the math of polling in several ways, all of them constantly intensifying; declining response rates to public surveys (“Get lost, pal, you’re eating up my minutes”) are the most obvious example. Put simply, individual members of the public are no longer necessarily accessible for polite questioning by means of a single randomizable number that everybody pretty much has one of. The problem of sampling from the urn has thus become infinitely more complicated. Pollsters can no longer assume that the balls are more or less evenly distributed inside the urn, and it is getting harder and harder to reach into the urn and rummage around."

Anonymous Outlaw X November 04, 2012 7:23 AM  

Many people don't have a home phone any more and those that do usually let the answering machine take it and respond if it is important. Most people have cell phones and pollsters call house holds. I wonder how much that has skewed the poling? I have no Idea, I was just thinking about that the other day. I go by the rallies and the draw. Romney wins big in my opinion.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 04, 2012 7:25 AM  

Ratchet beat me to it.

Anonymous Stilicho November 04, 2012 7:26 AM  

President Dwayne Alizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho has a few things to say about this election. Pay particular attention to the last bit about the economy. One suspects he is getting economic advice from Krugman and the Bernank: http://blastr.com/2012/11/check-out-mike-judges-new.php

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 7:26 AM  

> pollsters will turn out to be wildly off this year because they are using voter samples much too
> heavily weighted towards Democrats.

This is because the Republicans are working the ref and trying to plant this as an issue. The Democratic advantage is real - and getting worse.

a. Pollsters do not use "self-identification" for party weighting. They use other demographic forecasts, which more accurately reflect the electorate, and then work backwards to relate to partisan advantage.

b. The Bush years so badly damaged the GOP brand that a good chunk of reliable Republican voters self-report as Independent or unaffiliated.

c. You cannot compare the 2010 electorate to the 2012 electorate. This is where most Republican well-wishers go wrong. 2010 was an off-year election. It has not bearing on the reality of a Presidential election year. Put it this way - if the 2010 electorate looked like the 2008 electorate, the GOP would not be in control of the House.

In fact (C) is very important. If the electorate looked anything like the population, the GOP wouldn't even be close to in power on a national level. The liberals and Democratic party problem is that their core (or perhaps 2nd biggest) voter block just doesn't vote that often.

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 7:29 AM  

Senate - projected Republicans 7 seat pickup, actual 6 seat pickup.

Please. Compare his "prediction" that was made on the same date when I made mine. That is the correct comparison. I think I posted on this already and if I recall correctly, he was still claiming the Democrats would hold the HOUSE at that time. I make one prediction, very early on. Silver doesn't actually make predictions, all he does is run a Monte Carlo analysis on the state polls; he does absolutely nothing that requires any judgment at all. That's why the RCP model produces almost exactly the same results that Silver does.

I think to be fair, VD, if you want to criticize Nate Silver's model, you will put up your choices to be compared in this fashion.

I've already said I'll put my electoral college count up tomorrow, although that's mostly for fun. I don't do "predictions" the day before, because I think that is both obvious and useless. Everyone else can read the polls as easily as I can. I am being entirely fair by putting up my prediction - an actual prediction - in June or whenever it was, versus his. He said Obama back then, I don't actually care what he says now, versus yesterday or the day before that.

This isn't accurate. People take and win bets that are 1-and-16 all the time. These odds aren't all that long.

Of course it is accurate. The odds are irrelevant. Silver is saying that 16 percent IS the poll bias. He is correctly noting that if 19/20 polls in favor of Obama are wrong, then they must be biased. I believe this is correct, and we can even see why. They are erroneously choosing 2008-based sampling rather than either a more recent election - 2010 - or the better approach which would be an average of 2004 through 2010.

Anonymous Remnant November 04, 2012 7:32 AM  

If Dick Morris were to predict that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, I would bet against him. That is how laughably wrong he (predictably) is.

Anonymous Gx1080 November 04, 2012 7:34 AM  

Dunno why Dems are so bothered. I mean, they can cram 8 years of Hillary Clinton easily after Romney's first term.

Of course, I wouldn't wish that on any man, but there you go.

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 7:35 AM  

This is because the Republicans are working the ref and trying to plant this as an issue. The Democratic advantage is real - and getting worse.

Demographically, yes. Electorally, no. We'll revisit this on Wednesday and see who is right. I'll bet you the actual voter identification is more Republican than the current poll samples.

Pollsters do not use "self-identification" for party weighting. They use other demographic forecasts, which more accurately reflect the electorate, and then work backwards to relate to partisan advantage.

Which just happen to magically work out to the 2008 self-identification numbers? Color me dubious.

The Bush years so badly damaged the GOP brand that a good chunk of reliable Republican voters self-report as Independent or unaffiliated.

I agree, that's why it is so stupid to use 2008 as the standard. Obama has obviously had a negative effect on the Democratic brand, although not nearly as bad.

You cannot compare the 2010 electorate to the 2012 electorate.

No one is doing so. I'm certainly not... and I called the 2010 landslide, unlike Silver. The point is that the 2012 electorate won't be the 2008 electorate either. Hence the suggestion to use an average... which produces very different results.

Obama is getting smaller crowds in Ohio than McCain did. Do you really think that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't matter at all?

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 7:37 AM  

Honestly, it's odd that anyone listens to Dick Morris anymore, but this should be the nail in his coffin.

I could not concur more. Being in harmony with Morris makes me second-guess my prediction of a Romney win more than anything you've pointed out here.

Anonymous Anonymous November 04, 2012 7:39 AM  

jeez when they are polling 8 to 12 % more dems then what would one expect.

Anonymous Stilicho November 04, 2012 7:43 AM  

Obama is getting smaller crowds in Ohio than McCain did. Do you really think that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't matter at all?

Of course it matters, whether the petulant child you are addressing understands it or not. What may matter more is how many times the Obamaphone recipients can vote next Tuesday.

Anonymous paradox November 04, 2012 8:07 AM  

Who every wins, I'm picking up another one of these from galleryofguns.com

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 8:07 AM  

he does absolutely nothing that requires any judgment at all. That's why the RCP model produces almost exactly the same results that Silver does.

I agree 100%. I think Nate Silver is a hack. Is the goal early, or accurate?

although that's mostly for fun
Back to this again. If you are right, it's a cudgel to beat others with, if you are wrong, it's fun.

then they must be biased
No, this isn't statistically accurate.

All polls are expressing the likelihood based on a specified confidence level and error level, typically 95% and 0.5-1% for State polls. As you know this means that the 95% of the time, the poll will be correct within 0.5-1% (depends on the polling outfit). However, that means that 5% of the time poll will be outside of the margin of error!

I'll bet you the actual voter identification is more Republican than the current poll samples.
I may take this bet with a little bit more research on my part. I am not sure how pollsters are exactly handling the "reliable" voter question. There are a lot of reliable GOP voters who are not reporting as GOP. Also, I am not sure how this can be measured except through exit polls, which are honestly a complete disaster statistically speaking.

Which just happen to magically work out to the 2008 self-identification numbers? Color me dubious.
Do you have a source for this? I have not seen this. 2008 was a historically Democratic friendly electorate, however, since then, there are 11-12 million new American eligible voters. And of them, they are overwhelmingly minority, foreign-born. In 2008, 130 million people voted. With 50% turnout, that's 3% of the electorate that's more Obama friendly. On top of that, since 2008, lots of old, white voters have died. Pollsters take all this into account, while others do not.

Obama is getting smaller crowds in Ohio than McCain did. Do you really think that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't matter at all?
Absolutely no value whatsoever. Anecdotal evidence is entirely useless. Put it this way - Obama had HUGE events in Ohio last time around, but won the state with less than 5% margin. What does that say? It doesn't say anything other than in 2008 Obama was "cool", and now he's not.

There is an enthusiasm gap this year, that is the Democrats biggest problem. The biggest side effect for this is reduced turnout, which is baked into every likely voter model already.

Being in harmony with Morris makes me second-guess my prediction

I am perfectly content to value a Gov. Romney-prediction as anyone else. It's a possibility. I view it as a statistically low probability, but it could happen. The race to date has been very stable since Romney won the nomination, and billions of dollars of advertising and daily jockeying has done little to the debate. The two events that have influenced the race are (1) debate #1 and (2) Libya. Both have hurt Pres. Obama's numbers in key areas. But what hasn't happened is that people haven't said they are going to vote for Gov. Romney.

The reality is that no one likes Gov. Romney. His base is pretending to like him, but he couldn't seal the deal on the primary against real losers. Despite the worst economic conditions in a lifetime, Gov. Romney is not winning.

So if Romney is going to win, it's going to be carving out a very narrow path to victory, that includes all of Ohio, Virgina, and Florida, plus probably Iowa and New Hampshire. Morris prediction would require that all of the 8 swing states go Romney, plus a few others that aren't really on the playing field. It's pretty weird.

I don't know anyone who thinks Obama will beat his 2008 absolute or electoral votes margin.

Blogger Nate November 04, 2012 8:10 AM  

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/03/breaking_naacp_takes_over_polling_station_advocates_for_president_obama_at_houston_polling_location

Lest anyone remain ignorant about poll bias.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 8:13 AM  

That is the correct comparison. I think I posted on this already and if I recall correctly, he was still claiming the Democrats would hold the HOUSE at that time.
I just did look this up, and Nate Silver was clearly a trailing indicator for the entire 2010 cycle. About 40 days out he got with the program, and was in the confidence interval for the House.

As always my primary complaint with your predictions are that they are imprecise to the point of being useless as predictions. Nate Silver et all at least have the decency to make very specific predictions, including EV results, number of seats, or head to heads.

BUT I will give you credit that you do always make your predictions well before the conventional wisdom has been set. That is no small feat. I do have a strong feeling that most of the people you have highlighted are engaging in the (a) trying to set the narrative or (b) re-stating the conventional wisdom.

Blogger Nate November 04, 2012 8:15 AM  

DH
The story of the day on Wednesday... will be... "how could the pollsters have been so wrong?" And I'm not some idiot Romney supported. Honestly I loathe the man.

However it is abundantly clear that the pollsters are guessing at who is going to turn out and who isn't... and the enthusiasm gap is going to prove to be far... far larger than what they have baked in.

Blogger Nate November 04, 2012 8:15 AM  

And... Florida... Ohio... PA... Michigan... NC... Virgina...

All those are going Romney. Its not a narrow path to victory at all. It will be a blowout.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 8:16 AM  

> Lest anyone remain ignorant about poll bias.

Right. Handing out water bottles to voters is not taking over a polling place. This is the right-wing noise machine at it's best. Hysterical freaking out.

It's pretty clear what happened here. A bunch of BLACK people came to a white polling place and started handing out WATER bottles. Since black people in NAACP clothing where there that's unfair support of Obama, since he's also black.

It's like a caricature of themselves.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 8:17 AM  

> All those are going Romney. Its not a narrow path to victory at all. It will be a blowout.

OK. We'll be back here in a few days and we'll see how your prediction lines up. You are basically in the 351+ camp for Romney.

What is your final EV prediction?

Blogger Nate November 04, 2012 8:38 AM  

"Right. Handing out water bottles to voters is not taking over a polling place. This is the right-wing noise machine at it's best. Hysterical freaking out."

So you missed the part in the article about the NCAA workers picking out voters and moving them to the front of the line then?


Anonymous Mr. B.A.D. November 04, 2012 8:39 AM  

if this is all a scripted charade, which it is, the the skewed polls have a manipulative purpose to lull the libs into a false sense of security and to alarm the repubs into organizing their voters. Although voting fraud will occur, the less the better. It helps keep the illusion.

Blogger Nate November 04, 2012 8:43 AM  

My EV Prediction?

Romney blowout. Romney is going to get between 311 and 330 electoral votes.

Anonymous DrRansom November 04, 2012 8:49 AM  

@paradox:

Excellent choice. If you feel like diversifying, let me recommend Bravo Company.

Anonymous Salt November 04, 2012 8:50 AM  

There's way to much noise to take any polling seriously. Observation says polling is a mess. Obama had 40K attend in in Cleveland in '08 and only 4k just a few days ago. That seems to be what the trend has been. The numbers reported at Romney rallies dwarfs Obama's.

Also, there's been quite a bit of hysterics on the part of Obamatoids in Twitter threats. Hardly a sign of any 84% confidence level in polling. It's desperation.

I expect voter attendance to be high because of all the noise. Many are really treating this election as the most importantest evah!



Blogger IM2L844 November 04, 2012 8:56 AM  

It's pretty clear what happened here. A bunch of BLACK people came to a white polling place and started handing out WATER bottles. Since black people in NAACP clothing where there that's unfair support of Obama, since he's also black.

What if it were a bunch of white people wearing Heritage Foundation clothing and more or less campaigning for Romney while giving out free stuff and moving Romney supporters to the front of the line? Would that be cool, or would that be unfair support of Romney, since he's also white?

I think that would make mainstream national headlines for day on end with the NAACP publicly calling for heads on pikes.

Anonymous Roundtine November 04, 2012 9:01 AM  

My expectation is Pennsylvania goes for Romney and its an early night. If he loses it, Obama is going to win via the electoral college.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 04, 2012 9:12 AM  

The talking heads got it wrong, they think the economy is going to get the the Right running to the polls, I disagree that this is their major motivation, it is guns and National Healthcare that will cause the flood in turnout. They will vote out of fear.

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 9:12 AM  

As always my primary complaint with your predictions are that they are imprecise to the point of being useless as predictions.

I really don't see how you can say that is the case. "Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee and he will win the presidential election" is not imprecise. "George Pataki or a senator in the Dole mode will be the Republican nominee and he will lose the presidential election" is not imprecise to the point of being useless.

And "Sarah Palin will be McCain's VP pick" is about as precise and useful as it is possible to be. As was "don't invest in housing, buy gold" back in 2002.

I mean, even my critics who falsely claim that my predictions are always wrong don't claim that they are imprecise or hard to follow.

Anonymous Stilicho November 04, 2012 9:20 AM  

Barone is spot on with his Romney 315 prediction.

Anonymous paradox November 04, 2012 9:55 AM  

DrRansom November 04, 2012 8:49 AM

@paradox:

Excellent choice. If you feel like diversifying, let me recommend Bravo Company.


I already have one LE6920, might as well have two along with my m14. Just picked up some frog lube, applied it to my 1911 and Glock 17, the AR is next. I need to test it out.

I really like Bravo Company's A4 Rifle.

Anonymous Apeman November 04, 2012 10:00 AM  

I think the bashing on Nate Silver is a little over done. But his hype is a lot over done so maybe it balances out.

All this talk of statistics and confidence intervals does not mean anything in real terms. Some of the things that Nate Silver does is legitimate. But a lot of what he does is simply slapping numbers on things to lead himself an aura of scientific credibility when the the numbers themselves don't mean a thing.

A good example is saying there is a 16% chance that the state polls are biased against Romney. That is an abuse of statistics unless you want to claim that Nate Silver keeps careful track of how many of his wild ass guesses come out correct.

Nate Silver's better work is a lot like the models that highly paid people get paid to make for Wall Street. Those models often have a reasonably good track record until they stop working all of the sudden. In other words, they don't catch paradigm shifts. The bottom line is that if the polls that Nate Silver is basing his predictions on are right, he is right. But pretending there is some scientific way of determining if those polls are right is silly.

Anonymous Orville November 04, 2012 10:03 AM  

Breitbart had an interesting article on polling variances two days ago (I tried to find it but can't). The gist was that only Rasmussen, and I think Gallup, make their money strictly from polling so they need some historical accuracy to keep new customers coming during the next elections. Many other polling companies are side business of MSM and universities that have vested interests.

But the bigger part of the article was in the sham of registered voters RV vs. likely voters LV. RV counts give better stats to Dem candidates than LV, and the article lists a number of reasons I can't remember that indicate that many polls are trying to pass off RV counts as LV, hence the wide variations Rasmussen and others.

My gut guess is that Romney easily gets over 300. Why even Minnesota is now being called a toss-up. Lots of anecdotal stuff like crowd attendance and some left-leaning newspapers endorsing R also make me think this.

Blogger James Dixon November 04, 2012 10:07 AM  

> All polls are expressing the likelihood based on a specified confidence level and error level,

With the wide variance in the polls this year, I think it's safe to say that a number of them have to be outside their confidence window.

You keep insisting that polling data is accurate, dh. I simply note that all I've ever had to do is add a 5% republican edge to what the national polls predict, and I've gotten the final tally closer than they have.

I know, you'll go back and pull up carefully selected figures from two weeks or less before the race and claim that's not true, and that earlier projections should be ignored.

The pollsters were still calling for Carter to beat Reagan on election day based on exit polls. One national news network called the election for Gore the night of the election before Florida had closed its polls. The polls this time are no more accurate than they've ever been, probably less.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 04, 2012 10:40 AM  

Romney will win the popular vote.

The electoral vote? No idea.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 04, 2012 10:44 AM  

Dick Morris doesn't pay hookers for sex.


He doesn't pay them to leave.


Hw pays them to sit around and listen to his BS.

Anonymous john November 04, 2012 10:55 AM  

Before stealing a rigged election a prudent conspirator runs rigged polls. This puts doubt in the peasantry's mind. Makes them more likely to accept the coup. Instead of reaching for their pitchforks they will just grumble.

Anonymous praetorian November 04, 2012 11:00 AM  

The gist was that only Rasmussen, and I think Gallup, make their money strictly from polling so they need some historical accuracy to keep new customers coming during the next elections.

Look at who the big banks are giving money to.

Wouldn't you think that they have the means and motivation to figure this shit out?

Romney.

Cheers,
prat

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 11:09 AM  

"Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee and he will win the presidential election" is not imprecise.

Yes, that is very imprecise. The most important thing about the GOP nominee was not who, but when. That was the question. When would Romney put it away. The GOP usually picks the runner up from the last time around. Romney was the shoe-in to win, but the question was when would be do it.

I will give you lots of credit for Palin - a real dark horse pick that was right, nice job.

"George Pataki or a senator in the Dole mode will be the Republican nominee and he will lose the presidential election" is not imprecise to the point of being useless.

Well whats the goal? Being first or being accurate? I guess it matters to rate you.

The standard you seem to be setting is being vaguely right (as in the coin-flip sense.. you narrowed the field of GOP candidates down to about 50 people, which is something I guess), or being early and vaguely right. But sometimes you pick at the last minute, like everyone else, in which case you value accuracy (i.e. Sarah Palin).

If you want to make your prediction tomorrow, and be judged in the league of people who make predictions it's only fair to specify which states each candidate will win or lose. For the House, party based totals. For Senate, seat by seat predictions.

For your predictions six months ago (or whenever), that's a different standard.

But it could all be for fun I guess?

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 11:14 AM  

If you want to make your prediction tomorrow, and be judged in the league of people who make predictions it's only fair to specify which states each candidate will win or lose.

I even included a little map.

Well whats the goal? Being first or being accurate? I guess it matters to rate you.

Early and vaguely right is more important to me because it is more indicative of correctly grasping broad trends than being late and perfectly precise is. I don't usually pick VP candidates, I just happened to be asked for my opinion in that case.

Anonymous Roundtine November 04, 2012 11:21 AM  

Prechter's model picks Obama, based on the stock market, while almost all the econ models pick Romney. I don't know when the econ models first started predicting, but my guess is they could have made calls over 1 year ago. Prechter made his call in February based on the 2011 year end market numbers and said the incumbent would win unless the market tanked. I think the Prechter model has a lot going for it and actually may explain the seemingly close election: Fed intervention has propped up the stock market. and also Obama.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 11:26 AM  

I even included a little map.

VERY IMPRESSED, really. Thanks. This is a big deal to me. It's easy to guess, but to predict takes at least the fortitude that you may be wrong.

I don't have a lot of respect for people who wait it out to the end and just throw out a name.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 11:33 AM  

You keep insisting that polling data is accurate, dh. I simply note that all I've ever had to do is add a 5% republican edge to what the national polls predict, and I've gotten the final tally closer than they have.
Really? Where have I said they are accurate? Of course that can't be known till the end.

As for your 5% claim, I don't think that this is even possibly true. The national pollsters records are pretty good, and are not typically outside of 5%. Which ones are you talking about? CBS? WSJ? Marist? Gallup?

The pollsters were still calling for Carter to beat Reagan on election day based on exit polls.
Source? The Carter v. Reagan one is that is always tossed about as one that shows how wrong the pollsters are, but it's really not the case. If you have a specific bone to pick, you should really cite a source.

One national news network called the election for Gore the night of the election before Florida had closed its polls.
I think you are talking about ABC, and ABC was roundly (and correctly) rebuked for that move. The correct call in Florida was of course "too close to call", but I notice you don't complain about any of the other papers or networks that made the call for Bush the next morning?

The problem with all of this discussion is motivated reasoning. People can always concoct a reason to not believe data that they believe is wrong. And it is prone to discussion of conspiracy theorizing.

Right now the *best case* for Romney is the Rasmussen national poll, which shows the the race a dead-heat *popular vote wise*. Of course, this is not helpful since that vote is only an indicator of the race that matters, which is for electoral votes.



Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 04, 2012 11:35 AM  

Assuming Romney wins the popular vote.....

If he wins big electorally (Nate's call), it'll be fun watching the Democrat's and their fellow traveller's in the media heads explode.

If Obama wins, it'll be priceless watching the Republicans denounce the (republican) electoral system whilst the Democrats are praising the same (non-democratic) electoral system.

Lots of Sam Adams Octoberfest and popcorn for Tues. night.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 11:35 AM  

They will vote out of fear.
I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. It's especially full of irony since hte only person in the race to every outlaw a gun is Gov. Romney.

The fact that the NRA endorses Gov. Romney when in fact he has actually banned a whole class of rifles, and supported their confiscation, is evidence that they are just a purely partisan operation, without fixed principles. I used to be a member quite a while ago, but it certainly seemed like that was where they were heading.

Anonymous Boetain November 04, 2012 11:44 AM  

R 295 (51.3% pv)
O 243 (48.2% pv)

All swing states except Nevada go for Romney.

Senate 50/50

House 246R/189D

Anonymous VD November 04, 2012 11:46 AM  

Source? The Carter v. Reagan one is that is always tossed about as one that shows how wrong the pollsters are, but it's really not the case.

"Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late September… And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27."

The final Gallup poll had Reagan at 47, up three on Carter. He actually hit 50.8.

It's easy to guess, but to predict takes at least the fortitude that you may be wrong.

I wouldn't make predictions so far out if I didn't mind being wrong. I don't know where people get the idea that I have any problem with it. Anyhow, we'll see soon enough.

Anonymous Roundtine November 04, 2012 11:52 AM  

Here's a good chart with turnout data from past elections of Republican, Ind/Rep, Democrat and Ind/Dem (full article). Democrats are betting that the demographic Rubicon has been crossed and (conservative) Republicans will never win another national election. Republicans think there will be more variation in the turnout. This can't really be predicted. Based on previous shifts, both sides are well within the margin of error. Republicans rely on the excitement factor, but Democrats will have a serious GOTV operation. This is why Silver's model is not statistical: he isn't statistically modeling the turnout, he is relying on the polling data which humans have altered. It's like if I predicted GDP by averaging the GDP forecasts of other economists. They're all based on models and I can statistically tweak my model, but if I'm relying on human produced data, it isn't the "science" it is purported to be. Humans herd because there is safety in numbers: analysts herd in earnings forecasts, mutual fund managers herd in stock picking and pollsters herd in their turnout models because to be wrong spectacularly once is enough to get one fired, but to be wrong with the herd isn't so bad, you can say everyone missed it.

Anonymous Noah B. November 04, 2012 12:25 PM  

"The fact that the NRA endorses Gov. Romney when in fact he has actually banned a whole class of rifles, and supported their confiscation, is evidence that they are just a purely partisan operation, without fixed principles. I used to be a member quite a while ago, but it certainly seemed like that was where they were heading."

I agree wholeheartedly dh and have caused many an NRA member to fly into a rage by telling them that they're a member of the largest gun control organization on the planet.

Anonymous Outlaw X November 04, 2012 12:35 PM  

They will vote out of fear.

"I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. It's especially full of irony since hte only person in the race to every outlaw a gun is Gov. Romney."

It's all about perception, dh. I believe we are talking about predictions hear, or at least most of us are. I still don't know what your talking about. If this race was about jobs, then California would go for Romney, now wouldn't they?

Anonymous Anonymous November 04, 2012 1:07 PM  

"If this race was about jobs, then California would go for Romney, now wouldn't they?--

We're talking about CA here.

Blogger EP November 04, 2012 1:33 PM  

Two things wrong with Silver's prediction models:
1. It assumes the state polls are of high quality. His model inputs the results from darn near every poll and has some weighting factors but I don't think he has a mechanism for handicapping those many state polls are not as robustly performed as the big national polls by established pollsters.
2. The polls the presidential race don't necessarily reflect all those voters who will vote mainly because of a local race. In 2004, W was not likely to win OH, but with gay marriage on the ballot, lots turned out to vote against that, and checked W at the same time. So, you also have to consider the energy of state level politics in getting the party voters to the polls. This may be big in MN with the two amendments and in MO with the Akin noise.

Anonymous Bob Ramar November 04, 2012 1:40 PM  

Here is an intersting thought based on something I read in the WSJ on Friday. Pollsters have a problem. Their polls are based on telephone calls to people who still have landline phones and will anser the poll. Right now, only half the population still has an uses a landline telephone; the rest use cell phones exclusively! Cell phones are off the pollster's radar screen and are unreachable!!!!!! Therefore is it too great a leap to think that the pollster's data comes from a population that is for the most part 1. poorer 2. less well educated 3. trend heavily Democrat?

Personally I am looking for an almost replay of Carter vs. Reagan in 1980. I think Romney will take everything except California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 November 04, 2012 1:44 PM  

Jim "Mad Money" Cramer has it O:440 R: 98.
As caveat, anyone who has listened to his investing advice and put it into practice likely has nothing to invest any longer.
As for state poll bias, yes. Also, Silver is misleading with his "all state polls favor O" argument. Several state polls do in fact favor Romney, but Silver dismisses those outright.
If you look at Ohio, all of the state polls that Silver points to for O favor him by 3 to 5 points, but the samples (where the bias lives) are routinely D+8 or 9. At the crest of the big O wave in 2008, the D turnout was +7 and he squeaked by with 250,000 votes. There is no way D turnout is at that same level, and one must factor in that a portion of that D turnout will break to R, or simply vote down-ticket and abstain from voting for O.
Romney gets Ohio, maybe Penn, and that's the game.
The pragmatist in me kind of wants O to pull it out though, for several reasons.
1) Second-term presidents with hostile congresses have a funny penchant for not getting anything done, which is right up my small-l libertarian alley.
2) If O is still in power, he will be swung low by all of his crimes and misdemeanors: Benghazi, Fast & Furious, fraudulent foreign donations, dozens more companies he invested fed money in that will fail, the fact that he either is foreign born, or simply lied about that to get a free ride through college, and that's just off of the top of my head.
3) If the GOP picks up the Senate and strengthens its hold on the House, with all of the above, O is getting impeached, may resign, and say hello to President Joseph Biden!
Tell me that won't be a hoot and a holler, and I'll call you a liar...

Blogger James Dixon November 04, 2012 2:14 PM  

> Where have I said they are accurate?

In one of our most recent discussions on the matter. It's possible I misunderstood you of course, but that's what I took from what you said.

> As for your 5% claim, I don't think that this is even possibly true.

Your yourself have noted that most national polls are +/- 3%. If they're routinely underestimating Republican support to the low end of that range, 5% is within the margin of error. Which is it?

> Which ones are you talking about? CBS? WSJ? Marist? Gallup?

The ones that were widely discussed on TV and radio. Do you really think I cared to follow which ones they are? When I know I'm being lied to my reaction is pretty much "there they go again".

> Source?

Me. I was watching TV at the time and followed the election closely. The pollster's reaction to the final result was that people must have been lying to them. You're free not to believe an eyewitness source, of course. These weren't pre-election polls. They were exit polls take on election day.

> ...and ABC was roundly (and correctly) rebuked for that move. T

And that changes what? They did it, and they'd do it again if they thought it would influence the election.

> ...but I notice you don't complain about any of the other papers or networks that made the call for Bush the next morning?

You're neglecting the most important point. The polls in Florida hadn't even closed yet. They were closed by the next morning, and the initial results indicating a Bush victory in Florida were in. And ABC didn't just call Florida for Gore. They called the race for Gore. It was either a blatant attempt to influence the election by calling it early, or a sign of them believing what they wanted to believe because of their obvious biases.

> People can always concoct a reason to not believe data that they believe is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with the data. It's the analysis that's lacking.

And that analysis can be corrected by simply increasing the stated republican percentage accordingly. Which indicates a blowout in the popular vote, and a likely significant edge in the electoral college for Romney.

I've been wrong lots of times. I may be wrong about the outcome of this election. I'm not wrong about the historical biases of the national polls or the national news organizations. I've lived through those elections, and I've seen it too many times.

Anonymous FP November 04, 2012 2:32 PM  

"Personally I am looking for an almost replay of Carter vs. Reagan in 1980. I think Romney will take everything except California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont."

Nah, swap in Washington State for Oregon. Oregon has more of a shot to go for Mittens than Washington as they have gay marriage up for a vote but a close govenor race. WA also has a pot legalization bill on the ballot, like Oregon. Oregon's seems to be failing though, last I heard earlier this week.

I think Obumbles will get all of New England except for NH and 1 in Maine. MN, Oregon, and MI seem possible but probably close Obama wins.

Unskewed Polls site says landslide Romney:

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012%20president_02.cfm

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 3:26 PM  

Your yourself have noted that most national polls are +/- 3%. If they're routinely underestimating Republican support to the low end of that range, 5% is within the margin of error. Which is it?
5% is within the margin, but that's not been the *actual* error. The systematic error has been 0.3%, 0.5%, 1.5% (for previous 3 cycles). And in all the cases, the prediction has been right. Meaning, a 5% swing towards the Republican side would have given Pres. GW Bush larger margins both terms, plus most likely Pres. McCain.

The ones that were widely discussed on TV and radio. Do you really think I cared to follow which ones they are? When I know I'm being lied to my reaction is pretty much "there they go again".
Got it, so making stuff up. Just so we are clear.

Me. I was watching TV at the time and followed the election closely. The pollster's reaction to the final result was that people must have been lying to them. You're free not to believe an eyewitness source, of course. These weren't pre-election polls. They were exit polls take on election day.
Exit polls are basically garbage. The poll takers have not been able to get clean samples for the last several races. This is why the networks and papers have started to kill them. This is the first election in 40+ years that all states won't be exit polled. Look for the trend to continue. To much adverse selection bias. 2008 only worked because the popular vote margin was high enough to make the call a no brianer.

Keep in mind that exit polling and pre-election polling have almost nothing in common, except the word "poll".

You're neglecting the most important point. The polls in Florida hadn't even closed yet. They were closed by the next morning, and the initial results indicating a Bush victory in Florida were in. And ABC didn't just call Florida for Gore. They called the race for Gore. It was either a blatant attempt to influence the election by calling it early, or a sign of them believing what they wanted to believe because of their obvious biases.
So? I don't get the point. What does this have to do with pre-election polling? My point was that it exposes your motivated reasoning. This is the same complaint that everyone in the West has about "calling" elections in the West.

There's nothing wrong with the data. It's the analysis that's lacking.

There is systematic error this year in polling. There is a wide-variation in state and national polls. Something is happening.

Additionally, you have entire legions of people who are just saying the polls say something that they don't. Even the most favorable polls to Romney don't show him with 70-80 point EV win, even the candidate (with internal polls, which are typically the gold standard), think this fantasy land.

This is the RedState crowd. In their view, Romney has never been better, it's going great. And Clint Eastwood at the RNC was great. In the rest of the world, Romney and Obama are neck but Obama having a long-term, small, stable lead.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 3:40 PM  

"Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late September… And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27."

The final Gallup poll had Reagan at 47, up three on Carter. He actually hit 50.8.


Unlike this year (and since), the one and only debate was after the poll you cite - October 28. Meaning, the full brunt of any debate performance change was felt after the numbers you cite to show how wrong they were. There is no evidence to suggest that the Gallup poll asking who you would vote for if the election where held today was inaccurate for October 24-27.

Secondly, the published margin of error on the final Gallup poll was +/- 4 percentage points, meaning, they just barely hit their expected margin of error. Because this was a 3-way race they did not hit the confidence interval on Carter or Anderson.

What exactly is your complaint with how 1980 was polled? I am not a big fan of Gallup's national surveys, and I believe that modern robo-pollsters (like Rasmussen or PPP) are better at polling than Gallup is today. But there was nothing "wrong" with 1980.

In fact, 1980 is probably more like 2012 in that both races were impacted in a big way by better than expected Republican debate performances.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 3:46 PM  

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012%20president_02.cfm

This is comical. Really, pretty funny. Even if Romney wins, it won't be this guy with any non-random good calls.

For example:
Nevada: 52-47 Romney -- this will surprise many

This is comical. 1/3 of 2008 voters in Nevada where Hispanic, and Obama is winning that demographic by 78%-17%. Plus, early voting has Pres. Obama with a 70K+ vote lead.

I only wish I had the time today to go through these predictions and study them closer, I am sure there are other gems in there that are going to be a bigger fail than this one.

Anonymous dh November 04, 2012 3:54 PM  

One last post today and I sadly won't be back until mid-day Wednesday, most likely.

In one of our most recent discussions on the matter. It's possible I misunderstood you of course, but that's what I took from what you said.

I support (and endorsed) Pres. Obama for President. I believe that the data indicate he is going to win a narrow but not insignificant victory, and that since Gov. Romney locked up the nomination there have only been a few times that he was in the lead.

However, regarding polls, there is systematic error in the polls, as of right now. They can't all be right. And I see the question as national vs. state polls.

Because if you believe the state polls, Pres. Obama is going to win without much drama. National polls, and tracking polls (taken over multiple days) show this is a popular vote cliff-hanger, with most likely a slight edge for Romney. This is certainly what Gallup and Rasmussen say.

I put weight on the state polls because of the larger sample sizes, shorter time span, and tighter result distribution. Based on those state polls, there is only a small chance that Romney will win. I also find all of the arguments against the polls to be unpersuasive - things like oversampling, intentional bias, or turnout models. These are factors that pollsters have tried to accommodate already, and I find no reason to think that every pollster out there, all of them, have conspired to show Romney losing consistently for a year. There are technical reasons why I disagree with the specific counter-arguments for why the polls are or are not wrong, and I have laid those out where appropriate.

Good luck. I am really sorry I am so obsessed with this. I make my living in statistical analysis and it's a hobby I enjoy looking at and applying to this election. I mentioned before but I have found the people at Princeton Electoral Consortium to be very transparent and their aggregation methods very strong statistically. If they are wrong (and me, by extension), it won't because of a technical flaw, it will be because poll aggregation as a whole is invalid.

Anonymous Noah B. November 04, 2012 4:13 PM  

"Right now the *best case* for Romney is the Rasmussen national poll, which shows the the race a dead-heat *popular vote wise*. Of course, this is not helpful since that vote is only an indicator of the race that matters, which is for electoral votes."

Even Rasmussen has seemed very hedgy about what likely voter model he is using and how exactly he is correcting for sampling errors. I saw him on Stossel's show the other night, and while he basically admitted that pollsters have a major sampling problem, he offered little insight as to how pollsters can reliably quantify the sampling error in a phone poll, given that so few people participate. He went so far as to say that in 2016, phone polls probably won't even be utilized.

It's hard to imagine that Rasmussen would be talking about the end of phone polling if phone polls were still working well.

Anonymous Josh November 04, 2012 5:17 PM  

Obama 275 Romney 263.

Romney gets back VA, NC, FL, CO, IA, and IN, but not OH.

Romney wins popular vote 50-49.

Anonymous jartstar November 04, 2012 5:20 PM  

I've been agreeing with the Romney victory, but not anymore. I see Obama winning 300+ EV. I go with the polls until they are proven wrong. If they are this election it will rewrite how to view and use presidential polls.

Anonymous Noah B. November 04, 2012 5:36 PM  

"If they are this election it will rewrite how to view and use presidential polls."

They were wrong in 2010 -- badly. Why do you still give them the benefit of the doubt?

Anonymous YIH November 04, 2012 5:41 PM  

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/romney-305-obama-233/.
The URL says it all...

Anonymous Noah B. November 04, 2012 5:45 PM  

My guess is the same map, except Minnesota goes for Obama. Romney 295, Obama 243.

Anonymous Noah B. November 04, 2012 5:49 PM  

Sorry, brain fart... same map, except Wisconsin goes for Romney and Pennsylvania goes for Obama. Romney 295, Obama 243.

Anonymous jartstar November 04, 2012 6:09 PM  

Noah,

Those weren't a presidential poll, but we will see come Tuesday. I'm anxious to see and you may be right.

Anonymous Daniel November 04, 2012 6:26 PM  

Aside from the armchairs who do it for fun, what do the professional polling places gain from guessing correctly? Answer: nothing. The money is in the licensing. The licensing goes to partisans. The partisans want to pay for good news. I think of polls as an example of an earnest malinvestment in truth production.

Thus, the majority of licensed polling always skews toward the people desperate enough for false hope to spend other people's money for it. In short: Democrats.

It's silly, really. Democrats have blind faith in fake numbers. Republicans have blind faith in fake principles.

Anonymous Noah B. November 04, 2012 6:29 PM  

"I'm anxious to see"

Yeah me too. There's no rational reason for it, but I still am. I just wish they could both lose.

Anonymous Rally November 04, 2012 8:50 PM  

My guess is that Silver ends up right, and Obama gets a 2nd term.

I don't doubt that the state polls are inaccurate, but I'm not convinced they are inaccurate in a way to be biased against Romney. The cell phone issue is a big one, but I think younger voters are more likely to be the folks without landlines, and the younger you are, the more likely you vote D.

The close senate races that Silver was off in 2010? He picked the tea parties, and the democrats won.

Blogger Nate November 04, 2012 9:18 PM  

Rally... that's not the bias that is important. Who is going to bother to vote. That is what is important.

Fact is... America is still conservative... much more so than liberal. And if the majority is motivated to go vote... then you can see a massive blowout happening.

Anonymous Vitus_Bering November 04, 2012 9:25 PM  

Romney - 286
Obama - 252

Anonymous Retrenched November 04, 2012 9:42 PM  

Josh @ 5:17pm has it right.

Anonymous Elmer Fudge (friend of Sexual Chocolate) November 04, 2012 10:26 PM  

If you agree with Porter Stansberrry, look to see not only a Barky second term, but an unprecedented (since FDR) third and fourth term. Notwithstanding Stansberry and "better than Mittens' hair" Altucher views, Joel Skousen has some interesting thoughts on the dollar, not unlike Stansberry.

If Skousen is correct about Mittens, if he even thinks about "pulling a Reagan," the JFK scenario will be outdone with explosives and collateral damage unimaginable by most. They could do it cleaner, but these guys are insane. They eat their own, and in the most detestable ways. After all, all these guys are related. Should we be so shocked?

The SEED

Pay special attention to this Skiba fellow. We have the makings of a George Lucas with a divinity degree. He knows how to use media, and ancient texts to devastating effect on secular humanity... (and this is a good thing)

If you think this guy is all wet, then prepare for Armageddon...

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box November 04, 2012 10:35 PM  

Do you think the established fact most people lie to exit pollsters has anything to do with it?

Anonymous Sexual Chocolate (friend of Elmer) November 04, 2012 10:46 PM  

To second Elmer, one asks just how is this done? In a word..

Deny Them!

Anonymous Anonymous November 05, 2012 12:28 AM  

Barone's analysis of the EV is pretty persuasive. The national/state poll difference has been the puzzle and the EV makes me think the state polls are the ones that are way off, the national polling slightly less so. Pennsylvania is always Lucy with the football for Republicans, but Michigan and Wisconsin pulling even today? That makes no sense unless the polls are way off. My guess is this is 2004 turnout, not 2008, and that is the problem with the polls. The Republican momentum is greatly underestimated. The Democrat energy just isn't there. So, Romney in a walk, no drama, and over 300.

Lana

Anonymous map November 05, 2012 12:52 AM  

DH -

"I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. It's especially full of irony since hte only person in the race to every outlaw a gun is Gov. Romney."

Why is it a bad move for Romney to disarm Massachusetts Dems and give them lousy healthcare? If Dems are your political enemies, then wouldn't you want them to destroy themselves?

Anonymous Cobre November 05, 2012 5:32 AM  

FWIW, VD was correct in 2008. Hillary basically won the nomination only to have it stolen from her by voter fraud in the caucus format. Still amuses me that the party was allowed by its constituents to just hand the nom to Obama with barely a peep (was less surprised that the Rs decided to hand over the Cherry Blossom Throne by running Bob Dole II).

My take on this election is whether or not the Buchanan types show up. Can they stomach mobilizing for a Mormon vs. can they stomach four more years of Obama. If that group shows and the youth base doesn't feel the tingle of participating in the groundswell of an "historic" vote like 2008, it's a done deal for Romney.

Blogger James Dixon November 05, 2012 9:19 AM  

> Got it, so making stuff up. Just so we are clear.

Like I said, you're free not to believe an eyewitness source if you want to. I lived through those elections. I don't need some statistical analysis to tell me what happened.

There has been systematic bias against republican candidates in the national polls as long as I've been following politics, which is from the early 70's.

The reasons for it can be argued, but the claiming that it doesn't exist is laughable to anyone who lived through the elections.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts