Romney vs. Obama

[PassedOut]

i don't think so... all are weighted to some degree or other... the prob is, a lot of the "famous" polls are weighting their samples with historically large democratic turnout...

Not really. Many do not select for party at all, as that is part of what they are trying to measure: One certain forecast in U.S. poll dispute: more acrimony ahead

 

The debate over polls intensified on Wednesday, when a trend of improving numbers for Obama solidified. A Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS poll in particular drew protests for giving Obama big leads in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

 

Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University polling institute, said Quinnipiac's samples were random.

 

Quinnipiac, like most pollsters, does not choose who it will interview based on party affiliation.

 

If a certain percentage of respondents are Democrats, then that is just because it has turned out that way, Brown said.

 

"Our numbers are based on a random sample," he said. "We get what we get."

 

Some conservatives agree reluctantly that, overall, the polls are not going in Romney's favor.

 

"I've been in politics long enough to know that the louder one side gets complaining about the polls, the more likely it is that this is the side that, in reality, actually is losing," conservative commentator Erick Erickson, who runs the RedState blog, wrote on Thursday.

But I too find it hard to accept the 4:1 odds, especially before the first presidential debate. Romney has been preparing diligently for weeks.

[kenberg]

Maybe the 4:1, and even higher, should be understood this way: Romney basically can't win on his own. Some major event is necessary, for example Israel nukes Iran, or terrorists blow up a major dam, or something, and then the election is a scramble with uncertain outcome

 

Why can't Romney win on his own? Well, so far he has been a disappointment even to his fans, but that could change. I think that the real reason is that people remember who was president when everything began to collapse. It is said that after four years, Obama cannot still blame Bush. There is some truth to that, but really Obama doesn't have to say a word. (A politician is incapable of not saying a word, but that's another story). Many people don't follow politics all that closely. I pay more attention than some, and I started earlier than some, being a Stevenson supporter in 1952. Still I am not prepared to give a seminar on politics, most people are not, but they do remember who was in power when it all started going south, and it will take some time to get over that. Back in the forties I was listening to the radio and some comic, Bob Hope I think, needed an expression for a really long time. He selected "until the Republicans get back into the White House". Even as a little ten year old, I understood.

[mike777]

I guess I will blame the economists.

 

I mean is there any macroconomist or macroeconomists that we can even point too or is every one a microeconomist.

 

 

econ majors feel freed to pipe in....:)

[hrothgar]

I guess I will blame the economists.

 

I mean is there any macroconomist or macroeconomists that we can even point too or is every one a microeconomist.

 

 

Blame the economists for what?

[kenberg]

Blame the economists for what?

 

Doesn't matter, just blame them. Not being an economist, this sounds good to me.

[luke warm]

I pay more attention than some, and I started earlier than some, being a Stevenson supporter in 1952.

my favorite stevenson story: prior to a debate (or speech, not sure which) he said that he had to use the restroom and asked how long he had before the debate started... upon being told "5 minutes" he asked, "do i have enough time?"

[PassedOut]

i don't think so... all are weighted to some degree or other... the prob is, a lot of the "famous" polls are weighting their samples with historically large democratic turnout...

It seems that many folks have that same mistaken impression. Here is an article from yesterday's WSJ: Political Perceptions: Can the Polls Be Trusted?

 

In one of the more thorough efforts to set the record straight, Gallup’s editor in chief, Frank Newport, dove into the brewing spat last week with a piece that explains how party identification is a fluid concept that shifts just as the popularity of candidates shifts.

 

“Data showing that Obama is ahead on the ballot in a specific state poll and that Democrats have a higher-than-expected representation on the party identification question,” he wrote, “are basically just reflecting two measures of the same underlying phenomenon.”

 

Many casual consumers of polling data think pollsters begin with a preconception of what the voting population should look like in terms of the proportion of Republicans and Democrats, and then weight their poll findings accordingly. Mr. Newport’s point is that it’s exactly the other way around: That party identification—“Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican or an independent?”—is itself a poll finding.

Of course Scott Rasmussen is the exception who does weight polls by declared party affiliation and who excludes voters who have only cell phones. Republicans this year seem to like his reports. Not enough to bet big money though, it seems...

[luke warm]

Of course Scott Rasmussen is the exception who does weight polls by declared party affiliation and who excludes voters who have only cell phones. Republicans this year seem to like his reports. Not enough to bet big money though, it seems...

i'll look thru this more, later... i believe personally that the very fact of poll demographics weighs heavily on the results... what kind of odds your giving?

[kenberg]

The OP by PassedOut referred to Nate Silver's blog, Today Silver has Romney behind by a touchdown with time running out:

http://fivethirtyeig...own/#more-35344

 

So is it time for a Hail Mary? Otherwise put, what will happen on Wednesday? What must Romney do?

 

Romney's "I like to fire people" is regularly deplored, but I think the criticism is mis-directed. Really he said something along the lines of "I like to fire people who are not doing their jobs". Who doesn't? But this obvious business assessment is not enough. No one cared that Bush had an MBA while Lehman Bros was collapsing.

 

The problem is that running a corporation and leading the country are entirely different tasks, and the people have a good sense of this in their collective gut. Romney might deplore my performance as a citizen of this country, but he cannot fire me. Perhaps he can lead, perhaps he can persuade, but he cannot fire me.

 

The Republican Convention was (to pursue Silver's analogy) an incomplete pass at best. On Wednesday, Romney must establish himself as a leader, someone we will trust to call the plays, otherwise he may as well concede the game.

[y66]

Blame the economists for what?

We can blame economists on the Obama team for this.

 

By any measure, Mr. Obama and his team faced a tremendously difficult task. They inherited the worst economy in 70 years, as well as an opposition party that was dedicated to limiting the administration to one term and that fought attempts at additional action in 2010 and 2011. And the administration can rightly claim to have performed better than many other governments around the world.

 

But their claim on having done as well as could reasonably have been expected — to have avoided major mistakes — is hard to accept. They considered the possibility of a long, slow recovery and rejected it.

Even Paul Krugman, who imo has been pretty much dead on from day one in his assessment of the severity of this crisis and what it would take to keep it from dragging on for a decade says

 

My bottom line is that we as a profession faced the crucial test of our lives — and by and large we failed and continue to fail. It’s not a happy story.

[billw55]

The problem is that running a corporation and leading the country are entirely different tasks, and the people have a good sense of this in their collective gut.

I agree, which is why "candidates" like Herman Cain and Donald Trump have no chance. The voters know that experience in government matters. Well, maybe they do; I remain shocked that Ross Perot got so many votes.

[PassedOut]

We can blame economists on the Obama team for this.

Good article. Thanks for the link.

[mike777]

Where Have All the Macroeconomists Gone?

 

 

Justin Wolfers

03/27/2008 | 2:59 pm

 

A reporter friend of mine recently asked me for a short list of academic economists he should call to better understand the current financial and economic mess. I found it a more difficult question than it should be.

 

It really has been quite striking how silent most economists have been in this hour of need. There are, of course, a few notable exceptions. Paul Krugman’s blog has been an interesting source of insight, and his recent column provides the clearest explanation of our current difficulties I have seen. Doug Elmendorf at Brookings has provided some very insightful....

 

 

 

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/03/27/where-have-all-the-macroeconomists-gone/

[MickyB]

Any guesses why Romney's probability of winning has increased a fair bit on Intrade the past 48 hours, despite 538 and Betfair showing no similar trend?

[luke warm]

Any guesses why Romney's probability of winning has increased a fair bit on Intrade the past 48 hours, despite 538 and Betfair showing no similar trend?

despite some posts above, a lot of people are beginning to see a difference in polls that are weighted a little more conservatively (i.e., those w/ D+4 rather than D+9), especially when those polls are limited to likely voters, rather than all voters... there's also the fact that carter, at this same point in the campaign, was leading reagan by a goodly margin - and ended up at the bottom of a landslide

[mike777]

expect more early voting compared to 1980, not sure how much there was back then.

 

Some states will have 30-50% of the votes in before election day.

 

I note Rasmussen has about 105 votes as toss up..if they all go for the President he has the same result as 538.

 

Obama: 237 - Romney: 196 - Toss-up: 105

[Cthulhu D]

The OP by PassedOut referred to Nate Silver's blog, Today Silver has Romney behind by a touchdown with time running out:

http://fivethirtyeig...own/#more-35344

 

So is it time for a Hail Mary? Otherwise put, what will happen on Wednesday? What must Romney do?

 

Romney's "I like to fire people" is regularly deplored, but I think the criticism is mis-directed. Really he said something along the lines of "I like to fire people who are not doing their jobs". Who doesn't? But this obvious business assessment is not enough. No one cared that Bush had an MBA while Lehman Bros was collapsing.

 

The problem is that running a corporation and leading the country are entirely different tasks, and the people have a good sense of this in their collective gut. Romney might deplore my performance as a citizen of this country, but he cannot fire me. Perhaps he can lead, perhaps he can persuade, but he cannot fire me.

 

The Republican Convention was (to pursue Silver's analogy) an incomplete pass at best. On Wednesday, Romney must establish himself as a leader, someone we will trust to call the plays, otherwise he may as well concede the game.

 

I thought the Republican replacement Refs strategy was well documented.

[cherdano]

I note Rasmussen has about 105 votes as toss up..if they all go for the President he has the same result as 538.

 

Obama: 237 - Romney: 196 - Toss-up: 105

 

I think Rasmussen is just full of *****. I bet closer to election day, his results will move in nicely with the polling consensus so he can claim to have been accurate in 2012.

[luke warm]

I think Rasmussen is just full of *****. I bet closer to election day, his results will move in nicely with the polling consensus so he can claim to have been accurate in 2012.

he's doing it the same as he always has, and his results have been pretty good, especially when compared to abc, cbs, nbc, nyt, and wapo... gallup and pew do well also

[cherdano]

he's doing it the same as he always has, and his results have been pretty good, especially when compared to abc, cbs, nbc, nyt, and wapo... gallup and pew do well also

 

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/is-poll-scientific-if-it-excludes-more.html

 

Blast from Rasmussen's Past

 

Anyway, the point is that I can create an extremely good track record as a pollster by just making stuff up while we are far away from the election, and publishing results equal to the average of all other pollsters close to the election.

I am not actually suggesting that Rasmussen makes stuff up. But he won't correct flaws in his methods as long as the results tell the story he wants to tell at the moment.

[luke warm]

Anyway, the point is that I can create an extremely good track record as a pollster by just making stuff up while we are far away from the election, and publishing results equal to the average of all other pollsters close to the election.

I am not actually suggesting that Rasmussen makes stuff up. But he won't correct flaws in his methods as long as the results tell the story he wants to tell at the moment.

i posted the rankings from 2008 above, so i don't know if you're disputing those or not... it's actually all about resunts, at the end of the day - whose poll does better is the only thing that matters... but all you really have to do is look at the polls for NC, where they show R and O both at 48%... problem is, those have a D+14 survey... now i guess it's possible 14% more dems than reps will turn out in NC, but pretend for a moment that only 4% - 5% do... anyone can see that such (far more possible) a thing changes the whole race

 

i don't believe these pollsters are purposely skewing their samples in order to depress the R vote, as some do, making it sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.... it's likely they truly believe in what they're doing... only time will tell if they were correct to do so

[PassedOut]

i don't believe these pollsters are purposely skewing their samples in order to depress the R vote, as some do

Poll: 71 Percent Of Republicans Think Pollsters Are Skewing Results To Help Obama

B-)

[luke warm]

Poll: 71 Percent Of Republicans Think Pollsters Are Skewing Results To Help Obama

B-)

hence my "as some do"

[lalldonn]

Poll: 71 Percent Of Republicans Think Pollsters Are Skewing Results To Help Obama

B-)

As Stephen Colbert once said, reality has a liberal bias.

[y66]

Voter ID Rules Fail Court Tests Across Country

By ETHAN BRONNER

 

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday blocked the key component of a highly contested state law requiring strict photographic identification to vote in next month’s election, saying the authorities had not done enough to ensure that voters had access to the new documents.

 

The result, that Pennsylvanians will not have to present a state-approved ID to vote in November, was the latest and most significant in a series of legal victories for those opposed to laws that they charge would limit access to polls in this presidential election. With only a month left until Election Day, disputes around the country over new voter ID requirements, early voting, provisional ballots and registration drives are looking far less significant.

 

“Every voter restriction that has been challenged this year has been either enjoined, blocked or weakened,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice, which is part of the New York University School of Law and opposes such restrictions. “It has been an extraordinary string of victories for those opposing these laws.”

 

Voter ID laws have been taken off the table in Texas and Wisconsin. The Justice Department has blocked such a law in South Carolina, which has appealed in federal court. In Florida and Ohio, early voting and voter-registration drives have been largely restored. New Hampshire is going ahead with its law, but voters who do not have the required document will be permitted to vote and have a month to verify their identity.

 

Strict voter ID laws remain in Kansas, Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee, but they are not seen as battleground states. And while Pennsylvania seems likely to institute a version of its law in the coming year, it will not affect this election.

 

Democracy is making a comeback.