The recent Gallup poll placed Romney 7 points ahead of Obama - completely out of line with other polls and surveys. So I wondered if I could get more information on the results. Here's a link that provides some more detailed information on recent Gallup Presidential polls: http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2b2012.aspx. I found this one (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-...) particularly interesting. Scroll down to the table that compares 2008 to 2012 results.So if you look at the Oct 9-15, 2012 results by region, Obama beats Romney by at least 4 points in the East, the West, and the Midwest. Romney only wins in the South, but by 22 points there. This poll results not only seems to be completely out of line with other polls, but considering how Presidents are elected, appears completely meaningless. Gallup must realize this is a nonsense result. I wonder if they publicized this just to get publicity - even if they undermine their credibility once the election is held.
This poll results not only seems to be completely out of line with other polls, but considering how Presidents are elected, appears completely meaningless. Gallup must realize this is a nonsense result. I wonder if they publicized this just to get publicity - even if they undermine their credibility once the election is held.The way polls are reported and consumed by the public is a peeve of mine. As you point out, a simple national poll tells us very little about who is likely to be president. Also, polls will--and should be expected to--vary from the true value. If one poll tends to be an outlier, it probably is. Gallup's likely voter poll tends to favor Romney more than other organizations, even Rasmussen. This raises a red flag that there might be a problem with Gallup's methodology. But that still really doesn't matter because the president is elected by the electoral college and not the popular vote. If you want to know what is going on, the only sensible way to do it is to look at the state polls and add up the electoral votes. Nate Silver is the most famous guy who does this, but there are others IMO who are even better. This guy for example:http://votamatic.org/And you can even take a crack at it yourself. If you look at the states who are likely to fall for Obama and add up the electoral votes, Obama wins a decent margin. That has been true all summer and fall. Romney has never been very close. However "Romney Not Very Close Again Today" isn't an attention grabbing headline, so we hear about the close to meaningless Gallup national poll. Over the past while, I've made some posts called "Wingnut Madness" that documents the innumeracy of our friends on the other side of the aisle, especially in regards to polling. They don't understand what polls mean or how to interpret them. So kike mankind has done from time immemorial, they create fairy tales to explain things they can't understand. The true answers are right there in front of them, they just can't be bothered.Here's another one in the Wingnut Madness series. Noted wingnut blogger Matt K. Lewis at the Daily Caller wrote an article called "Nate Silver vs. the world." Wingnuts have developed that theory that Nate Silver must be a Democratic operative because he's predicting Obama will win. But empirical evidence suggests the race is actually close. At the time of this writing, Real Clear Politics poll average has Romney up .1 percent.)So why hasn't Silver adjusted accordingly?http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/nate-silver-vs-the-world/#... Because the election ain't decided by the national vote, that's why. We all learned that in fifth grade civics, right? But Lewis answers the question by concluding that Silver must a liar. Instead of looking at Silver's webpage and seeing how he calculates the odds. Lewis comes up with a conspiracy theory to fill in the gaps based on his own astonishing ignorance of the American political system. Mind you, this idiot is considered a bright light among wingnut journalists.
If Gallup is wrong, it won't be the first time.http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1948.htmlPF
sykesix: Mind you, this idiot is considered a bright light among wingnut journalists.Well, you finally got to the meat of the problem--wingnut journalists.Thanks for that post and that website. I love Nate Silver but am always glad to see another sensible pollster. Did you notice that http://votamatic.org/ actually has Obama winning by a much bigger margin in the electoral college over Nate Silver's prediction? Interesting. And he shows only 2 true swing states right now, North Carolina and Florida. Even if you give those to Romney, Obama wins by quite a bit.I hope all that crazy talk about Romney ahead by 7 percentage points nationally lights a fire under some Democrats. We could use a little more enthusiasm.
Let's hope a new legend of “Give ‘Em Hell, Barry!” is born. BTW your link was to the school one of my daughter's went to. She got 2 degrees from Kennesaw State University. It is also the school Gingrich got in trouble over finances and some course he was touting (teaching?).
lindytoes writes,Thanks for that post and that website. I love Nate Silver but am always glad to see another sensible pollster. Did you notice that http://votamatic.org/ actually has Obama winning by a much bigger margin in the electoral college over Nate Silver's prediction? Interesting. And he shows only 2 true swing states right now, North Carolina and Florida. Even if you give those to Romney, Obama wins by quite a bit.</snip>votamatic hasn't been undated in two weeks. It likely doesn't include the affect of the first debate when Obama got smoked. It actually matches up pretty closely to Nate Silver's pre-debates high water mark for Obama.intercst
The first Presidential debate was October 3 and that post was dated October 10. Also, in the right hand corner it says updated October 21. That doesn't mean that he did a complete analysis, but I did wonder why he had so many electoral votes going to Obama, so I believed he had not done a real update. But still, it was a whole week after the 1st debate. Why did he post that?
BTW your link was to the school one of my daughter's went to. She got 2 degrees from Kennesaw State University. It is also the school Gingrich got in trouble over finances and some course he was touting (teaching?).Fun fact on Kennesaw:http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htmKennesaw, Georgia, passed a law in 1982 that every head of household had to own a gun with ammunition. It was done in response to another city in Illinois passing a law prohibiting gun ownership within the city limits.When we moved to Georgia in 1991, we told the Realtor not to take us anywhere near that town. YMMV, of course.Chili
"Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law in 1982 that every head of household had to own a gun with ammunition. It was done in response to another city in Illinois passing a law prohibiting gun ownership within the city limits. When we moved to Georgia in 1991, we told the Realtor not to take us anywhere near that town. YMMV, of course." - Chili Yah, that wouldn't have been a problem for me. I all ready own guns. I don't own a pistol but I do own a small shotgun and 22 rifle. I like shooting stuff and eating it. My idea of a good time. Art
“A new Gallup poll shows that Mitt Romney now has a 7 point lead on President Obama. That’s right, Romney leads by 7 points among people who still answer landline calls from a blocked number.” – Seth Meyers
I like these guyswww.electoral-vote.com - Liberal slantwww.electionprojection.com - Conservatice slantThey both seem to do a pretty good job.
Paul Krugman weighs in on the wingnut madness phenomenon:Yet the right — and we’re not talking about the fringe here, we’re talking about mainstream commentators and publications — has been screaming “bias”! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books. How do they know this? Well, his results look good for Obama, so it must be a cheat. Never mind the fact that Nate tells us all exactly how he does it, and that he hasn’t changed the formula at all.This is, of course, reminiscent of the attack on the Bureau of Labor Statistics — not to mention the attacks on climate science and much more. On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.This is really scary. It means that if these people triumph, science — or any kind of scholarship — will become impossible. Everything must pass a political test; if it isn’t what the right wants to hear, the messenger is subjected to a smear campaign.http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/the-war-on-objec...
My, you guys are surprised when politicians sling BS?Just for the sake of balance, here an example on Obama bullslinging:<< Three years ago, Obama was singing a different tune when it came to bankruptcy. “I know that when people even hear the word ‘bankruptcy,’ it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean,” Obama told worried auto workers in 2009, when he announced that hemight take GM and Chrysler bankrupt — as indeed happened weeks later. Bankruptcy, the president said, is simply a “tool that we can use” to “make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success.” It is not, Obama insisted, “a process where a company is simply broken up, sold off, and no longer exists.” >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-a-thiessen-will-...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |