By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Is Romney actually leading in the polls or are some people delusional?

Flanneryaug on 02 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pollsters know that their job is to report with accuracy. If *all* the pollsters were getting it wrong, people would be losing their jobs. Even Wall Street Journal is showing Obama currently ahead in the polls.

The spin comes with how the polls are interpreted, but the raw data is not false.


The raw data isn't displayed. That's my point. Where is the inclusion of the breakdown of Republican, Democrat, Independent voters? Without this, the statistics are meaningless.

And the pollsters do get it wrong, quite often, actually. Look at the polling services rankings from 2008. Some projections are hilariously incorrect. I think Rasmussen was most reliable.

Rasmussen is the most unreliable poll, and is much more favorable towards republicans. The fact is that since the 2010 elections less people are calling themselves republican, and more are calling themselves democrats. 



Nintendo Network ID: Flanneryaug

Friend Code: 4699 - 6552 - 3671

Add me! :)

Around the Network
mrstickball on 02 October 2012
Flanneryaug said:
dsgrue3 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pollsters know that their job is to report with accuracy. If *all* the pollsters were getting it wrong, people would be losing their jobs. Even Wall Street Journal is showing Obama currently ahead in the polls.

The spin comes with how the polls are interpreted, but the raw data is not false.


The raw data isn't displayed. That's my point. Where is the inclusion of the breakdown of Republican, Democrat, Independent voters? Without this, the statistics are meaningless.

And the pollsters do get it wrong, quite often, actually. Look at the polling services rankings from 2008. Some projections are hilariously incorrect. I think Rasmussen was most reliable.

Rasmussen is the most unreliable poll, and is much more favorable towards republicans. The fact is that since the 2010 elections less people are calling themselves republican, and more are calling themselves democrats. 

Got a citation for them being very unreliable? They had the 2008 election down to the exact percentage.

Here's a list of 2008 polls. Rasmeussen was tied for #1:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

killerzX on 02 October 2012
Flanneryaug said:
dsgrue3 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pollsters know that their job is to report with accuracy. If *all* the pollsters were getting it wrong, people would be losing their jobs. Even Wall Street Journal is showing Obama currently ahead in the polls.

The spin comes with how the polls are interpreted, but the raw data is not false.


The raw data isn't displayed. That's my point. Where is the inclusion of the breakdown of Republican, Democrat, Independent voters? Without this, the statistics are meaningless.

And the pollsters do get it wrong, quite often, actually. Look at the polling services rankings from 2008. Some projections are hilariously incorrect. I think Rasmussen was most reliable.

Rasmussen is the most unreliable poll, and is much more favorable towards republicans. The fact is that since the 2010 elections less people are calling themselves republican, and more are calling themselves democrats. 


ummm... rasmussen was shown to be the most accurate.



HappySqurriel on 02 October 2012
insomniac17 said:
My understanding is that many polls that have Obama out in front with a large lead are using the 2008 model of voter turnout. Many Republicans find that absurd, because they don't think that the Democrats are nearly as excited as they were in the last election, and they also think that Republicans are more energized. So they have a problem with how the data is extrapolated.

It is actually worse than that ...

The best the Democrats have ever done was in 2008 where the had voter turnout (something like) 7% higher than Republicans; many of the polsters are assuming a Democrat turnout that is (something like) 10% to 15% higher than Republicans.

The polls will (most likely) turn out to be wrong, but it is difficult to say whether Mit Romney is in the lead or just not losing by as much as their polls indicate he is.



nuckles87 on 02 October 2012

What the losing side ALWAYS does is blame the polls. This isn't a symptom of the polls perhaps being wrong: they aren't. This is a symptom of desperation from republicans as they see another election slip through their fingers. I saw this in 2010 with Democrats, and 2008 and 06 with Republicans.

Fivethirtyeight gives Romney a 14% chance of victory. At this point in the election, something unprecedented will need to happen for Romney to win.



Around the Network
the2real4mafol on 02 October 2012

Nah Mitt can't be leading, the poll must be biased. But, it does seem depending on who does the poll, it is biased against the other party. Also, the polls don't even ask everyone, so I don't really trust it



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

Flanneryaug on 02 October 2012
killerzX said:
Flanneryaug said:
dsgrue3 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pollsters know that their job is to report with accuracy. If *all* the pollsters were getting it wrong, people would be losing their jobs. Even Wall Street Journal is showing Obama currently ahead in the polls.

The spin comes with how the polls are interpreted, but the raw data is not false.


The raw data isn't displayed. That's my point. Where is the inclusion of the breakdown of Republican, Democrat, Independent voters? Without this, the statistics are meaningless.

And the pollsters do get it wrong, quite often, actually. Look at the polling services rankings from 2008. Some projections are hilariously incorrect. I think Rasmussen was most reliable.

Rasmussen is the most unreliable poll, and is much more favorable towards republicans. The fact is that since the 2010 elections less people are calling themselves republican, and more are calling themselves democrats. 


ummm... rasmussen was shown to be the most accurate.

I never said that it wasn't accurate, I mean that it is unreliable in telling who is ahead right now because they are national polls. This election is mostly focused on the swing states, where Obama is ahead by a decent magin.



Nintendo Network ID: Flanneryaug

Friend Code: 4699 - 6552 - 3671

Add me! :)

nuckles87 on 02 October 2012
killerzX said:
Flanneryaug said:
dsgrue3 said:
Mr Khan said:
Pollsters know that their job is to report with accuracy. If *all* the pollsters were getting it wrong, people would be losing their jobs. Even Wall Street Journal is showing Obama currently ahead in the polls.

The spin comes with how the polls are interpreted, but the raw data is not false.


The raw data isn't displayed. That's my point. Where is the inclusion of the breakdown of Republican, Democrat, Independent voters? Without this, the statistics are meaningless.

And the pollsters do get it wrong, quite often, actually. Look at the polling services rankings from 2008. Some projections are hilariously incorrect. I think Rasmussen was most reliable.

Rasmussen is the most unreliable poll, and is much more favorable towards republicans. The fact is that since the 2010 elections less people are calling themselves republican, and more are calling themselves democrats. 


ummm... rasmussen was shown to be the most accurate.


No, they weren't.

 

While 2000 was generally a fairly rough year for pollsters, who had to deal with an unenthusiastic electorate, some third-party challengers, and some late-breaking developments like Bush's DUI charge, Rasmussen was the worst of the lot, missing by an average of 5.7 points. They also called 7 states wrong.** Some of this was the result of bias, as they were 3.5 points too high on Bush's margin in the states they surveyed, on average.

Although Rasmussen has certainly gotten a lot of things right, their high pollster rating was mostly based on their strong performance in 2004 and 2006. Their rating is likely to go down now that we've found their 2000 data, and are adding in the 2008 data, when their performance was mediocre.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html


That was during 2010. After the 2010 mid-terms, Nate Silver had this to say about Ras:

"Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly."
     [P]olls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Rasmussen had an average error of 5.8 points, with a pro republican bias of 3.9 points in 2010.


And keep in mind, this was a year when Republicans made HISTORIC gains in every state across the country. Rasmussen STILL showed a Republican bias.



Tigerlure on 02 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
chocoloco said:
Yes, they are delusional. There is a guaranteed win for Obama unless he screws up badly in the debates. Obama now has Ohio pretty strongly and Republicans have never won without Ohio. Republicans are keeping a positive face because they have to when everything is showing they will lose and probably badly.

First debate in Colorado hopefully swings us to the left more as Colorado has shifted more liberal in the last two elections with two Democrats as governors and having the legislative branch being controlled by liberals as well.


Can't wait to rub this post in your face. Carter/Reagan all over again. The polling services, as has been mentioned in other post, are oversampling democrats which is skewing the polls. Rasmussen, the most accurate polling service for the past 25 years has Obama leading, but by a mere 1%. If you feel so confident in an Obama victory, I challenge you to stay home on election day.

Did you really say Rasmussen is the most accurate polling service? A known pollster that leans Republican? 

 

The most accurate polls came from http://realclearpolitics.com and http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com . 

Here's an article on how Rasmussen was off in 2010. 

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Face it, Mitt Romney is losing. While the race is not out of reach, he'd better do something to turn the polls around, and do it fast.

 

Edit: nuckles definitely beat me to it. 



dsgrue3 on 02 October 2012

Both of you cited Rasmussen on Congressional polls, NOT presidential polls - where Rasmussen has been at the forefront of accuracy.

I am definitely skeptical of Rasmussen after 2010, but citing Real Clear Politics is hilarious. That's an average of the polls from the most popular media outlets (which, have proven themselves to largely favor Democrats). It has become the media of bias and propaganda to the highest bidder and makes it nearly impossible to find unbiased sources.

I agree that Obama may be leading in actuality, but it is a razor thin lead if any.

If you are supporting Obama in this election, I would love to hear your rationalization behind it. (Genuine curiosity)