U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Daelak]

I'm a professional statistician. Your assessment is based on ignorance. I have seen the way the sausage is made on the inside, and D+13 sampling corrections when the enthusiasm gap is R+13 is bologna. It isn't my fault that the recent polling is leaving you a sad panda. Cowboy up, pardner.

But come on. Do you really think that one debate is enough to give Romney...
+12 points among likely voters?
+18 points among women voters?
+8 points among middle class voters?
+6 points among poor voters?
+9 points in perceived "most honest candidate"?

From one debate? Do you really think that? Or maybe - just MAYBE - could the problem really be that the previous polls sampled D+13 in an era of R+13 voter enthusiasm? Derp... :P

It is from one poll, not the aggregate of all the data since the debate. Go to Pew's website and check for yourself. If you consider yourself a "professional" statistician, why are you leaning on one poll to justify your argument that every polling firm has been oversampling and falsifying data for the past two months?

[ptwonline]

I'm a professional statistician. Your assessment is based on ignorance. I have seen the way the sausage is made on the inside, and D+13 sampling corrections when the enthusiasm gap is R+13 is bologna. It isn't my fault that the recent polling is leaving you a sad panda. Cowboy up, pardner.

But come on. Do you really think that one debate is enough to give Romney...
+12 points among likely voters?
+18 points among women voters?
+8 points among middle class voters?
+6 points among poor voters?
+9 points in perceived "most honest candidate"?

From one debate? Do you really think that? Or maybe - just MAYBE - could the problem really be that the previous polls sampled D+13 in an era of R+13 voter enthusiasm? Derp... :P

If you looked at past polling results after debates, the answer to your questions would be "yes, easily".

Nobody should pay too much attention to polls immediately after bigger political events--conventions, debates, etc. Bounces always happen and then usually things go back towards what they were before that event.

[Lenonis]

*snip*

Yeah, so when you are willing to have a discussion that isn't dripping in condescension and patronization I'll be happy to re-engage with you. Also, work on your reading comprehension.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 09:52 AM ----------

Nobody should pay too much attention to polls immediately after bigger political events--conventions, debates, etc. Bounces always happen and then usually things go back towards what they were before that event.

Yeah, there's a spike then things settle down. Sometimes to where they were before, sometimes to a new baseline. Although the RNC didn't result in much of a bump, which was unusual.

[Puremallace]

The new big bird campaign video on youtube is HILARIOUS

[cubby]

I'm a professional statistician. Your assessment is based on ignorance. I have seen the way the sausage is made on the inside, and D+13 sampling corrections when the enthusiasm gap is R+13 is bologna. It isn't my fault that the recent polling is leaving you a sad panda. Cowboy up, pardner.

But come on. Do you really think that one debate is enough to give Romney...
+12 points among likely voters?
+18 points among women voters?
+8 points among middle class voters?
+6 points among poor voters?
+9 points in perceived "most honest candidate"?

From one debate? Do you really think that? Or maybe - just MAYBE - could the problem really be that the previous polls sampled D+13 in an era of R+13 voter enthusiasm? Derp... :P

What does the last part refer to? The D+13 and R+13 - I don't know what those refer to or in what context they are being used. Could you explain for me?

[Masark]

What does the last part refer to? The D+13 and R+13 - I don't know what those refer to or in what context they are being used. Could you explain for me?

D+13 or R+13 indicates that democrats or republicans are ahead by 13% in the poll (e.g. 56.5% to 43.5%)

[Wells]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....tion-away.html

OK - Andy Sullivan is no Romney fan. He's about as far left as you get, and the Daily Beast is no right-wing website. In this article Sullivan is saying that the result of the debate is either Romney getting a huge boost, or Obama taking a huge hit (whichever way you prefer).

My opinion is quite different. Sullivan is fretting that Obama lost tons of points as the result of just ONE debate. I don't think that's what happened at all. Every one of the polls taken before the debate had D+13 sample, or D+11 sample, or D+9 sample. My opinion is that Obama has been behind Romney for weeks, possibly months, and that the polling was ginned up to make it look like he was doing better than he really was.

There is simply no way that the polls could swing that much that quickly. The only reason I can see for such radical swings is that the polling sucks and they need to change their idiotic sampling methodology to be more like what Rassmussen does. Republicans have a 13 point "enthusiasm gap" over Democrats, and they they keep polling as if Democrats had a +9 enthusiasm gap as if this was 2008. They really should be using the 2010 figures as the correction method if they want to be anywhere in the ballpark.

In short - the polling sucks and I don't think any of them are anywhere close to being on target yet. These "6+ week out" polls are garbage.

Oh - and a new Romney Infographic about Obama's Post-Debate habits... Priceless.

http://www.gop.com/wp-content/upload...Communications

If you were actually a professional statistician you'd know that polls are weighted for sample make up.

[cubby]

D+13 or R+13 indicates that democrats or republicans are ahead by 13% in the poll (e.g. 56.5% to 43.5%)

Gotcha. What does "enthusiasm gap" refer to then? Or is Riddler just blowing smoke?

[Wells]

Gotcha. What does "enthusiasm gap" refer to then? Or is Riddler just blowing smoke?

Its literally how excited registered partisans are to vote for their side.

[Felya420]

Gotcha. What does "enthusiasm gap" refer to then? Or is Riddler just blowing smoke?

They ask you how enthusiastic you are about the choice you made on a scale. What Riddler is saying, is that if the enthusiasm was measured properly, Romney would be winning. He is saying that people like me who will say they are the least enthusiastic to be voting for Obama, should count as less than a person who is extremley enthusiastic for voting against Obama, even if that's Romney.

[Beavis]

What does the last part refer to? The D+13 and R+13 - I don't know what those refer to or in what context they are being used. Could you explain for me?

The P +X describes a sampling methodology to simulate turnout. A D+13 sample supposes that Democrats would have a 13% turnout advantage over Republicans, so registered Democrats are sampled at a higher rate than registered Republicans.

I'm loathe to agree with the Riddler, but it's kind of dicey methodologically. If there's strong reason to believe that a given party will have a turnout advantage in line with the sampling weight, then a P +X sample will probably mirror the population. On the other hand, if there's not a strong reason to believe in a turnout advantage, then the pollster is just distorting the sample.

[Felya420]

The P +X describes a sampling methodology to simulate turnout. A D+13 sample supposes that Democrats would have a 13% turnout advantage over Republicans, so registered Democrats are sampled at a higher rate than registered Republicans.

I'm loathe to agree with the Riddler, but it's kind of dicey methodologically.

I guess I was wrong.

Is he saying that only the demographics that Obama leads by over 13 points are actually ones he is winning and the rest are result of wrong turn around differential applied?

Does this mean Romney has 13% of the African American vote?

[KingHorse]

When you start with this:

I wish I could put into words how bad I hate independent voters.

It's reasonable to assume that this is going to be a lie:

He are some facts if Romney gets elected:

And it did not disappoint.

[Felya420]

When you start with this:

It's reasonable to assume that this is going to be a lie:

And it did not disappoint.

What did he lie about? You know what they say about assumptions. Maybe you misunderstood him?

[KingHorse]

What did he lie about? You know what they say about assumptions. Maybe you misunderstood him?

The list of "facts" that aren't facts.

[Felya420]

The list of "facts" that aren't facts.

I figured that much out. I was looking for what you specifically find wrong. Like I said, there might have been a misunderstanding, which would lead to a discussion. What are the facts that counter his assertion?

Would this be solved if he added that these 'facts' are maters of his opinion? You aren't just arguing semantics of how he used the word fact?

[Grizzly Willy]

When you start with this:



It's reasonable to assume that this is going to be a lie:



And it did not disappoint.

Did a confused head tilt when I read Puremallace's post.

[Wells]

A lot of his predictions are fairly reasonable.

[Madd77]

I love how our nations hate spreaders (mahr, hannity, rush and the like) have polarized the nation with easily disproved lies.

[Felya420]

Did a confused head tilt when I read Puremallace's post.

He 'fusedmasses' that a lot, but I think he is close to right on at least a couple.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 06:07 PM ----------

A lot of his predictions are fairly reasonable.

That's why I want to see why it's wrong. I think there s good discussion to be had. I just hope it's not just him saying 'fact' instead of 'opinion'. That would be lame...