RCP Electoral Map Thread

[kojo]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ically-biased/

Fallacy? Well do YOU believe there is something different about this election or not (the vast polls all being fundamentally off)?What exactly did he say in that article here that doesn't jive with you?

[Haloti92]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ically-biased/

Fallacy? Well do YOU believe there is something different about this election or not (the vast polls all being fundamentally off)?What exactly did he say in that article here that doesn't jive with you?

I am not sure what you think "doesn't jive" with what I said. I told you I already read Silver's take, in fact I described exactly what it says. I am not sure what you have a problem with here? Silver admits that he will be wrong if the polls are wrong, which is what I said. He says that the odds of the polls being wrong are the odds he gives Romney of winning, which I already agreed with. He says that he is basing the odds the polls are wrong off of historical poll data and results.

But this last step is the whole ball of wax. How many pollsters were there in 1976 vs today (Silver uses polls from 1968 on)? How many cell phones? Caller ID? Month or more long early voting windows that distort likely voter samples? African-American incumbents? This much partisanship? Blogs and Twitter? As much media bias? Elections 2 years after the biggest reversal the House has seen? Elections after an unpopular healthcare law was passed? The point is, these pollsters are in uncharted territory.

And frankly I don't see how the two to three pollsters from 1972 that called on rotary phones during the evening news (shown on the three broadcast TV channels at the time) and their results should even enter the equation when trying to judge the accuracy of 2012 polling. Obviously there are differences in every election so pollsters do not need exact duplicate elections in order to be somewhat accurate. But there are potentially many more significant pitfalls around in this election in terms of trying to accurately gauge the electorate and how it will turn out and vote.

And it isn't just wishful thinking about the polls being biased against Romney. There is anecdotal evidence and common sense on the side that things may not be as they seem according to the polls. The polls say the electorate will be similar to 2008. On the face of it, 2008 was a perfect storm for Democrats. Personable, hyped, fawned-over, African-American running against an old "moderate" Republican who barely was supported by his party, after a massive financial collapse that occurred on an unpopular Republicans "watch." Now we have the same guy but without the same fawning, a very dubious 4-year record, after a groundswell midterm that thoroughly repudiated the guys agenda vs. a Republican who is more electable than the last guy, even if not close to a great candidate. Now, do you think that the support and enthusiasm and turnout of both sides will mirror 2008? It is an honest question, because much of the polling indicates that this will in fact be the case.

[kojo]

were on the same page here. Where my response came from was in your mentioning about demographics and polls using 2008 info. In my opinion, Nate addressed that below, more specifically the bolded part:

Polling is a difficult enterprise nowadays. Some estimate that only about 10 percent of voters respond even to the best surveys, and the polls that take shortcuts pay for it with lower-still response rates, perhaps no better than 2 to 5 percent. The pollsters are making a leap of faith that the 10 percent of voters they can get on the phone and get to agree to participate are representative of the entire population. The polling was largely quite accurate in 2004, 2008 and 2010, but there is no guarantee that this streak will continue. Most of the “house effects” that you see introduced in the polls — the tendency of certain polling firms to show results that are consistently more favorable for either the Democrat or the Republican — reflect the different assumptions that pollsters make about how to get a truly representative sample and how to separate out the people who will really vote from ones who say they will, but won’t.

But many of the pollsters are likely to make similar assumptions about how to measure the voter universe accurately. This introduces the possibility that most of the pollsters could err on one or another side — whether in Mr. Obama’s direction, or Mr. Romney’s. In a statistical sense, we would call this bias: that the polls are not taking an accurate sample of the voter population. If there is such a bias, furthermore, it is likely to be correlated across different states, especially if they are demographically similar. If either of the candidates beats his polls in Wisconsin, he is also likely to do so in Minnesota.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.

[Haloti92]

were on the same page here. Where my response came from was in your mentioning about demographics and polls using 2008 info. In my opinion, Nate addressed that below, more specifically the bolded part:

Polling is a difficult enterprise nowadays. Some estimate that only about 10 percent of voters respond even to the best surveys, and the polls that take shortcuts pay for it with lower-still response rates, perhaps no better than 2 to 5 percent. The pollsters are making a leap of faith that the 10 percent of voters they can get on the phone and get to agree to participate are representative of the entire population. The polling was largely quite accurate in 2004, 2008 and 2010, but there is no guarantee that this streak will continue. Most of the “house effects” that you see introduced in the polls — the tendency of certain polling firms to show results that are consistently more favorable for either the Democrat or the Republican — reflect the different assumptions that pollsters make about how to get a truly representative sample and how to separate out the people who will really vote from ones who say they will, but won’t.

But many of the pollsters are likely to make similar assumptions about how to measure the voter universe accurately. This introduces the possibility that most of the pollsters could err on one or another side — whether in Mr. Obama’s direction, or Mr. Romney’s. In a statistical sense, we would call this bias: that the polls are not taking an accurate sample of the voter population. If there is such a bias, furthermore, it is likely to be correlated across different states, especially if they are demographically similar. If either of the candidates beats his polls in Wisconsin, he is also likely to do so in Minnesota.

The FiveThirtyEight forecast accounts for this possibility. Its estimates of the uncertainty in the race are based on how accurate the polls have been under real-world conditions since 1968, and not the idealized assumption that random sampling error alone accounts for entire reason for doubt.

Yeah, I don't think we were ever on completely different pages, but again, that bold part doesn't tell us anything meaningful. He says he "accounts for" the possibility that the polls are off by looking at how much they have been off in the past. But the distant past is only marginally meaningful at best, imo, and meaningless at worst, imo. The recent past is another matter but then we have the problem of insignificant sample sizes, probably 2000, 2004, 2008 only, and 2000 had the late-DUI effect which Silver just ignores. And 2008 had the unprecedented "perfect" storm for Democrats. Like I said, I don't think the way Silver says he "accounts for" the possibility of the polls being off means much in terms of their actual chances of being off.

I would much prefer some kind of rationale that specifically addresses (in terms of reasoning, i.e. why and how) the discrepancy between the tight national polls, the almost even party-ID when polled specifically, and the less-tight battleground states, and uneven party-IDs being found in these states.

For example the most recent PPP polls for Ohio and Virginia that came out today. Shows sample of D+8 in Ohio; when 2004 was R+5 and 2008 was D+8. And it gives Obama a 5 point lead. Then there is the Virginia poll which shows sample of D+5; when 2004 was R+4 and 2008 was D+6. And gives Obama a 4 point lead. If you split the difference between the two turnouts, Romney is ahead in both polls. If it is 2004 turnout (which due to demographics is fairly unlikely, imo) then Romney wins by several points.

To me, those polls and their results seem extremely unlikely, yet there they are, and there they get put into Silver and Wang's models along with many like them. Could they be dead on? Sure. Do they seem strange to me in terms of a common sense comparison of the situations at election time of 2004, 2008 and now? Yes, to me, they do, even if they are eventually proven to have been accurate.

[HoustonRaven]

That might be the best exchange this forum has seen in quite some time. Kudos!

By the way, Obama pulls back even in Gallups latest.

[kojo]

Yeah, I don't think we were ever on completely different pages, but again, that bold part doesn't tell us anything meaningful. He says he "accounts for" the possibility that the polls are off by looking at how much they have been off in the past. But the distant past is only marginally meaningful at best, imo, and meaningless at worst, imo. The recent past is another matter but then we have the problem of insignificant sample sizes, probably 2000, 2004, 2008 only, and 2000 had the late-DUI effect which Silver just ignores. And 2008 had the unprecedented "perfect" storm for Democrats. Like I said, I don't think the way Silver says he "accounts for" the possibility of the polls being off means much in terms of their actual chances of being off.

I would much prefer some kind of rationale that specifically addresses (in terms of reasoning, i.e. why and how) the discrepancy between the tight national polls, the almost even party-ID when polled specifically, and the less-tight battleground states, and uneven party-IDs being found in these states.

For example the most recent PPP polls for Ohio and Virginia that came out today. Shows sample of D+8 in Ohio; when 2004 was R+5 and 2008 was D+8. And it gives Obama a 5 point lead. Then there is the Virginia poll which shows sample of D+5; when 2004 was R+4 and 2008 was D+6. And gives Obama a 4 point lead. If you split the difference between the two turnouts, Romney is ahead in both polls. If it is 2004 turnout (which due to demographics is fairly unlikely, imo) then Romney wins by several points.

To me, those polls and their results seem extremely unlikely, yet there they are, and there they get put into Silver and Wang's models along with many like them. Could they be dead on? Sure. Do they seem strange to me in terms of a common sense comparison of the situations at election time of 2004, 2008 and now? Yes, to me, they do, even if they are eventually proven to have been accurate.

Right and Nate doesn't weigh all Polls the same, so how he decides which individual poll is debatable. He has an article called "house effects" where he explains and ranks which polls are more biased and then says that he reduces/increases their effect in his calculations so yes, PPP won't have the same influence as say Susquehanna since it is blatantly left leaning. If you guys think mitt is going to eek this one out you may want to put some money up on intrade, the returns on there look crazy. Last I checked Obama was a 64% favorite. Other gambling sites, especially the euro ones have him in the high 70s...

[AirFlacco]

Looks like Billy got the evangelicals moving at least in OHio where he took out a
1-page ad.

Coal miners keep turning out in the early voting along with the evangelicals.
There have been long lines of voters in the early voting.

A GOP minority congressman in FLA and former US Army Colonel said Libya is coming into play this late in the game and a lot of people in FLA feel OBY isn't protecting our people overseas. He said some counties still have a hi unemployment rate above 9%.

He sees a Mitt win there.

[AirFlacco]

While OBY is desperate asking his people to vote for revenge, Rasmussen now has
Mitt up by +1.

OBY is one desperate man.

http://www.drudgereport.com/


Mitt has double digit leads in independents from 22-60% even in Ohio just as Dick
said he would get all summer

So you can't depend on a lot of these polls.

[Haloti92]

Right and Nate doesn't weigh all Polls the same, so how he decides which individual poll is debatable. He has an article called "house effects" where he explains and ranks which polls are more biased and then says that he reduces/increases their effect in his calculations so yes, PPP won't have the same influence as say Susquehanna since it is blatantly left leaning. If you guys think mitt is going to eek this one out you may want to put some money up on intrade, the returns on there look crazy. Last I checked Obama was a 64% favorite. Other gambling sites, especially the euro ones have him in the high 70s...

Silver slightly varying the polls weights doesn't address the issue of (or odds of) systematic failure or bias. Which is exactly the point.

As for Intrade, no thanks. It is liking betting on a 2 to 1 moneyline favorite in the NFL, which can be done any week. And as I said, I don't think "mitt" is going to "eek" it out, I actually think he loses Ohio and hence the election, but we aren't really talking about what will happen, we are talking about people pretending that pseudoscience is science. When you appeal to the results of the pseudoscience as evidence of its scientific nature you are begging the question.

[StingerNLG]

Nate Silver BTW is a former Daily Kos blogger. The word on the street is that the reason he nailed 2008 is that because of this stature with the Democrat party he had access to the Obama campaign's internal polling. It did not, by the way, take a genius to figure out that Obama was going to beat John McCain.

Tomorrow is going to be all about turnout. My sources on Twitter are still saying that early voting on the Democrat side is still well short of 2008, and in Ohio Republicans may have completely wiped out not only the early voting advantage, but the actual total number of votes the President won the state by. That's not polling, that's raw numbers from the state.

[HoustonRaven]

Again, that's all anecodtle.

Ok, early voting turnout is not what it was for the Dems in 2008. They are still beating the GOP in turnout, even with their numbers down, in many key states.

This was and still is my main criticism with the Romney campaign. He had three chances to hit Obama hard and early and whiffed on all three. Now he's reaping what he has sowed -- a close race when it had the very real potential to be a blow out.

He still may win. No doubt about that. But it did not need to be this close.

[NCRAVEN]

Again, that's all anecodtle.

Ok, early voting turnout is not what it was for the Dems in 2008. They are still beating the GOP in turnout, even with their numbers down, in many key states.

This was and still is my main criticism with the Romney campaign. He had three chances to hit Obama hard and early and whiffed on all three. Now he's reaping what he has sowed -- a close race when it had the very real potential to be a blow out.

He still may win. No doubt about that. But it did not need to be this close.

If the GOP has increased it's early voting numbers from 08, did they really whiff? Or did they just bunt?

[Paintballguy]

Rasmussen just released a new poll
Romney 49
Obama 48

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

[HoustonRaven]

If the GOP has increased it's early voting numbers from 08, did they really whiff? Or did they just bunt?

The GOP bunted. Yes, that's more accurate.

But in terms of Mitt seizing on the Obama gaffes, no, I stand by whiff.

[AirFlacco]

Mitt did some bad campaigning early on and was seen as un-likeable
until the first debate but it was OBY who blew the big leads including
a 14-pt lead in OHio which is now even.

He also blew big leads in Mich, Wisc, Iowa, Nevada, Col, and of
course PA where Mitt just had a 4-pt lead but is now supposed to be even.

Mitt never had those leads to blow. Its true that the election shouldn't
be this close with this economy but OBYs like ability has saved him.

[NCRAVEN]

The GOP bunted. Yes, that's more accurate.

But in terms of Mitt seizing on the Obama gaffes, no, I stand by whiff.

I'm gonna go with bunt on that too. Hard to take advantage of the missteps gaffes and failed policies etc. when no media will cover that. Ya know?

[StingerNLG]

Again, that's all anecodtle.

Ok, early voting turnout is not what it was for the Dems in 2008. They are still beating the GOP in turnout, even with their numbers down, in many key states.

This was and still is my main criticism with the Romney campaign. He had three chances to hit Obama hard and early and whiffed on all three. Now he's reaping what he has sowed -- a close race when it had the very real potential to be a blow out.

He still may win. No doubt about that. But it did not need to be this close.

Just FYI the Ohio numbers are not anecdotal. They come from the SoS's official numbers. They don't show who voted for who, but it does show party breakdown.

Also, a memo from the GOP today, for whatever it's worth.

[StingerNLG]

I'm gonna go with bunt on that too. Hard to take advantage of the missteps gaffes and failed policies etc. when no media will cover that. Ya know?

And this is the problem. While Romney should have gone after Obama more on Benghazi and did during the debate, the media has completely covered his ass on it. The media has done everything they could to tear Romney down and not report on a single gaffe Obama or Biden have made.

[HoustonRaven]

I'm gonna go with bunt on that too. Hard to take advantage of the missteps gaffes and failed policies etc. when no media will cover that. Ya know?

Agreed. But he could have a done the Reagan-esqe media blitz, bypassing the MSM. Mitt and his surrogates seem to be taking the McCain approach. You and I both agreed a while back he needed to not be so reliant on the MSM.

[AirFlacco]

Even today in Ohio and the freezing cold, thousands are waiting in long lines to
hear Mitt. One observer said he never saw anything like it.