Reply With Quote
my totally PFA hypothesis about the trend of the polls is that Romney is losing and the polls reflect it.
I don't guess it's possible recent trends in the polls have anything to do with an incompetent campaign and a haughty, out of touch candidate that Americans like less, the more they see of him?
nah. you're right. it's way more likely all the polls decided to put their thumb on the scale for Obama at the same time, creating an air of inevitability by exaggerating Obama's slight edge over Romney.
my totally PFA hypothesis about the trend of the polls is that Romney is losing and the polls reflect it.
like Kerry in 2004
This is where poll aggregation has it's value. Single polls (rigged or not) won't make that much of a dent when you aggregate them with other polls and account for their own past error margins and biases.
Whoever claims "I have the right model" when it comes to poll adjustments is full of . That's how you get Rasmussen to pretty much always lean on the red team side and other pollsters on the blue team side.
Is this even a question? Yes Fox News cheers for the right... but MSNBC puts Fox News to shame when it comes to bias. When you take the media as a whole it's not even close. Has anybody ever known anyone from the journalism department of a university? They would all lie, cheat and steal to get Gore and Kerry elected back then. To elect a black Democrat president? You could probably add kill to that list.Journalists and Democrats
A study shows that journalists are nine times more likely to support a Democrat than a Republican.
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The Media Research Center supports the idea that journalists favor Democrats. Here are a few bullet points from the MRC:
•Journalists Picked Carter over Reagan: In 1982, scholars at California State University at Los Angeles asked reporters from the fifty largest newspapers for whom they voted in 1980. The breakdown: 51 percent cast a ballot for President Jimmy Carter and another 24 percent chose independent candidate (and liberal Republican Congressman) John Anderson. Only 25 percent picked conservative Ronald Reagan, who won 51 percent of the public€™s vote that year.
•Journalists Picked Mondale over Reagan: In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled news and editorial staffers at newspapers around the country, weighting the sample so that newspapers with large circulations were more heavily represented. Once again, pollsters discovered a heavy Democratic skew. When asked how they voted in the 1984 election, more than twice as many chose liberal Walter Mondale (58 percent) over the conservative in bent Ronald Reagan (26 percent), even as the country picked Reagan in a 59 to 41 percent landslide.
•Huge Majorities for Dukakis and Clinton: In 2001, Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black updated the Media Elite€™s survey of journalists, and learned that reporters continued to select Democrats. €œThree-quarters of elite journalists (76.1 percent)…voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and even larger percentages (91.3 percent)…cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992,€<
•Nine Out of Ten Reporters Voted for Clinton: Rothman and Black€™s survey closely matched a Freedom Forum poll of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, which found
89 percent had voted for Clinton in the 1992 election, compared with seven percent for President Bush and two percent for Ross Perot. €œIn no state or region, among no race or class, did support for Clinton predominate more lopsidedly than among this sample of 139 journalists who either cover Congress or head a Washington bureau,€
•Nationwide, a 3-to-1 Liberal Advantage: When the Los Angeles Times polled journalists around the country in 1985, 55 percent were willing to call themselves liberal, far outstripping the 17 percent who said they were conservative.
•Becoming Even More Liberal: In 1992, Weaver and Wilhoit conducted another national survey of journalists, and noticed the group had moved farther to the left. Writing in the Fall 1992 Media Studies Journal, they pointed out that 47 percent of journalists now said they were €œliberal,€ while only 22 percent labeled themselves as €œconservative.€
•Six Times as Many Liberals as Conservatives: The Freedom Forum€™s 1996 poll of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents found 61 percent labeled themselves as €œliberal€ or €œliberal to moderate,€ compared with only nine percent who chose either €œconservative€ or €œmoderate to conservative.€
Here is the full study from 2004.
I have data, you don't, mother er.
If Obama's really up by 6 or 7 points, he should be leading among independents just like he did in 2008. Especially if the issue is Romney's personal likability, He should be getting hammered among those voters, not leading by 5.
If Democrats really have a +9 advantage, then it should be a foregone conclusion that they're going to retake the House by a wide margin.
If Democrats really have a +9 advantage, there wouldn't be a discussion that Republican retaking the Senate is "unlikely;" rather it should be whether Democrats can get back to 60 seats.
But these journalist bas s aren't very smart and don't cover all their bases. The contradictions are glaring.
There's a reason I advocate rounding up all these people and killing them in cold blood. I know they collude to put their thumb on the scales. I know in the debates the moderators feed the Democrat the questions ahead of time and help him script replies. I know they've taken freedom of the press and all over it. The mother ers need to pay for their treason.
Poll aggregation is statistically invalid. It propagates errors rather than compensating for them.
No, they said "no one cares" not "democrats don't care"
Incorrect. Only if you're aggregating without an historical look. Poll aggregations have their own compensation methodology, but unlike single polls, it's not limited to a single polling outfit, or the alleged demographics of the cycle. A good example is FiveThirtyEight, which has been nailing things remarkably well for the last few elections.
Is their methodology foolproof? Unlikely. Have they done fairly better than your average pollster? Sure thing.
HS reads morris.com
6 Conservatives Desperately Trying to Convince Themselves the Polls Are Wrong
Erick Erickson
Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of RedState.com and CNN political contributor, accuses [7] the media of a “confirmation bias” that makes them conform their data to what they want: “The polls are confirming what the press thinks and that they have a larger than 2008 Democratic turnout is of no consequence to them.”
John McLaughlin
The Republican pollster [8] explains the poll conspiracy: “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR [Interactive Voice Response] polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want.”
Hugh Hewitt
Radio host Hugh Hewitt thinks the CBS/Quinnipiac/NYT poll is “junk” [9], choosing instead to focus on Rasmussen and Gallup’s daily polls, which have Obama leading by a smaller margin. These polls, he says, amounts to [10] “lots of evidence this morning that their campaign is in terrific shape.”
Morris
Tea Party icon Morris insists if the election were held today Romney would win by “4 or 5 points,” carrying Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania — leading Sean Hannity to exclaim, “Oh, come on!” Morris later declares, “The polling this year is the worst it’s ever been.”
Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL)
Mack’s Senate campaign manager dismissed [11] polls finding him behind in the Florida race, saying, “A variety of polls commissioned by the media have attempted to paint the Florida Senate race in a light that is simply not accurate.”
Bret Baier/Fox News
Bret Baier hosts a segment [12] warning how “the fine print” of polls could skew data because of oversampling, which Business Insider attributes [13] to higher voter registration among Democrats.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...olls-are-wrong
Morris says Romney is winning. This is incorrect. He also over-relies on Rasmussen, who has a more realistic demographic but a shaky sampling methodology.
None of you really give a about data. You give a about following a narrative that validates your worldview. When the hits the fan, and Team Red tells you it's Team Blue's fault so let's kill 'em and vice versa, you'll readily fall into line.
Top Gecko Adviser: ‘Some Of These Polls Have Been Called Into Question’
As nearly every major public opinion poll puts President Obama ahead of Mitt Romney, conservative pundits’ new favorite accusation is that the polls are biased because the media is oversampling Democrats. On Thursday, Romney’s senior adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, repeated this line on Fox News to explain why the polls couldn’t be trusted:
FEHRNSTROM: Some of these polls have been called into question because they assume a higher Democratic turnout in 2012 than we experienced in 2008. I don’t know of any campaign operative or political scientist in the country who thinks Democrats are going to show up in the same number as they did four years ago.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...into-question/
Repugs in general are not the reality-based party. They make up and sell it to their ignorant, faith-based wankers, creating their own reality.
RCP takes the arithmetic average of the polls. There is no "historical look."
538 has a very fancy-looking methodology, which, when you look at it, consists of Nate Silver subjectively choosing which polls have more weight, and what the "fundamentals" of a given state are. It's a statistical Rube Goldberg machine. He retains his credibility because two weeks out from the election he throws all that out and apes other polls.
Starting the week of October 22, the media polls will begin an abrupt shift toward whatever the final result is going to be. They will say something like "the race is tightening!" or "voters having second thoughts!" Bull . They're just going to take their thumb off the scales and report the real numbers I'm giving you now:
Popular vote: Obama between 50-51%, Romney between 48-49%
Electoral college: Obama 284, Romey 252, Paul 2 (faithless electors)
What do you have?
Come back on November 7th and look at the post directly above yours.
Look at the result, the sudden "tightening" in the polls, and the timing of that tightening.
Am I the only one who feels that a video of remarks made 7 months before a presidential election have much more weight than comments made 14 yrs prior. Am I wrong?Study: Networks seized on Romney's hidden-camera remark, downplayed Obama's
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
The big three broadcast networks devoted dozens of stories last week to Mitt Romney's supposed "47 percent" gaffe but gave just a fraction of that air time to covering an audio tape of controversial remarks by President Obama, according to the Media Research Center.
The MRC examined how much total air time each story got last week and found coverage of the Romney remarks overpowered coverage of the Obama remarks by a 13-1 ratio.
The center found that ABC, CBS and NBC - on their evening and morning shows -- spent 88 minutes and 42 total stories on Romney. They spent six and a half minutes and eight stories on Obama.
The Obama quote purportedly was from a 1998 conference at Loyola University. In an audio recording posted online, the young Obama could be heard telling the audience he believes there has been "a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy."
"I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all," Obama said. "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
The Romney campaign tried to draw attention to that clip after Democrats had hammered him over hidden-camera footage of remarks he made to donors in May about people who don't pay taxes.
He said: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. ... "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are en led to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
Romney said that, as a presidential candidate, he didn't have to "worry about those people."
The Media Research Center estimated that if the coverage of each was compared starting with when the Obama recording emerged last Tuesday night, the coverage of Romney still outpaces that of Obama by a 10-1 ratio.
"The double-standard within just one week of the news cycle is staggering," the center wrote in its analysis.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz27h2YDAKn
If they are going to take their thumb off the scale on 10/22, what are the pollsters gaining by putting their thumb on the scale now? What if they discourage Obama voters from donating now as they think he has win wrapped up?
I don't understand the controversy on the Obama side. To whom is it a surprise that Democrats believe in redistribution? "Left-wing politician supports typical left-wing policies." Ooh, scandal!
Redistribution has long been entrenched in our tax code and has had support from conservities and liberals alike. That's why Romney makes me laugh...as if redistribution is some new thing Obama has introduced.
Frank Luntz is hard at work..!
A margin of less than 2% is pretty close. If you're the campaign and you have those numbers, they're probably inside the margin of error, so you have less than 95% confidence that you're ahead, and much less than that that your lead is secure. At 284 projected electoral votes, getting careless and letting either Ohio or a combination of a couple other states (e.g. Virginia + 1 more) get away could snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. So tactics to protect that lead, such as discouraging the marginal voters for the other guy, make sense.
Two weeks is long enough to square up the polls to reality and maintain credibility, but short enough that the low-information marginal voters don't catch up to the news cycle.
The people who do the nickel-and-dime donations to the Obama campaign are more likely, not less likely, to donate when they think they see Obama striding out to a significant lead. Surely you've heard of the concept of bandwagon-jumping.
Yeah, I mean, is somebody proposing to do away with the EITC? Federal grants? Need-based scholarships? The whole concept of a progressive tax code? Etc., etc., etc. My plan calls for killing 2 million white liberals, but even I believe in some level of redistribution. Heck, redistributing the wealth of the people killed to the poor is a central part of my plan!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
