That Romney hype of him actually winning is just that

[Mikesatx]

I'll try and remember to write down his final swing state polls along with the National poll. If he repeats his performance of '08 and '04 wouldn't that discredit Silver and Media Mattters? I have no doubt his vote is for Romney but as a businessman his job is to be accurate with his polling data. Fox, Drudge or any other conservative outlet would have no use for a pollster that simply told them what they want to hear yet be wrong.

[ElNono]

I'll try and remember to write down his final swing state polls along with the National poll. If he repeats his performance of '08 and '04 wouldn't that discredit Silver and Media Mattters? I have no doubt his vote is for Romney but as a businessman his job is to be accurate with his polling data. Fox, Drudge or any other conservative outlet would have no use for a pollster that simply told them what they want to hear yet be wrong.

IIRC, Silver actually defender Rasmussen for a while, because all pollsters have some sort of house effect. Silver also is on record that Rasmussen has shown very little (about 1.3) house effect this year. In other words, their GOP bias seems to be a little smaller than other times. Another thing to keep in mind: Rasmussen was pretty good in 2008, they were also not that good in the 2010 elections.

Every pollster is criticized for bias, their methodology, and even how they pose questions. This isn't necessarily new or exclusive to Rasmussen. Polling in general has become harder and harder to do (a good article about it here).

If anything, Nate Silver and his 538 methodology has done better than any pollster in the last 2 elections. That doesn't mean he knows what the secret sauce is either. The thing is, relying on a single pollster isn't a good idea anyways.

[Libtard]

Rasmussen's (and any poll that has Romney in front) has been proven to be inaccurate because their formula doesn't account for voter fraud and the fact that after all that black people have been through in this country, their votes now count 2 and sometimes 3 times and the voices of all our dead voters who somehow still continue to come to the polls. They also ask stupid questions like "are you a US citizen?" and don't count the vote if the person says no.

[Mikesatx]

IIRC, Silver actually defender Rasmussen for a while, because all pollsters have some sort of house effect. Silver also is on record that Rasmussen has shown very little (about 1.3) house effect this year. In other words, their GOP bias seems to be a little smaller than other times. Another thing to keep in mind: Rasmussen was pretty good in 2008, they were also not that good in the 2010 elections.

Every pollster is criticized for bias, their methodology, and even how they pose questions. This isn't necessarily new or exclusive to Rasmussen. Polling in general has become harder and harder to do (a good article about it here).

If anything, Nate Silver and his 538 methodology has done better than any pollster in the last 2 elections. That doesn't mean he knows what the secret sauce is either. The thing is, relying on a single pollster isn't a good idea anyways.

I have never paid as much attention to polls as I have this election. On this site there are posters that regardless of facts or evidence will believe everything one side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong. Others slant one way or the other and few are simply looking for the truth. This seems to me to be one opportunity to get to black and white.

[ElNono]

I have never paid as much attention to polls as I have this election. On this site there are posters that regardless of facts or evidence will believe everything one side does is right and everything the other side does is wrong. Others slant one way or the other and few are simply looking for the truth. This seems to me to be one opportunity to get to black and white.

If you want the truth, wait until Nov 7... polling is, to put it in simple terms, just a highly educated form of guessing... with this election likely being a much closer one than in 2008, it's just simply more difficult to guess.

One other thing to remember is that overall popular vote numbers carry less weight when they're relatively close (as we're seeing now). The reason obviously being that what really matters is electoral votes, and so keeping an eye on polls in swing states is probably a better indicator at this point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want the truth, wait until Nov 7... polling is, to put it in simple terms, just a highly educated form of guessing... with this election likely being a much closer one than in 2008, it's just simply more difficult to guess.

One other thing to remember is that overall popular vote numbers carry less weight when they're relatively close (as we're seeing now). The reason obviously being that what really matters is electoral votes, and so keeping an eye on polls in swing states is probably a better indicator at this point.

What I am hoping for is that Romney wins the popular vote by a good margin but Obama takes the electoral college. Anything that undermines the 2 party single member district is a win in my book.

[Mikesatx]

No I know. Just a lot of bull out there on both sides. My theory is that Rasmussen is less full of compared to the others. We will see election day. If they come in more accurate than the others that would be three presidential elections in a row they have been one of the most accurate.

[ploto]

I read that hear before and was curious so I checked who was the closest in the last two elections. In '08 Rasmussen was closest.

In 2008, Nate Silver nailed 49 of 50 states, got every Senate race right and predicted the popular vote within a percentage point.

[ElNono]

No I know. Just a lot of bull out there on both sides. My theory is that Rasmussen is less full of compared to the others. We will see election day. If they come in more accurate than the others that would be three presidential elections in a row they have been one of the most accurate.

Well, there's going to be a lot of winners in this election when it comes to pollsters unless one of the candidates mysteriously runs the table. Basically, most pollsters have the race within basically the margin of error.

Rasmussen is no different: they have almost every poll in swing states within 2% (and mostly leaning Republican).

BTW, Rasmussen was pretty accurate in the national numbers in 2008, but in state polls it's more debatable. Namely, with a week to go in 2008, they had McCain tied in Ohio and winning Florida, Indiana and North Carolina. He lost all of them.

Personally, I normally look at the final numbers Rasmussen posts. At that point you're probably getting the most honest numbers because those will be used to compare their hit/miss ratio.

[Mikesatx]

Googled Nate Silver and this came up: http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/w...tters-in-2012/

Your right the final numbers will be the ones to watch. It will be interesting to see how much deviation there is.

[ElNono]

Googled Nate Silver and this came up: http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/10/w...tters-in-2012/

Silver is an actual statistician, who is also a writer. He was actually doing all these statistical metrics for MLB players (sabermetrics) way before he moved to track elections starting in 2008. And he was doing the whole election thing before he became a NYTimes feature.

The other thing to point out, is that Silver simply applies a model (his own) that tracks much more than just polls, but also include things such as economic data, all of which get weighted over time. Obviously, if you take predictions from a year out, then it's likely not to be too accurate, but that's the reason the model data gets updated daily (and the model itself has changed over time), to track the movements not just on people's political opinion, but how does the economic data at any given time influence those moves.

While not new (psephologists exist since the 1950's), I think it's an interesting approach. Now, obviously, his model could be all wrong and his track record of estimation based on that model just a stroke of luck. But he's been pretty lucky so far. We'll see if that continues or not.

[Jacob1983]

It's going to be a lot closer in 2012 no matter who wins. Barry's coronation started at around 10pm in Chicago in 2008 on election night. I'm thinking that it's going to be around midnight or 1am when we find out this time.

[z0sa]

I think its gonna come down to turnout. If a bunch of Romney supporters hit the booth while Democrats stay home, Romney is the president elect. If its relatively equal then Obama should win pretty handily. Because of this question of voter turnout I'm not sure any poll can truly be accurate.

[Jacob1983]

We won't see the 2008 turnout again for a long long time. Earth hyped the out of Obama and painted McCain as the anti-Christ.

[boutons_deux]

Rasumussen/Gallup



Everbody else:




http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-the-rest.html

[dbestpro]

The polls seem to be quite different. One might argue that one group is for the right while the other is for the left.

The one thing I do know is business will use Rasmussen and Gallup for customer and employee surveys in regards to money making decisions. Their reliability is widely accepted by businesses who rely on them to make money making decisions. ABC,NBC, MSNBC,and CBS not so much.

[Th'Pusher]

The polls seem to be quite different. One might argue that one group is for the right while the other is for the left.

The one thing I do know is business will use Rasmussen and Gallup for customer and employee surveys in regards to money making decisions. Their reliability is widely accepted by businesses who rely on them to make money making decisions. ABC,NBC, MSNBC,and CBS not so much.

Rasmussen is straight up garbage.

[Mikesatx]

As mentioned before a lot of folks here would agree with you. I did my own research an at least with presidential polls he seems to be more consistent than most. I'll post on this thread his last polls before the election in the swing states and the national.

[ElNono]

Rasmussen is just another pollster. Like Gallup, SurveyUSA, PPP, etc. They're as important as any other. They've been right and wrong as any other.

[Nbadan]

How right was Nate Silver in 2008?

[DJ Mbenga]

the polls sure do favor Obama and the electoral college. his prospects have gotten better in Virginia which started to look like a southern sweep by Romney. Ohio has been unmoved for a while i wonder if this is gonna be the number we see next week. the only other thing coming up that will probably cant be polled since its gonna be too late to do so is the next jobs report. it would only have an impact if its a dramatic change, positive or negative. with that said it looks to be a whole of meh more jobs than last time uptick by .1 still below 8.

[Nbadan]

In the final update of his presidential forecast model at midday of November 4, 2008, Silver projected a popular vote victory by 6.1 percentage points for Barack Obama and electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state).[27] Silver's predictions matched the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state. His projected national popular vote differential was below the actual figure of 7.2 points.

The forecasts for the Senate proved to be correct for every race. But the near stalemate in Minnesota led to a recount that was settled only on June 30, 2009. In Alaska, after a protracted counting of ballots, on November 19 Republican in bent Ted Stevens conceded the seat to Democrat Mark Begich, an outcome that Silver had forecast on election day.[28] And in Georgia, a run-off election on December 2 led to the re-election of Republican Saxby Chambliss, a result that was also consistent with Silver's original projection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

This is important because Silver has Obama win percentage chances at almost 75%

[ElNono]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

This is important because Silver has Obama win percentage chances at almost 75%

It isn't important, because you could simply argue it's a small sample size. And you would be right.

Arguing about polls with about one week to the general election is kinda pointless though. The main even is upon us, and that's what is important: actual votes, not polls, decide the election.

[Nbadan]

It isn't important, because you could simply argue it's a small sample size. And you would be right.

Silver isn't a pollster...he's a statistician....a good one at predicting political outcomes...

[ElNono]

Silver isn't a pollster...he's a statistician....a good one at predicting political outcomes...

small sample sizes have everything to do with statistics... smh