« your gender confusion open thread | Main | Finally! A good thing to come out of Romney's candidacy »

November 17, 2012

Comments

So pollsters employ their inaccurate models early in order to......????????????????????????

This is basically projection on Brett's part. Rasmussen, for example, seems to have a "house effect" that leans to the right through most of the election season and then tightens up in line with most other polls the week before the actual election. Brett simply assumes that all other polls do the same thing.

Mostly to save money, I suppose. It's expensive to run a proper poll. And if you're applying filters to try to increase the accuracy, you have to increase the number of people you contact, to compensate.

I mean, you ARE aware that the polls several months out from an election aren't conducted in the same way those several days out are, right? They don't pretend otherwise. There are live body polls without callbacks. Registered voter polls. "Likely voter" polls, with different models for who is likely to vote. Escalating efforts to get a reply, so your response rate won't be absurdly low.

There's nothing necessarily nefarious about their doing inaccurate polling in August. But you should be aware that's what they're doing.

I assume they do the same thing, because the other polls DID show Obama way ahead earlier, and then tightened up. You can assume that the race closed, or that the polls got more accurate. Considering they went in steps from warm body to registered voter to likely voter, I think the latter interpretation reasonable.

That was, in case you didn't notice, in response to earlier polls showing not a close election, (Such as we actually experienced.) but an Obama blowout

No, it wasn't. It was in response to wj saying about the pick of Ryan and the potential for that pick to turn off voters due to Ryan's budget plan, "But in a close race, do you really want to kiss off anybody you didn't have to?"

Then you made the first comment I quoted. After that Phil was all, "LOL Rasmussen" and wj said, "Nobody who's paying attention thinks Romney is a lock to win. Even people who are convinced he will win admit that it will be a near thing."

Didn't I say that the polls would tighten as we got closer to the election

Here's a poll tracking average for the election. On August 12 when you made the comments, it had the average poll at 45.9% Obama against 44.8% Romney. On the last entry it had before the election, it had 48.2% Obama vs 46.7% Romney. That is not tightening up.

the polsters (sic) started employing their accurate models to avoid being embarassed (sic) on election day?

Now you may be on to something. Let's see what Rasmussen was up to the week before the election.

Wow, they had Romney by 4% or so a week out (no not in August, a week out), then their polls got closer to other pollsters results by election day.

LOL Rasmussen.

Everybody in that thread was talking about the election being close. They weren't talking about an Obama blowout. Somebody is in an echo chamber around here. I hope they stay there along with all the Republicans. If you can't face facts, you can't win elections.

Oops, lost the italics.

That was, in case you didn't notice, in response to earlier polls showing not a close election, (Such as we actually experienced.) but an Obama blowout

Didn't I say that the polls would tighten as we got closer to the election

and

the polsters (sic) started employing their accurate models to avoid being embarassed (sic) on election day?

were Brett's comments.

BTW, since "ZOMG zero Romney votes in some precincts = TEH FRAUD" is fast becoming an article of faith on the part of conservatives, I went back and checked the Cuyahoga County results for the 2008 election. There were 19 precincts reporting 0 votes for McCain, and one precinct reporting 0 votes for Obama. It was apparently considered unremarkable at the time.

"It was apparently considered unremarkable at the time."

Is it just me, or has hypocrisy in public debate become more tolerated at precisely the same time as exposing it has become easier and easier?

I'm relatively young so maybe this only seems new.

It was tolerated during Nixonland. It has certainly become easier to expose, but I don't think the level of tolerance for it has changed.

It's always OK when your guys do it.

Phil, watch your spelling! It's "zOMG" not "ZOMG".

Since this thread has died down, I'm going to go way off topic. I received and e-mail from my sister that somehow aliased my e-mail address to my handle here. I didn't notice it until I replied to the e-mail this morning. I don't use a real e-mail address when posting here. Any techies around here have a possible explanation for that?

To my knowledge, I've never associated any login for any service with my e-mail address using my ObWi handle as a username. I did have a username associated with my e-mail at one time for posting comments on sites run by my e-mail provider, but it wasn't the handle I use here.

Creepy, no?

HSH, security of anything posted on the Internet is somewhere between weak and non-existant. Weak is usually enough, because things like e-mail addresses are not much use to hackers. Low resale value ==> low rate of hacking.

But if you ever put anything out anywhere, it is available somewhere forever. And as software for crunching "big data" gets better, finding connections between things gets easier. Even if the connection was only ever mentioned once, and was indirect (i.e. several steps).

The sad part of the creepy is that there are an awful lot of teenagers posting stuff which will come back to haunt their future job searches. And they either are blissfully unaware, or simply don't believe what they have been told.

Privacy -- rapidly becoming, if not an outdated concept, at least a near impossibility.

"Any techies around here have a possible explanation for that?"

It's that yottabyte processing power in the NSA facility. Your sister should be careful using official means for personal ends.

Oh yeah, that's right, according to that Turbulence these things are all so mightely encypted that what you're telling us is impossible.

Awww, I have my very own thanksgiving troll who drags my name into random discussions so he can lie about me! Blackhawk, I know I humiliated you and demonstrated that you just make shit up because you're pig-ignorant and delusional, but you don't have to obsess over me...really, you don't.

Is there a reason Blackhawk isn't banned?

Because it's not worth the bother?...

Pretty soon he'll start trying to imply that you are Teh Gay, Turb, and that's when you know you've really got a friend forever.

The comments to this entry are closed.