Polls 2012: Skewed Polling and Biased Media Coverage

#77
#77
Danl said:
I guess I can believe that the most biased news outlets and polls can be fudging their numbers. But I can't wrap my head around absolutely each and every single pollster deliberately screwing up or biasing their polls all for one candidate.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.


In this election the vast majority of polls are all reaching the same conclusion, Obama is winning. The amount of the lead varies but they all show same trending. This does include conservative polls.
 
#79
#79
Gramps said:
I agree with you.


In this election the vast majority of polls are all reaching the same conclusion, Obama is winning. The amount of the lead varies but they all show same trending. This does include conservative polls.
Click to expand...

People pick and choose which polls they believe, it will always be like that. That is why I look at weighted aggregates.
 
#80
#80
Gramps said:
I agree with you.


In this election the vast majority of polls are all reaching the same conclusion, Obama is winning. The amount of the lead varies but they all show same trending. This does include conservative polls.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't take them at their face value. Understand the sampling and why that is a major source of error - before any data is even collected.

What conservative polls are giving an edge to Obama outside of the MOE?
 
#82
#82
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
Click to expand...
r

You and Golf seem to be knowledgeable concerning these polls.

Do these companies not make more money
by putting out reasonable numbers. I realize these are just a sample at a given time. If they put out bad poll numbers does it not hurt their credibility and cost them money.
I would think the companies that had the closest numbers in last election would warrant more money for their services this cycle.
 
#83
#83
golfballs said:
You shouldn't take them at their face value. Understand the sampling and why that is a major source of error - before any data is even collected.

What conservative polls are giving an edge to Obama outside of the MOE?
Click to expand...

Fox News has Obama up in several swing states. I do not pay attention to national polls, they are useless.
 
#85
#85
Rasmussen has Obama +1 in OH and VA and +2 in FL. Romney is winning IA, NC, CO and NH

Most recent Rasmussen state poll has Obama up +15 in MA, a state he won by 22 in 08
 
#86
#86
Gramps said:
Rasmussen also has Obamas up in state polling.
Click to expand...

MOEs are important

Rasmussen has Romney and Obama in a statistical dead heat in Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, and Colorado

and Romney with an outright lead in North Carolina
 
#87
#87
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Rasmussen has Obama +1 in OH and VA and +2 in FL. Romney is winning IA, NC, CO and NH

Most recent Rasmussen state poll has Obama up +15 in MA, a state he won by 22 in 08
Click to expand...

You numbers are correct however most of the numbers are 12-13 days old.
In the other polls Obamas has gained traction the last couple of weeks.

The MA numbers are this weeks number.

When should Rasmussen put out new numbers?
 
#88
#88
Obama won Ohio by two points in 2008. So it's probably pretty close to that

It's interesting to see how the two campaigns differ. Obama rally's are at college campuses while Romney's are at local businesses
 
#89
#89
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Obama won Ohio by two points in 2008. So it's probably pretty close to that

It's interesting to see how the two campaigns differ. Obama rally's are at college campuses while Romney's are at local businesses
Click to expand...

I would think OH is closer than the polls released today shows.

I can understand the differences in the campaign rallies. Obamas is the more hip candidate while Romney is the old stiff white guy businessman.
 
#90
#90
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Rasmussen has Obama +1 in OH and VA and +2 in FL. Romney is winning IA, NC, CO and NH

Most recent Rasmussen state poll has Obama up +15 in MA, a state he won by 22 in 08
Click to expand...

So, Rasmussen has Obama up 15 in Mass, the state that elected Romney governor and knows him the best. It seems that the favorite son of Mass is not favored in Mass.
 
#91
#91
Vol Main said:
So, Rasmussen has Obama up 15 in Mass, the state that elected Romney governor and knows him the best. It seems that the favorite son of Mass is not favored in Mass.
Click to expand...


MA is as blue as it gets.
The surprise here would be Obama is not up by 20-25%
 
#92
#92
Skewed polls and it's still close... The silent majority is going to have a say come Nov 6th...
 
#94
#94
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
Click to expand...

I think this gets at the issue. I don't think the polling companies (most of the big ones) are intentionally trying to be pro-Obama. I think they are trying to be accurate as possible and are making an assumption about what the most accurate sample should look like.

The BIG question is whether or not their assumptions are valid. On the face, it appears oversampling to 2008 numbers is problematic.

OTOH - if Florida has more registered D than registered R it makes perfect sense to oversample D to that proportion. It is when you exceed that proportion based on anticipated turnout that you start to have predictability problems
 
#95
#95
Cartervol said:
I can't remember a time when that state went red..... Maybe Reagan, not sure if it happened then...
Click to expand...

Reagan in 1980 and 1984


Edit: I was thinking Nixon won MA in 1972, I checked that is the only state he lost.
 
Last edited:
#96
#96
So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).

• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)

• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).

This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:

• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)

• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)

If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.

• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)

• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll

• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.

It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:

• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.

• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher

• The GOP field organization is better.

That’s the real state of play today.


Romney Pulls Ahead at DickMorris.com
 
#97
#97
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
Click to expand...


And C) GOP voter suppress.... er..... "fraud prevention" efforts. Oddly enough, focused in swing states.
 
#99
#99
golfballs said:
You shouldn't take them at their face value. Understand the sampling and why that is a major source of error - before any data is even collected.

What conservative polls are giving an edge to Obama outside of the MOE?
Click to expand...

VolsNSkinsFan said:
Because they think turnout for Ds will be greater than 2008 when that year was an anomaly and 2010 it was split even between Rs+Ds

Rasmussen thinks it will be Ds+2 so that's why it's tied up nationally

It's silly to think more Ds will turn outin 2012 vs 2008 when A) Obama hasn't been "all that" B) Rs have done a better job registering people
Click to expand...



Here is a pretty good read supporting the case you two have been making.

Are the Polls Really Biased for Obama? - The Daily Beast
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top