2012 Presidential Campaign

[rowech]

Really does anything matter besides Ohio? It is the election. Whoever wins it will win it. Based on what I'm seeing in the state in various places, I must say I think Romney will pull Ohio out.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

In both instances though, the "new ways" tend to be subject to an inappropriate arrogance about how accurate predictions can be, and naive about the limits of what can be measured accurately, or at all, and how much impact those types of factors can actually have. Though, I think the baseball guys are worse than the polling guys in this regard.

I agree that there is an arrogance there. But I don't think that discredits their theories or methods. For something like political poll analysis, you actually have an end result that can tell whether your methods are right or wrong (unlike in sports). I just don't get how people think that someone like Silver is skewing his polls toward a party when in a week his reputation and livelihood depends on how accurate he is. Why would you risk all that to give a fake lead to a party you support?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Silver was really on in 2010 too. Called the massive Republican win which shockingly the right didn't have a problem with at the time.

Yes? And who didn't call the massive Republican win who wasn't the grandmother of a Democratic candidate?

Fox News was in a state of almost-sexual delight for a full three months before that election.

If Silver didn't see it, we wouldn't be mentioning his name today.

You know what Silver didn't see (and no one else saw, either)? Harry Reid stomping Sharron Angle (he had her at 83%) by a full 5%. This, and the polling mistakes in 2008 in Nevada, has me believing Nevada is completely safe for Obama even though the polling isn't that far apart.

Of course, the pollsters have likely updated their Nevada models since, because they don't like being so wrong themselves.

[JPhillips]

Isn't that another argument against him being biased?

I don't know if he's right and I'm not arguing that, but I'm very sure he isn't biased.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree that there is an arrogance there. But I don't think that discredits their theories or methods. For something like political poll analysis, you actually have an end result that can tell whether your methods are right or wrong (unlike in sports). I just don't get how people think that someone like Silver is skewing his polls toward a party when in a week his reputation and livelihood depends on how accurate he is. Why would you risk all that to give a fake lead to a party you support?

He wouldn't. He believes his model is correct. But when you read what he writes about Rasmussen, you can see where his assumptions come from.

Every election has a rather consistent underlying polling error. In 2008, it was D+3. In other words, if you saw a poll showing Obama up by 5 points, he was more likely up by 8 than by 5. But individual polls, of course, are not perfect.

In 2004, it was R+2. This is why Bush won comfortably when people were worried about another 2000.

Silver's analysis is based on an assumption of D+1, looking at his numbers. That's acceptable. He's consistent, and he might be right. Especially since we saw D+3 in 2008 - that might indicate Obama outperforms his polls.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Isn't that another argument against him being biased?

I don't know if he's right and I'm not arguing that, but I'm very sure he isn't biased.

He has a bias, but he is not biased in that he would adjust his model if it proved inaccurate. He genuinely believes he's correcting a problem.

Personally, I happen to agree with him in terms of the 2012 election. If you look at my prediction in larry's contest, you'll see it might be identical to where Silver is today. I think Virginia and Colorado go blue, which means Obama gets to 300 and we have an early night next Tuesday.

[JPhillips]

Silver's analysis is based on an assumption of D+1

Where can you find that assumption when his methodology is transparent?

He has a bias, but he is not biased in that he would adjust his model if it proved inaccurate.

His bias is towards polls that live call and use cell phones and against polls that have a poor track record. He applies the exact same standards to every poll. Rasmussen is not singled out.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by rowech

Really does anything matter besides Ohio? It is the election. Whoever wins it will win it. Based on what I'm seeing in the state in various places, I must say I think Romney will pull Ohio out.

I thought so last week and I'd still say Ohio is the most important state.

But let's say Virginia's safe for Romney (and, as I just said, I don't think it is). Ohio is proving quite stubborn in polling. In fact, I think Ohioans are so damned sick of being squarely on the turning point and inundated with crap from this election for the entire year that they made up their minds earlier and sat out the debate season. They have early voting as well.

So while Romney is polling +6-10 over McCain fairly consistently, it may not apply to Ohio at all.

How does Romney win without Ohio, though? If Virginia's safe, Florida's easy. You still need 22. That's Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin? Pennsylvania and New Hampshire?

Ohio being unmoved is certainly bad news for Romney, and why I think his chances are around 20-25%, like Silver does. At this point, and the campaigns reflect this, I'd argue Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are decent Hail-Mary fodder.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Where can you find that assumption when his methodology is transparent?



His bias is towards polls that live call and use cell phones and against polls that have a poor track record. He applies the exact same standards to every poll. Rasmussen is not singled out.

If you feel strongly enough, you massage your model to reflect it. He calls out Rasmussen specifically, time and time again. Rasmussen's track record, though, isn't that bad, and includes two "best of shows" for the most important prediction in terms of media attention (overall vote). There's just been a campaign against Rasmussen (probably led by the Silver criticism).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Yes? And who didn't call the massive Republican win who wasn't the grandmother of a Democratic candidate?

Fox News was in a state of almost-sexual delight for a full three months before that election.

If Silver didn't see it, we wouldn't be mentioning his name today.

You know what Silver didn't see (and no one else saw, either)? Harry Reid stomping Sharron Angle (he had her at 83%) by a full 5%. This, and the polling mistakes in 2008 in Nevada, has me believing Nevada is completely safe for Obama even though the polling isn't that far apart.

Of course, the pollsters have likely updated their Nevada models since, because they don't like being so wrong themselves.

He was eerily accurate with his predictions though. Most people assumed Republicans were going to pick up seats, but he was one of the few that called for a landslide that large. There were a bunch of people on the left claiming he had a Republican bias because the few races he did miss were all ones he claimed Republicans would win.

He's a poll aggregator and only as good as the data he's given. The one race you site that he was "wrong" on he gave a great breakdown on why he was wrong. Showed that the polling firms underrepresented latino voters. He's likely using that data to further enhance his formula.

The guy isn't a prophet, just someone who likely gives the best prediction of what will happen on election night.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If you feel strongly enough, you massage your model to reflect it. He calls out Rasmussen specifically, time and time again. Rasmussen's track record, though, isn't that bad, and includes two "best of shows" for the most important prediction in terms of media attention (overall vote). There's just been a campaign against Rasmussen (probably led by the Silver criticism).

So you believe that contrary to what he has published, he's actually lowering Rasmussen's weight simply because he wants Dems to look better in his model?

[Ben E Lou]

I've happened to do a lot of driving in varied parts of the Charleston metro area over the past four days. Were it not for the fact that Tim Scott has extra money to spend, you'd never know by looking at the signs in the medians and in yards that we are having anything beyond a local election. And I'm not exaggerating. I should take a picture of the big median near the development in which I live. There are probably 20 political signs in said median, distributed roughly like this:

10 for school board candidates
8 regarding a country referendum to build some new schools
2 for Tim Scott

Before checking a few moments ago, I had no idea who was running against Scott. I've seen no signs or ads for the Dem challenger. Scott won 65-29 in 2010, and these numbers should tell you how much chance the challenger has...

Bobbie Rose (D): "As of March 31, 2012, Rose raised $31,000 during the 2012 election cycle and spent $5,880, leaving him with $25,120 cash on hand. Of that, 81 percent came from candidate self-financing, while 19 percent came from individual contributions."

Tim Scott (R): "As of March 31, 2012, Scott raised $1,077,016 during the 2012 election cycle and spent $647,443, leaving him with $506,416 cash on hand. His top three contributors were Burroughs & Chapin, which gave $18,200; Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which donated $15,000; and Goldman Sachs, which gave $14,999."


*shurg*

[cuervo72]

Why does he even need to spend nearly that much? Name recognition for a future Senate run?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by booradley

Well, I just got done voting all the crooks out of office. So, you can all rest easy now. No no - you're welcome!

Woohoo! New crooks!

SI

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Why does he even need to spend nearly that much? Name recognition for a future Senate run?

I'm guessing it's a combination of that and to secure the Repub base so another R doesn't think they can beat him in the primary. (He was unopposed in the primary this time around.) But really, he's a black guy and he beat Strom Thurmond's son 68-32 in the Repub run-off in 2010. That sounds like he's in dead-girl/live-boy territory as far as his Congressional seat goes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Silver has made it a mission to discredit Rasmussen, and that is the basis of the difference between his model and many others. So I would expect people supporting the Democrats to follow that line of thinking.

You really think Silver "has made it his mission to discredit Rasmussen"? When the only winning goal is to be as accurate as possible, isn't the goal pretty much to be accurate? If there's an inherent bias, it's going to show up on Election Day, right?

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Silver has made it a mission to discredit Rasmussen, and that is the basis of the difference between his model and many others. So I would expect people supporting the Democrats to follow that line of thinking.

This isn't true though. Rasmussen had one of the lowest house effects out of all his pollsters in the last election cycle. It's still given relatively strong weight in his formula. He in fact at times has defended Rasmussen.

He wrote a piece after the 2010 election that showed Rasmussen being the worst of the major pollsters. This wasn't some personal hatred, it was based on actual data. They missed horribly on a lot of races.

I don't know what people want him to do. Lie and say Rasmussen was accurate?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So you believe that contrary to what he has published, he's actually lowering Rasmussen's weight simply because he wants Dems to look better in his model?

No. I think he has his beliefs and thinks he's doing the right thing. Just like many Democrats feel their way is the only way and many Republicans feel their way is the only way.

He references his decision not to weight Rasmussen polls quite a lot. But when a poll comes along like NYT that seems designed to intentionally favor one side, he gives it a higher weight than anyone else's. He's a little blind here. Maybe he can't say what he thinks about his employer, though.

So far, I've seen many on one side go along with this Rasmussen attack, but if Rasmussen weren't at least decent, why is it still around?

[JPhillips]

It isn't some partisan attack. The numbers show Rasmussen hasn't been as accurate as other pollsters and that Rasmussen's methodology isn't as accurate as live calling. Rasmussen's methodology means that they get no cell phones. When 1/3 of the country rely only on cell phones that's going to hurt accuracy of a poll. Maybe Rasmussen will be better this cycle, but Silver isn't attacking Rasmussen out of partisan spite.

[stevew]

I can't believe 2/3 of people still use landlines. You were trendy douchebag hipster guy if you said you were "going cell phone only" like 5 years ago.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It isn't some partisan attack. The numbers show Rasmussen hasn't been as accurate as other pollsters and that Rasmussen's methodology isn't as accurate as live calling. Rasmussen's methodology means that they get no cell phones. When 1/3 of the country rely only on cell phones that's going to hurt accuracy of a poll. Maybe Rasmussen will be better this cycle, but Silver isn't attacking Rasmussen out of partisan spite.

You know what's interesting. Before 538 was part of the NYT, his analysis showed CBS/NYT polls were among the worst and Rasmussen polls among the best (he seems to have even higher praise for Survey USA). He went out of his way to criticize NYT in one of his ratings posts. What changed? Why the complete reversal?

This poll-weighting thing of his doesn't seem to be as honest as I would like to see. He is gambling his reputation on the concept that the Democrats are being seriously underpolled in this cycle.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't believe 2/3 of people still use landlines. You were trendy douchebag hipster guy if you said you were "going cell phone only" like 5 years ago.

Tell me, cool hipster dude, what phone/plan do you have that gets 100% coverage and reliability, esp. in or near the mountains? We still have a landline (not that I ever use it) because it is always up, which is a lot more than I can say for cable (comcast) and wireless.

Even at work, since I develop mapping applications (for office and field), half of our locators still use a full client-based application because there are many spots within the city where you get poor or no bars, even with4g. How is it so cool to be somewhere where you can't get a wireless connection?

[stevew]

I'd expect that people in challenging locations would still require landlines but surely not 66% of households.

You'd also be shocked at some of the rural 4G bands the gubment most likely subsidized. I'll be in the middle of nowhere and suddenly will show 5bars.

[stevew]

Dola either that or there's a top secret base on PA 62 near Enterprise PA.

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, being in the middle of nowhere is probably better than being in the middle of high peaks and valleys. But you're probably not far off on the secret base thing. We have lots of them around here (think Norad and Space Command) and they jam signals.

Come to think of it, landlines are 1) cheap and 2) reliable. So no wonder most still have them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd expect that people in challenging locations would still require landlines but surely not 66% of households.

You'd also be shocked at some of the rural 4G bands the gubment most likely subsidized. I'll be in the middle of nowhere and suddenly will show 5bars.

And I'm in Athens, GA -- not the most rural place you can name -- and you can't drive ten miles in any direction without at least one service interruption. And within 30 minutes there's gaps of at least 20 miles without any service at all.

[cuervo72]

Land line is good for having a place which is both joint (or multi, with the kids) and also can be used for filtering. I don't want my alma mater, credit cards, tru green, census questionnaire, political parties calling our cell phones. Bastards can get screened in once central location.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Tell me, cool hipster dude, what phone/plan do you have that gets 100% coverage and reliability, esp. in or near the mountains? We still have a landline (not that I ever use it) because it is always up, which is a lot more than I can say for cable (comcast) and wireless.

Even at work, since I develop mapping applications (for office and field), half of our locators still use a full client-based application because there are many spots within the city where you get poor or no bars, even with4g. How is it so cool to be somewhere where you can't get a wireless connection?

Though not always the best thing to have in a disaster. My parents in Toms River, NJ right now have no landline phone service, but the cell phone towers are still standing and delivering service. If they didn't have a cell phone, I couldn't reach 'em.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

No. I think he has his beliefs and thinks he's doing the right thing. Just like many Democrats feel their way is the only way and many Republicans feel their way is the only way.

He references his decision not to weight Rasmussen polls quite a lot. But when a poll comes along like NYT that seems designed to intentionally favor one side, he gives it a higher weight than anyone else's. He's a little blind here. Maybe he can't say what he thinks about his employer, though.

So far, I've seen many on one side go along with this Rasmussen attack, but if Rasmussen weren't at least decent, why is it still around?

Silver weights polls based on three methods:

1) Recency.
2) Sample size.
3) Past performance

He lists the formula for #3. Unless you think he's just completely making things up and treating Rasmussen and CBS/NYT differently than other pollsters, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

CBS/NYT was only .8 pts off on the Generic Congressional Ballot in 2010, whereas Rasmussen was 5.2 points off. (Gallup was a staggering 8.2 points wrong).

And I'm not sure which D+9 poll you're showing, but the most recent CBS/NYT national poll has a likely voter screen that produces a D+5 weighting.

Oct12c Elec

[stevew]

I'm guessing this is just an attack on the polls cause they don't want people to realize what a lost cause it is for them to go out and vote? Or at least that the perception is that if Romney only has a slight chance of winning that the voters will stay home. I guess that type of argument works when you're attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a constituency.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

Dola either that or there's a top secret base on PA 62 near Enterprise PA.

And this is the last post we will ever see from stevew except a cryptic one about "i was wrong, f0fc. There is no t0p secret base on PA 62"

SI

[panerd]

I hope Gary Johnson ends up being a huge spoiler in a lot of the Western states. Right now places like Rasmussen have New Mexico and Colorado polling at 1-2% for "some other candidate". I think it is going to be 7-8% Johnson in New Mexico and the talking heads are going to be "shocked" at the results. Would love to see it swing some states to Obama (if the Congress stays GOP) just to give some attention to discontent with both parties. Maybe it's a pipe dream of mine but at this point I will take anything.

EDIT: Though a Romney win would be fun just to watch some of the heads spin around here.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You know what's interesting. Before 538 was part of the NYT, his analysis showed CBS/NYT polls were among the worst and Rasmussen polls among the best (he seems to have even higher praise for Survey USA). He went out of his way to criticize NYT in one of his ratings posts. What changed? Why the complete reversal?

What changed is Rasmussen was really bad in 2010. His formula is practically open to the public. Do you think he created it years ago in anticipation of being purchased years later by the NYT? That he secretly knew he'd be purchased and somehow rigged a formula that would lift NYT and drop Rasmussen that far in advance?

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Pollster Ratings v3.0

It's pretty simple, if Rasmussen is accurate in this election, their polls will be weighted more heavily. If NYT is inaccurate in this election, their polls will be weighted less. Rasmussen Polls are still given decent weight in his formula, it just took a drop after their dismal results in 2010.

So now that you see how he determines rankings, what is it you see in his formula that is bias toward his employer? And how clairvoyant was he to create this formula years before being purchased by the NYT?

[Swaggs]

I have been seeing a lot about Gary Johnson from the "none of the above" crowd on Facebook, but I really do not see much appeal there (I appreciate that he was a governor, has some unique/logical ideas and has done some cool things in his life). He ran for the GOP nod, could not gain a bit of traction and did not do well in the early debates that he appeared in, and then became the Libertarian candidate.

I guess, for me, it still comes down to not getting the appeal of a third party if their beliefs are reflected by a big portion of one of the two parties already. When folks like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, who were longterm GOP officeholders, cannot consolidate more than 3-5% of Republicans in a primary, I have a tough time seeing how they are going to get 50%+ of the nation or legislature to work together (without selling out and aligning with one of those parties).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though not always the best thing to have in a disaster. My parents in Toms River, NJ right now have no landline phone service, but the cell phone towers are still standing and delivering service. If they didn't have a cell phone, I couldn't reach 'em.

I know, I'm glad you were able to reach them. It's probably different out here in the West in which most all lines are buried.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I guess, for me, it still comes down to not getting the appeal of a third party if their beliefs are reflected by a big portion of one of the two parties already.

The appeal of Libertarian right now is that the Republicans have become big spenders over the last decade or so, and reduced government spending is one reason a lot of folks were attracted to the Republicans in the first place. Reduced government spending is not a belief reflected in either party right now.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I have been seeing a lot about Gary Johnson from the "none of the above" crowd on Facebook, but I really do not see much appeal there (I appreciate that he was a governor, has some unique/logical ideas and has done some cool things in his life). He ran for the GOP nod, could not gain a bit of traction and did not do well in the early debates that he appeared in, and then became the Libertarian candidate.

I guess, for me, it still comes down to not getting the appeal of a third party if their beliefs are reflected by a big portion of one of the two parties already. When folks like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, who were longterm GOP officeholders, cannot consolidate more than 3-5% of Republicans in a primary, I have a tough time seeing how they are going to get 50%+ of the nation or legislature to work together (without selling out and aligning with one of those parties).

My thought on him is he is preferable to Obama/Romney (I guess a variation of the "lessor of two evils" to "lessor of four/five evils") I feel Ron Paul is the politician that most matches how I feel about the current federal government but since he won't run third party Gary Johnson seems to at least hold a lot of the same views. (cut spending, cut military spending, try and balance budget, end war on drugs) He is a pretty dry candidate but that is low on my list of what I care about in a president.

As far as your getting him to work with Congress I think that is kind of the point. He doesn't want to work with Congress to create even more laws and senseless spending. I don't think he did much of that in New Mexico either. I really believe that if he were elected and started vetoing a lot of the nonsense "bi-partisan" spending that there would be a chunk of the general public that would start to buy into it and then a lot of the empty suits on both sides would just go with the latest wind of change and start acting like they care about it as well.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The appeal of Libertarian right now is that the Republicans have become big spenders over the last decade or so, and reduced government spending is one reason a lot of folks were attracted to the Republicans in the first place. Reduced government spending is not a belief reflected in either party right now.

That is correct. A much more smarter, leaner government is the goal of libertarians, not no government. There are no sacred cows (ironic in a place where nearly every program/department is treated as such) and I don't have a problem with providing a wide ranging of services - just do it without the corrupting/pandering system, as many (not all) private and public entities have done.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The appeal of Libertarian right now is that the Republicans have become big spenders over the last decade or so, and reduced government spending is one reason a lot of folks were attracted to the Republicans in the first place. Reduced government spending is not a belief reflected in either party right now.

I get the concept, although I think a big chunk of the GOP's elected officeholders still believe in smaller government. To me (someone left on social issues, but would like to see fiscal responsibility), I would have a tough time trusting a Libertarian because if their largest platform issue is shrinking government, they would have to align with the GOP and all that comes along with them, and I don't want the right wing social agenda that comes along with it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I get the concept, although I think a big chunk of the GOP's elected officeholders still believe in smaller government. To me (someone left on social issues, but would like to see fiscal responsibility), I would have a tough time trusting a Libertarian because if their largest platform issue is shrinking government. They would have to align with the GOP and all that comes along with them, and I don't want the right wing social agenda that comes along with it.

I would disagree that a big chunk of the GOP believes in smaller government. They just oppose the left's big government ideas. They fully support the Patriot Act, endless war in the Middle East, health care expansion when it is their idea, actually to piggyback on that pretty much any expansion of the government when it is their idea. There are some small government guys in both the house and senate (Justin Amash, Connie Mack, Rand Paul, Mike Lee) but in my opinion they are few and far between.

[gstelmack]

We just have to look at the Bush II Congress to see the hypocrites in the Republican party, at least those that make it to Congress.

[kcchief19]

Based on the campaign schedules as we enter the last week, you can glean where the campaigns think the election is headed. Looks like Romney is all Ohio, Florida and a few scattered places elsewhere. Obama hits the road again tomorrow and heads to Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin.

Romney is all in on having to win Ohio and Florida to win. Obama looks to be focusing on the "firewall" states with a sprinkling of Ohio. He's sending Clinton in to Ohio. That tells me that Obama's team thinks they have Ohio and are using Clinton to close the deal, while Obama focuses on states that can clinch the election with an Ohio win.

I still think if Obama wins the Romney fascination with Florida will be the undoing. I understand why because it's close and Obama has topped a couple of polls there. But the general direction of Florida has been to Romney over the last couple of weeks. If Romney wins Florida somewhat easily, it will have been at the expense of a secondary state he desperately needs such as Virginia, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

Based on poll trends, Ohio seems a close Obama lean. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are all leaning Obama too. Virginia, Colorado and Iowa are probably the truest toss-ups.

I think Virginia will be the early election night indicator. If Virginia goes Obama, he's going to win. If Romney takes Virginia, Florida and Ohio, it's going to be razor close.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Based on the campaign schedules as we enter the last week, you can glean where the campaigns think the election is headed. Looks like Romney is all Ohio, Florida and a few scattered places elsewhere. Obama hits the road again tomorrow and heads to Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin.

Romney is all in on having to win Ohio and Florida to win. Obama looks to be focusing on the "firewall" states with a sprinkling of Ohio. He's sending Clinton in to Ohio. That tells me that Obama's team thinks they have Ohio and are using Clinton to close the deal, while Obama focuses on states that can clinch the election with an Ohio win.

I still think if Obama wins the Romney fascination with Florida will be the undoing. I understand why because it's close and Obama has topped a couple of polls there. But the general direction of Florida has been to Romney over the last couple of weeks. If Romney wins Florida somewhat easily, it will have been at the expense of a secondary state he desperately needs such as Virginia, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

Based on poll trends, Ohio seems a close Obama lean. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are all leaning Obama too. Virginia, Colorado and Iowa are probably the truest toss-ups.

I think Virginia will be the early election night indicator. If Virginia goes Obama, he's going to win. If Romney takes Virginia, Florida and Ohio, it's going to be razor close.

Good thoughts.

I would add New Hampshire to the true toss-ups, as well. It's polling has been really tight of late.

A big area of interest for me will be to see how early (if?) Florida, Ohio, and Virginia get called. If Ohio or Virginia goes for Obama early, I think that could swing Colorado to Obama (otherwise, I think it leans to Romney right now) and it could really impact the senate races in MT, NV, AZ, etc. If Romney gets an early call on Florida, Ohio, and Virginia (or a "surprise" pick up like Wisconsin, Minnesota or PA), I could see it leading to a much bigger GOP gain in the house and senate.

I think this snippet from Politico pretty much summarizes what everyone is thinking at this point:

[quote]"The Mitt Romney narrative: The electoral map is expanding and we are on the march. Minnesota and Pennsylvania -- blue states that neither campaign had been paying attention to -- are tightening and if such patterns hold up, we could win a smashing victory with over 300 electoral votes."

"The Barack Obama side: There they go again. This is 2008 in replay mode, when John McCain had no path to 270 electoral votes and made a desperate gambit to try and put Pennsylvania in play. Romney needs to project Big Mo to paper over his struggles in the core battleground states. Nice head fake Mitt -- but we don't buy it."/QUOTE]

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You know what's interesting. Before 538 was part of the NYT, his analysis showed CBS/NYT polls were among the worst and Rasmussen polls among the best (he seems to have even higher praise for Survey USA). He went out of his way to criticize NYT in one of his ratings posts. What changed? Why the complete reversal?

This poll-weighting thing of his doesn't seem to be as honest as I would like to see. He is gambling his reputation on the concept that the Democrats are being seriously underpolled in this cycle.

I don't know that he's leaning toward Democrats being seriously underpolled. Maybe +1, but not much more than that.

Silver initially defended Rasmussen polls in 2010 before turning on them when they underperformed in the midterms.

I don't think Silver's mistrust of Rasmussen polls are political but rather methodical. Rasmussen's polls took a big turn toward Republicans in 2010, and Scott Rasmussen started getting cozy with some key Republicans. Rasmussen is a businessman, not a pollster. I think the perceptions by other pollsters is that Rasmussen uses poor methodology.

All polls biased in one way or another. Whether through sampling data, quotas or screening most polls we see have some "hand of god" influencing them. Typically this is done to fit a profile -- Gallup thinks they know what a likely voter looks like, and no one is going to change their mind, no matter how bad they get the results most of the time.

If you've read any background on the creation of ESPN and the Rasmussens, you'd probably feel very differently about their polls. Scott Rasmussen is a business man, and I have no doubt he'll tilt his poll where the money is.

[kcchief19]

[quote=Swaggs;2736581]
A big area of interest for me will be to see how early (if?) Florida, Ohio, and Virginia get called. If Ohio or Virginia goes for Obama early, I think that could swing Colorado to Obama (otherwise, I think it leans to Romney right now) and it could really impact the senate races in MT, NV, AZ, etc. If Romney gets an early call on Florida, Ohio, and Virginia (or a "surprise" pick up like Wisconsin, Minnesota or PA), I could see it leading to a much bigger GOP gain in the house and senate.

I think this snippet from Politico pretty much summarizes what everyone is thinking at this point:

"The Mitt Romney narrative: The electoral map is expanding and we are on the march. Minnesota and Pennsylvania -- blue states that neither campaign had been paying attention to -- are tightening and if such patterns hold up, we could win a smashing victory with over 300 electoral votes."

"The Barack Obama side: There they go again. This is 2008 in replay mode, when John McCain had no path to 270 electoral votes and made a desperate gambit to try and put Pennsylvania in play. Romney needs to project Big Mo to paper over his struggles in the core battleground states. Nice head fake Mitt -- but we don't buy it."/QUOTE]

The playing up of Minnesota does make me laugh and think that the Obama narrative you quote is closer to the truth. Yes, the Minnesota polls are closer than they were when Obama was up 51-36. So Romney has closed the gap to 51-46. They are focusing a bit too much on the 46 and not on the 51.

Obama has led every poll in Minnesota and in 7 of the last 9 he's been at 50% or above. That's as likely Obama as you can get without being safe Obama.

If Minnesota is in play, then Georgia is in play because Obama has gone from 56-35 down to 52-44 down.

[sterlingice]

I wish there was more Senate polling. Even the close races only have had a couple of polls in the last 10 days

AZ: 10/21 Flake +6 Ras
CT: has 3 since 10/20 with Murphy leading all; Quin +6, SUSA +4, Ras +1
FL: has 3 since 10/30 with Nelson leading all; PPP +8, MD +3, AngusReid +15
IN: Nothing since 10/11 and it's bound to have changed with Murdouck's rape statements
MA: has 3 since 10/20 with Warren leading all; Ras +5, MassInc +6, Kimball +2
MO: has 2 since 10/20 with McCaskill leading both; PPP +6, MD +2
MT: No polls since 10/16 and those were PPP with Tester with a slight lead so nothing really concrete
NE: Fischer +3 in a Weise (who?) poll that has had him up +15 earlier
NV: PPP tied; NBC +3 and Ras +5 for Heller
ND: No polls since 10/18 and the last poll was a Ras showing only +5 for Berg
OH: Brown leading in all polls but in 5 since 10/20, it's been +1, +1, +4, +7, and +11
PA: Similar to Ohio with Casey leading in all but +1 (Ras), +5, +7, +8
VA: Kaine +7 (WaPo), +1 (Ras) with Allen +2 (Gravis), +3 (Wenzel)
WI: Baldwin +3 (Angus Reid), Thompson +1 (Ras)

SI

[Buccaneer]

I still don't see it. It's like being down 3 games to 1 and needing to sweep to win.

Having the Executive and Senate of the same party is a very bad idea and I wish it would be different.

Just for fun (while I'm waiting for the database to come back up), here are my one-word answers for each of the administrations in my lifetime:
Obama: Amateurs
Bush2: Arrogant
Clinton: Self-centered
Bush1: Detached
Reagan: Hype
Carter: Atrocious
Ford: Transitional
Nixon: Corrupt
LBJ: Tumultuous
JFK: Facade
Ike: Traditional

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I still don't see it. It's like being down 3 games to 1 and needing to sweep to win.

Having the Executive and Senate of the same party is a very bad idea and I wish it would be different.

Just for fun (while I'm waiting for the database to come back up), here are my one-word answers for each of the administrations in my lifetime:
Obama: Amateurs
Bush2: Arrogant
Clinton: Self-centered
Bush1: Detached
Reagan: Hype
Carter: Atrocious
Ford: Transitional
Nixon: Corrupt
LBJ: Tumultuous
JFK: Facade
Ike: Traditional

But what about the others?

Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero

SI

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I wish there was more Senate polling. Even the close races only have had a couple of polls in the last 10 days

AZ: 10/21 Flake +6 Ras
CT: has 3 since 10/20 with Murphy leading all; Quin +6, SUSA +4, Ras +1
FL: has 3 since 10/30 with Nelson leading all; PPP +8, MD +3, AngusReid +15
IN: Nothing since 10/11 and it's bound to have changed with Murdouck's rape statements
MA: has 3 since 10/20 with Warren leading all; Ras +5, MassInc +6, Kimball +2
MO: has 2 since 10/20 with McCaskill leading both; PPP +6, MD +2
MT: No polls since 10/16 and those were PPP with Tester with a slight lead so nothing really concrete
NE: Fischer +3 in a Weise (who?) poll that has had him up +15 earlier
NV: PPP tied; NBC +3 and Ras +5 for Heller
ND: No polls since 10/18 and the last poll was a Ras showing only +5 for Berg
OH: Brown leading in all polls but in 5 since 10/20, it's been +1, +1, +4, +7, and +11
PA: Similar to Ohio with Casey leading in all but +1 (Ras), +5, +7, +8
VA: Kaine +7 (WaPo), +1 (Ras) with Allen +2 (Gravis), +3 (Wenzel)
WI: Baldwin +3 (Angus Reid), Thompson +1 (Ras)

SI

I don't know if you just pulled the data from RealClearPolitics, but there are a number of other data points out there (even if not from ideal nonpartisan pollsters -- though you can't really call Rasmussen that at this point anyways). For example, a credible Kerrey internal poll had him down 5 before the Weise poll (which was conducted for the Omaha World-Herald). (Fischer responded with a less credible 56-39 internal.)

There are similar polls in Indiana. Most telling is a Mourdock internal (post-rape comments) which had the race tied in the mid-40's. You can infer from that that Donnelly is ahead (whether by a little or a lot is another question.).

There's also been Heitkamp internals (with Berg making no response) showing her up in low single-digits.

edit: You also missed the Quinnipiac (on behalf of CBS and NYTimes) polls from this morning: Kaine +4, Brown +9, Nelson +13. After the Kaine-Allen race was truly a dead heat for about 8 months straight, Kaine has taken a steady and utterly unrelenting lead since mid-September. It's small, but seems to be rigid.

[sterlingice]

True, I was just pulling off of 538 as an aggregator so there are probably some polls I missed.

SI