2012 Presidential Campaign

[JPhillips]

I'd be fine saying Silver's model and the polls that formed the foundation of that model were flawed. I want a model that's as accurate as possible, not one that feeds my aspirations while providing false information. I'd expect Silver wants the same thing and if his model is flawed he'll rework it to try and be more accurate.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The other item that I think is telling, why is Obama spending money in MN? If Romney is getting close in MN, of all places, Obama is in deep trouble.

The same reason he spent in states like that in 2008. 1) Because he can and 2) to make Romney do it too.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, I'm sure the winners will claim that about whatever poll they supported, but the polls are just offering probabilities, right, with a sample size of 1 presidential election? I don't think we can ever know for sure whose polls are the best. That makes it a irresistible argument, kind of, because everyone can always claim they're right. I don't think the Dems will be burying Silver here if Romney wins, they'll just emphasize the "probability" aspect of this (and maybe talk about the Hurricane and voter ID laws or something). If Obama wins though, even if it's razor thin, I'm sure that will be presented as proof of the superiority of the polls that went that way. And similar justifications can be made from the other side whichever way things swing. I mean, this thing is close enough that I just hope we have a clear election winner, I don't think there's any chance that there's a clear correct poll at the end of this.

There is always going to be statistical noise, to be sure. But we'll be able to quantify next week who was most accurate. And I don't mean "Romney won so polls X, Y, and Z are correct" or "Obama won so polls A, B, and C are correct". I mean take the absolute value of the difference between the polls in all 50 states and you have a winner.

So, if Rasmussen had Romney +3 in Ohio and PPP had Obama +5 in Ohio and Obama wins by 1, both are equally flawed as they both missed by 4. Whereas if Obama wins by 2 there, PPP is closer 3 to 5 while Rasmussen would be an even clearer winner if Romney wins by 1 (so it's 2 to 6).

Isn't this an objective way to find who is most accurate? I'm sure there are more complicated ways but that seems simple and quantifiable.

Don't like that way of doing it? Tell me what's an objective way to measure it before next Tuesday- before we see the results. Then we can see who is most accurate by that measure (absolute values squared? some sort of system that doubles points of any swing state with "swing state" defined as less than 5 points apart, etc).

Aside from just arguing against a vague notion of bias, tell me how we can objectively measure this because we have a perfect opportunity coming up on Tuesday where we can put this to the test.

SI

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm sure glad Bucc came in here to tell us once again how much better he is than everyone else.

Look, Jim made a claim that Silver was biased towards Democrats because 1) He includes PPP 2) He includes CBS/NYT and 3) He has a lower weighting for Rasmussen than they deserve.

He's offered no evidence that PPP shouldn't be included or given a strong weight based on their past performance.

He claims that Silver gives CBS/NYT a higher weight than they deserve because he works for NYT, but provides no evidence to suggest they don't deserve that rating other than one poll a month ago that had a D+9 weighting.

He claims that Rasmussen is being given a lower weight than they deserve because Silver is partisan and has it out for a Republican leaning pollster. He provides evidence that they were right on the 2008 national race. I countered that by showing how badly they performed in the 2008 state polls and the 2010 Generic Congressional ballot (in which CBS/NYT called it within .8 pts).

Just because someone is a liberal and they weight a Democratic pollster higher than a Republican pollster doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. If Silver didn't provide his methodology and his weighting formulas, then sure he'd be suspect. If there was evidence that the Republican leaning pollster deserves a higher rating, then show it. But just arguing that Silver is a Democrat and thats his reason for downgrading Rasmussen is amateurish especially in light of evidence presented by people in this thread that shows how bad they've performed in the past.

If you're going to restate my arguments, do so correctly. I will not argue your straw man.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, if Rasmussen had Romney +3 in Ohio and PPP had Obama +5 in Ohio and Obama wins by 1, both are equally flawed as they both missed by 4. Whereas if Obama wins by 2 there, PPP is closer 3 to 5 while Rasmussen would be an even clearer winner if Romney wins by 1 (so it's 2 to 6).

I've never paid attention to polls and I've more than trippled my knowledge of them just in the last few pages here, but is this how it works? Would PPP affirmatively be "predicting" that Obama will be +5 in Ohio ,or is he just saying it's slightly more likely it will be Obama +5 than Obama +4 or +3 or even +2? If he says it's 20% likely or whatever it will be +2 Obama and it is, then he's not necessarily wrong about anything.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If you're going to restate my arguments, do so correctly. I will not argue your straw man.

Direct quotes:

He skews about 1 point Democrat over what I'd consider a fair representation of the polling because he really doesn't like Scott Rasmussen.

But when you read what he writes about Rasmussen, you can see where his assumptions come from.

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.

Similarly, he doesn't downgrade PPP, even though it is the Democrat version of Rasmussen (it does a lot of polling, it is reasonably accurate, and it is run by a partisan).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I've never paid attention to polls and I've more than trippled my knowledge of them just in the last few pages here, but is this how it works? Would PPP affirmatively be "predicting" that Obama will be +5 in Ohio ,or is he just saying it's slightly more likely it will be Obama +5 than Obama +4 or +3 or even +2? If he says it's 20% likely or whatever it will be +2 Obama and it is, then he's not necessarily wrong about anything.

You eventually have to come down on an average number that is your most likely scenario, right? Yes, there are confidence intervals and the statistics are more complicated than that. But when you turn on the news, you see "Gallup says Romney is up by 3 with a 4% margin of error". I think you can effectively say Gallup has Romney at +3 for these purposes, right?

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I've already refuted this. The last CBS/NYT poll had a D+5 weighting and the last PPP poll had a D+2 weighting. None of the current polls shows a D+8.

R+4 is absurd. That would be 4 pts more Republican than two years ago, which was one of the most toxic environments for Democrats ever.

Re-read my post. I don't think R+4 is right. R+4 was the 2004 elections, but I certainly think that is closer than what the other models show.

I apologize if I had the CBS polls wrong, they are D+8 in Ohio (which I disagree with). However, it appears that the poll you reference as D+5 was the one where the raw data polled many more Independents than any other group. I understand massaging the numbers, but even D+5 I question in this election. I really think we're going to see close to an even election or a slight R+1.

Part of polling is a gut instinct. You need to read the tea leaves and see who is more fired up. The numbers are then massaged to indicate what your view of reality is. The fact that many numbers skew significantly towards the D side in this election is interesting to me.

I think the news organizations (NBC, Fox, CBS, etc.) have the least to lose from being wrong. They are not polling companies, they are news companies, but they do have a story to sell.

I give more weight to the Gallups, Rasmussens, and other independent firms. These guys make their living with polls. Even Silver, who others here defend vociferously, just recently started doing this. He started out blogging for the Daily Kos. To say he does not lean left is disingenuous. Now, if he winds up being right in this election, he goes up a lot in my estimation (provided he doesn't correct massively on Monday/Tuesday). I just think one major election does not make a reputation or career (and I think 2010 was pretty obvious, I called it in 2008, only question was how big the landslide would be).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

The same reason he spent in states like that in 2008. 1) Because he can and 2) to make Romney do it too.

Romney has no reason to spend in MN. None. If MN didn't go to Reagan in 80 or 84, its certainly not flipping now.

Sure Obama can spend, but why divert resources from the big prizes? I also heard of a buy in PA (which is much easier to understand), but again, if PA is in play, that's not good news for Obama.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Direct quotes:

Put everything in context. This is a nuanced argument, not a political sound-bite contest. I am not a politician and I will not argue like one.

In other words, *read* what I wrote. Don't just glance at it with partisan glasses and take pieces like you're writing for a left-wing (or right-wing) blog. Learning to listen is far more valuable than choosing a side and maintaining a party line.

Interesting that you disagree with Silver on Rasmussen's accuracy before 2010, though.

[panerd]

So the Obama supporters like the polls that favor Obama and the Romney supporters like the ones that skew mores towards Romney. Neither side is willing to admit why they like one poll more than the other because they can't see past their own bias. Why is this so difficult to follow? Just go to a sports thread of two teams that are somewhat evenly matched and watch the two teams supporters argue using different people that support their side. Basically five pages of the same people lining up on two predictable sides. The liberals usually get more angry when this is pointed out because they are always the smartest guy in the room but I would love to see one post quoted where an Obama supporter or a Romney supporter is saying anything but "my guy is going to win because..."

[Fidatelo]

Rex Murphy delivered an entertaining editorial on the US election tonight that very eloquently sums up many of the thoughts that go through my head when scanning this thread.

edit: tried to embed but it didn't seem to work. Here is a link:

Shows - CBC Player

edit 2: well there appears to be a freaking blooper in the middle of the video that didn't appear live, and then they replay the thing from the start. So much for 'eloquence'. Well done, CBC.ca.

Anyways, start the video at 3:20 if you can be bothered, I can't blame anyone that can't.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Well, you do have to admit that no one (including me) is being (or should be) objective here. Every argument is seen through the prism of wanting your guy to win (or the other guy to lose). It's what being a partisan is all about, whether as a postive or negative force, or both. It's also like a sports team that you have emotionally invested in (and/or emotionally hating a rival team or its fans), you care about the outcome and want others to be persuaded. Nothing wrong with any of that and it has been going on for a long time here, including here at FOFC. Calling it like I see it.

Originally Posted by panerd

So the Obama supporters like the polls that favor Obama and the Romney supporters like the ones that skew mores towards Romney. Neither side is willing to admit why they like one poll more than the other because they can't see past their own bias. Why is this so difficult to follow? Just go to a sports thread of two teams that are somewhat evenly matched and watch the two teams supporters argue using different people that support their side. Basically five pages of the same people lining up on two predictable sides. The liberals usually get more angry when this is pointed out because they are always the smartest guy in the room but I would love to see one post quoted where an Obama supporter or a Romney supporter is saying anything but "my guy is going to win because..."

I'm just going to go back over the last 2 pages (so, 60-odd posts and a good dozen at least have nothing to do with polling) and list all the posts about polls that aren't as you described. I know it doesn't fit your "narrative" either, but there is more going on here than just Obama and Romney cheerleading.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign

But feel free to keep looking down your nose at that false partisan dichotomy where ignorant fans can't see past their own bias and are just cheering for their team.

SI

[RainMaker]

Minnesota has tightened up a bit. Believe a new poll showed Romney within 3 in the state. You also get some bleed into Wisconsin as they share a lot of the same networks.

I imagine they are concerned about a late surge in that state and are trying to secure it. And figure some of that might help in Wisconsin. They aren't spending that much in Minnesota though.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Put everything in context. This is a nuanced argument, not a political sound-bite contest. I am not a politician and I will not argue like one.

In other words, *read* what I wrote. Don't just glance at it with partisan glasses and take pieces like you're writing for a left-wing (or right-wing) blog. Learning to listen is far more valuable than choosing a side and maintaining a party line.

Interesting that you disagree with Silver on Rasmussen's accuracy before 2010, though.

It wouldn't be the only thing I disagree with Silver on. My point isn't that Silver is 100% correct or that Obama is 100% going to win. My argument is that Silver's methods aren't biased. I've provided empirical evidence why I think so.

If you have evidence that Silver has manipulated his model to downgrade Rasmussen in a partisan manner, then let me see it.

You argued that he was being biased towards the NYT poll because he now works for NYT. Do you have any other evidence besides a D+9 weighting they had in some earlier poll? Let me see it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But feel free to keep looking down your nose at that false partisan dichotomy where ignorant fans can't see past their own bias and are just cheering for their team.

SI

You can talk about the statistical probability of polls but that doesn't change the perception that others have of you or anyone else (including my drivel). Political rhetoric from all of us over the many years have polluted any sense of objectivity; it's just some think they are above it when posts prove otherwise (again, over the years, not in the last few pages).

Besides, don't all polls have a +/-3-5 error margin, I believe? Wouldn't that make nearly all polls right?

[larrymcg421]

I am partisan and I've never hidden that fact. I'm not going to pretend that haven't made heated arguments about specific political situations that have come up. But in this specific argument, I've provided statistics and made substantive arguments as to why I don't think Silver is biased in his methodology. As I said before, I'm not arrogant enough to think there is no valid response to my arguments, but "you're a liberal and you're supporting liberal polls" isn't a valid argument.

If you're not willing or able to engage the information I've presented, that's fine, but don't dismiss my arguments or try to act better than me because you claim to be above petty partisan squabbling.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You can talk about the statistical probability of polls but that doesn't change the perception that others have of you or anyone else (including my drivel). Political rhetoric from all of us over the many years have polluted any sense of objectivity; it's just some think they are above it when posts prove otherwise (again, over the years, not in the last few pages).

Besides, don't all polls have a +/-3-5 error margin, I believe? Wouldn't that make nearly all polls right?

5 would be pretty high. Most have a 3-4 pt margin. Gallup has a 2 pt error margin. If the election is Romney +3 then almost everyone will be within their MOE. In 2008, 4 out of 10 final pre-election polls on RCP's site were wrong outside their margin of error - Battleground (Tarrance), Reuters/Zogby, ABC News/Washington Post, and Gallup.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It wouldn't be the only thing I disagree with Silver on. My point isn't that Silver is 100% correct or that Obama is 100% going to win. My argument is that Silver's methods aren't biased. I've provided empirical evidence why I think so.

If you have evidence that Silver has manipulated his model to downgrade Rasmussen in a partisan manner, then let me see it.

You argued that he was being biased towards the NYT poll because he now works for NYT. Do you have any other evidence besides a D+9 weighting they had in some earlier poll? Let me see it.

I'm saying there's the appearance of bias because he called out NYT for being full of it before working there, and now he gives NYT his highest weight (hiring Q-piac is immaterial; Fox hired Rasmussen, that can't be ignored, either).

I'm saying that his look at the numbers, which is consistent and transparent, is among the most partisan looks out there. And he works for one of the most obviously partisan news organizations out there. In fact, he got noticed in the first place because of blog posts on a highly-partisan blog.

The appearance is, and this is not an accusation, that he is using the gravitas accumulated through some excellent predictive work in a very short amount of time to provide a very tiny boost to his side. Not so much that one could find evidence. He has a realistic look at the data through d-colored glasses. Hard to blame him. He went with D+5, 2004-2008 and made himself a fortune.

On the other hand, as he has noted, Rasmussen seems to be doing the same thing with his polls since the 2008 election. Silver is not quiet about this, but he is quiet about the NYT and other liberal-leaning organizations doing this since he was hired. What exactly did the NYT purchase here? And why, now, does Silver get access to Obama's personal polling data? What's up with that? What are they feeding him?

Since there's always a relatively consistent poll miss in each election, there's justification for all this poll manipulation (it's got to be D+something since 2010, or Romney would be sitting comfortably today). And, as we see through Intrade, in the last day or two people are starting to believe quite strongly that Silver is right.

But, then again, Romney is buying in Minnesota, of all places. I had considered Minnesota and Michigan completely out his reach. And Obama is in Michigan now (and out of North Carolina?). So the campaigns are behaving like Rasmussen's glasses are the right ones. They do more polling work than we'll ever see.

I don't think any of this is necessarily bad. It's what politicians do, and it's what pollsters do, and much of life is partisan. But when we can't recognize that both sides are doing it, and Silver gives every appearance of being no different, I have a problem with the holier-than-thou crap.

It doesn't make me better than you, but I am tired of petty partisan squabbling. Elections are wonderful opportunities for number-nuts. Silver's one of us. That's pretty cool, and I enjoy what he writes.

In the end, we look at the numbers, and we have to decide where to move the line. Silver's made his choice, Rasmussen's made his (a polling organization essentially is doing the same thing, just without the sophisticated predictive model on top of it), I'll do mine (which no one will care about), others will do theirs.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'll do mine (which no one will care about), others will do theirs.

If you did yours as part of a politics sim everyone would care

[ISiddiqui]

Seems like conspiracy ramblings (the anti-Nate Silver crowd) to be honest.

It's like we all forgotten he made his name originally by writing for Baseball Prospectus and coming up with PECOTA.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

If you did yours as part of a politics sim everyone would care

Marc wins the thread.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Seems like conspiracy ramblings (the anti-Nate Silver crowd) to be honest.

It's like we all forgotten he made his name originally by writing for Baseball Prospectus and coming up with PECOTA.

Its the same crowd. They're not interested in what's right; they're more interested in pretending its a conspiracy. And then there's the type who thinks if one person says "2+2 = 4" and the other says "2+2=6", clearly the right answer is "5" .

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm saying there's the appearance of bias because he called out NYT for being full of it before working there, and now he gives NYT his highest weight (hiring Q-piac is immaterial; Fox hired Rasmussen, that can't be ignored, either).

I'm saying that his look at the numbers, which is consistent and transparent, is among the most partisan looks out there. And he works for one of the most obviously partisan news organizations out there. In fact, he got noticed in the first place because of blog posts on a highly-partisan blog.

The appearance is, and this is not an accusation, that he is using the gravitas accumulated through some excellent predictive work in a very short amount of time to provide a very tiny boost to his side. Not so much that one could find evidence. He has a realistic look at the data through d-colored glasses. Hard to blame him. He went with D+5, 2004-2008 and made himself a fortune.

On the other hand, as he has noted, Rasmussen seems to be doing the same thing with his polls since the 2008 election. Silver is not quiet about this, but he is quiet about the NYT and other liberal-leaning organizations doing this since he was hired. What exactly did the NYT purchase here? And why, now, does Silver get access to Obama's personal polling data? What's up with that? What are they feeding him?

Since there's always a relatively consistent poll miss in each election, there's justification for all this poll manipulation (it's got to be D+something since 2010, or Romney would be sitting comfortably today). And, as we see through Intrade, in the last day or two people are starting to believe quite strongly that Silver is right.

But, then again, Romney is buying in Minnesota, of all places. I had considered Minnesota and Michigan completely out his reach. And Obama is in Michigan now (and out of North Carolina?). So the campaigns are behaving like Rasmussen's glasses are the right ones. They do more polling work than we'll ever see.

I don't think any of this is necessarily bad. It's what politicians do, and it's what pollsters do, and much of life is partisan. But when we can't recognize that both sides are doing it, and Silver gives every appearance of being no different, I have a problem with the holier-than-thou crap.

It doesn't make me better than you, but I am tired of petty partisan squabbling. Elections are wonderful opportunities for number-nuts. Silver's one of us. That's pretty cool, and I enjoy what he writes.

In the end, we look at the numbers, and we have to decide where to move the line. Silver's made his choice, Rasmussen's made his (a polling organization essentially is doing the same thing, just without the sophisticated predictive model on top of it), I'll do mine (which no one will care about), others will do theirs.

Where are you getting this about Silver doing a D+5 model. He does no such thing. He actually argues that polls should not use partisan weighting methods because party ID can shift during an election. That's why you have some pollsters with a D+9 in one poll but a D+5 in another. Fox News just showed a tied race with a D+5 split, while their previous poll was a D+1 split.

Silver has a formula on his website that shows how he computes pollster accuracy. So how do you think he's getting this bias? Do you think he's putting incorrect data into the formula and saying Rasmussen was off by 10 points when they were only off by 5? Do you think once he got hired by the NYT, he put in incorrect data to make them look more accurate than they really are? Do you think the formula is a lie and he's just making up numbers?

I don't have a problem with you suspecting an appearance of bias. The problem is you're stopping right there.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't have a problem with you suspecting an appearance of bias. The problem is you're stopping right there.

Like anyone who has to put together a simulation engine or model, he has to decide how to weight certain factors. He has made choices that amount to a D+ or R+.

And if Rasmussen can go from one of the best in 2008 (Silver's own ratings) to one of the worst since, can't Silver make changes, too? Do you base the weight of a poll on performance in 2010 alone or do you include 2004-2008? All these little decisions change the lens quite a bit. Silver's lens is a bit blue right now. His own numbers support that. Why that's controversial to you I don't understand.

And now people are throwing in this conspiracy crap. Silver made changes. This hiring and his background calls into question a bias. We see numbers that lean toward the left. Again, I don't see the controversy here unless you genuinely believe the NYT management isn't strongly left-leaning. This kind of crap is exactly what I'm talking about when I say partisanship is blind. Any criticism of your team is an attack on you personally, so you blindly attack the messenger. And this is coming from someone who thinks Obama will win.

Finally, look at the NYT/CBS/Quinnipiac polls released today. They may be right, but they are certainly outliers. And that's because of the assumptions made about the electorate. If you give those polls more weight than other polls, that affects your numbers. Simple math there.

[larrymcg421]

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

This is pretty good explanation for why Rasmussen got downgraded for their 2010 performance. Key points:

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

So average and poor in back to back elections leads to a lower weight. I don't see why this is so controversial.

Furthermore, if you read into his methodology he notes that the pollster ratings are based on all polls dating back to 1998. More recent polls are weighted more strongly in the ratings, to the point where 2008 was weighted twice as strongly as 1998.

You keep bringing up circumstantial evidence (Dailykos/NY Times) and saying what Silver could be doing to bias the results, but have offered no evidence that he has done so. You've asked questions (which polls are included) which could be easily answered by reading his methodology page.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm just going to go back over the last 2 pages (so, 60-odd posts and a good dozen at least have nothing to do with polling) and list all the posts about polls that aren't as you described. I know it doesn't fit your "narrative" either, but there is more going on here than just Obama and Romney cheerleading.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - 2012 Presidential Campaign

But feel free to keep looking down your nose at that false partisan dichotomy where ignorant fans can't see past their own bias and are just cheering for their team.

SI

You found 10 posts out of like 100 that aren't partisan. I never claimed to be above the fray either at all in my post. I am sure when Ron Paul was running for the GOP nod I picked and chose which poll was "best" based on which poll had the highest number. When I read policitical articles and someone mentions Gary Johnson I give them more cred even though they may be more off base than one of the guys that sticks only with Obama and Romney. So I don't know how I am "looking down my nose". I am pointing out that the usual cheerleaders for Obama are on one side and the Romney cheerleaders are on the other. The Obama supporters have no idea why anyone would question some of the polls that are more left leaning and vice versa for the Romney ones. Its just easier to see because I don't give a shit about either candadate where you guys do and act like its not a factor.

Its like if you went to Tigerboard the last couple of football seasons when they were playing KState and listened to the arguments on both sides. As a person who probably had little rooting interest for either you can see the complete fanboys on both sides and then even the people that obviously root for one team and so their opinion is slanted 70/30 or 60/40 towards one. As a KU fan you can clearly see the "partisan" slant but if you were to bring it up as a Jayhawk fan would get blown off as "we are being fair" or "you are just a KU fan". So go ahead and say its because I think both the GOP and the Dem's are a joke nowadays but realize to anyone on the outside its clearly obvious whats going on. (Just like the libs can see the nonsense in the anti-silver crowd and the GOP supporters see the nonsense in the liberal posts)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Romney has no reason to spend in MN. None. If MN didn't go to Reagan in 80 or 84, its certainly not flipping now.

Sure Obama can spend, but why divert resources from the big prizes? I also heard of a buy in PA (which is much easier to understand), but again, if PA is in play, that's not good news for Obama.

On both sides some of this is simply spending money they have left where they can. The independent groups have thrown so much money in to the battleground states this last week that there isn't much of any space left to buy ads.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Like anyone who has to put together a simulation engine or model, he has to decide how to weight certain factors. He has made choices that amount to a D+ or R+.

And if Rasmussen can go from one of the best in 2008 (Silver's own ratings) to one of the worst since, can't Silver make changes, too? Do you base the weight of a poll on performance in 2010 alone or do you include 2004-2008? All these little decisions change the lens quite a bit. Silver's lens is a bit blue right now. His own numbers support that. Why that's controversial to you I don't understand.

And now people are throwing in this conspiracy crap. Silver made changes. This hiring and his background calls into question a bias. We see numbers that lean toward the left. Again, I don't see the controversy here unless you genuinely believe the NYT management isn't strongly left-leaning. This kind of crap is exactly what I'm talking about when I say partisanship is blind. Any criticism of your team is an attack on you personally, so you blindly attack the messenger. And this is coming from someone who thinks Obama will win.

Finally, look at the NYT/CBS/Quinnipiac polls released today. They may be right, but they are certainly outliers. And that's because of the assumptions made about the electorate. If you give those polls more weight than other polls, that affects your numbers. Simple math there.

His choices are based off actual data. It's basically like stepping on your scale and it is constantly showing 2 pounds heavier than what you actually weight. At some point you start subtracting those 2 pounds when you step on the scale to get your actual weight.

That's all he's doing. He is taking polls, matching it to the actual results, and determining which polls lean one way or the other on average. He's determining which polls are more likely to be correct based on actual data. That's math, not some retarded conspiracy that assumes he put together a formula years in advance that assumes Quinnipiac will do well in 2010 while Rasmussen will do poorly just in case he got purchased by the NYT so he can satisfy them. If he truly did that, he's a prophet and that's far more impressive than predicting Presidential elections.

It's fine if you want to call him bias and show why his formula is bias. But you don't do that, you just say "gut instinct". Don't call something simple math when your explanation has absolutely nothing to do with math.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Its the same crowd. They're not interested in what's right; they're more interested in pretending its a conspiracy. And then there's the type who thinks if one person says "2+2 = 4" and the other says "2+2=6", clearly the right answer is "5" .

They're not interested in what's right, they're interested in being right. Of course, in this instance they also want to be right for their individual side.

Polls are useful, but they are also PR. They reflect public opinion but they can also be used to sway public opinion. Even if only slightly. So biased pollsters would have an interest in being ever-so-biased. Why? Well, it's not only pollsters who want to be right. Voters want to be right. Especially ones on the fence. They don't want to cast their lot in with a loser. They want to wake up the next day and say "I voted for a WINNER. I'm part of the winning team!" So I think they'll chase the polls. If the race seems to be leaning one way, that's where they're going to head.

(Networks are also very interested in the polls. If Obama had a lead like he did before the debates, their lead-up to the election would be pretty boring. And, ratings for election night and the nightly news and talking heads programs would probably be down. So they're going to play up "the polls numbers are tightening!" for all they're worth. At least, up until the end when they start to skew the way they want the election to go. )

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

You found 10 posts out of like 100 that aren't partisan.

Actually, as I even said in my post, I pulled 10 out of 60 with about another dozen not related to anything about polling but for efficiency, we'll round it to 10. So, that's 50 about polling and 10 aren't about some sort of bias. Percentage-wise, that's 20% which is not inconsequential. It's more than any third party is going to see this election.

I never claimed to be above the fray either at all in my post. I am sure when Ron Paul was running for the GOP nod I picked and chose which poll was "best" based on which poll had the highest number. When I read policitical articles and someone mentions Gary Johnson I give them more cred even though they may be more off base than one of the guys that sticks only with Obama and Romney. So I don't know how I am "looking down my nose". I am pointing out that the usual cheerleaders for Obama are on one side and the Romney cheerleaders are on the other. The Obama supporters have no idea why anyone would question some of the polls that are more left leaning and vice versa for the Romney ones. Its just easier to see because I don't give a shit about either candadate where you guys do and act like its not a factor.

What was the purpose of your post in the first place? After all, you " don't give a shit about either candidate"? Maybe look down your nose is the wrong wording. What semantic wording would you like for "come in here to threadcrap and talk about how bad the Obama and Romney partisans are while pretending to be above it all"?

Its like if you went to Tigerboard the last couple of football seasons when they were playing KState and listened to the arguments on both sides. As a person who probably had little rooting interest for either you can see the complete fanboys on both sides and then even the people that obviously root for one team and so their opinion is slanted 70/30 or 60/40 towards one. As a KU fan you can clearly see the "partisan" slant but if you were to bring it up as a Jayhawk fan would get blown off as "we are being fair" or "you are just a KU fan".

I know I don't go running off to Mizzou boards or K-State boards to start crap. Do you go around to KU boards just to start crap? If the answer is "no", why do it here?

And it would be one thing if you were going to Bring on the Cats (K-State's SB Nation blog) and doing the equivalent of "Colin Klein has a little case of happy feet" which I think would be akin to "I think candidate X's policy of Y needs to be changed". But you like to come into these threads and just start saying "I think Colin Klein is a piece of crap and Bill Snyder is a senile old fool and why are you even playing football because chess is better".

So go ahead and say its because I think both the GOP and the Dem's are a joke nowadays but realize to anyone on the outside its clearly obvious whats going on. (Just like the libs can see the nonsense in the anti-silver crowd and the GOP supporters see the nonsense in the liberal posts)

A lot of both of them are going to be in power so we might as well discuss their policies and how picking the lesser of two evils still lines up better with my goals for governing than sitting it out altogether.

Besides, I think others on this board have a monopoly on your above quote and I wouldn't want to encroach on their game.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Yeah, it's like the common retort in a lot of sites "if you don't like it, why are you here?" or "if you think the subject/article is stupid, why are you posting a comment on it?"

I am a member of a small private board where there can be no discussion or even quips about politics or religion because those does make things personal (and not in a good way). In other sites, it's too late.

[panerd]

Shrug.

2010
"Auburn is going to win."
"No way so and so says Oregon is going to win."
Goes back and forth about the vegas line for 2 pages.
"Should be TCU anyways"
"Nah it is never a team from a smaller conference. It has never happened and never will."
"Well I don't like either of those teams so I was hoping for TCU. Your guys argument about the vegas line is pretty circular. You are both just saying the same things over and over. The game is next week so why not just wait and see what happens. Obviously the Oregon fans see it one way and the Auburn fans see it another"
"Shut up and get out of the thread. Why are you here trolling? Why would there ever be a third choice?"

Except the last line never happens in the sports threads. I guess people just take politics way too personal.

[Buccaneer]

Some people make it personal because they put their trust and faith into politicians and the political process, just as some put their emotional well-being into the success/failure of "their" team. It's part of human nature.

[miked]

When I use my "gut instinct" to draft in FOF, I always get the 38/75 guy who goes +2/-6 in TC. When Ben uses math, he gets the 28/44 guy in the 1st round who ends up +10/+8 in TC.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Shrug.

2010
"Auburn is going to win."
"No way so and so says Oregon is going to win."
Goes back and forth about the vegas line for 2 pages.
"Should be TCU anyways"
"Nah it is never a team from a smaller conference. It has never happened and never will."
"Well I don't like either of those teams so I was hoping for TCU. Your guys argument about the vegas line is pretty circular. You are both just saying the same things over and over. The game is next week so why not just wait and see what happens. Obviously the Oregon fans see it one way and the Auburn fans see it another"
"Shut up and get out of the thread. Why are you here trolling? Why would there ever be a third choice?"

Except the last line never happens in the sports threads. I guess people just take politics way too personal.

LOL.....I was just about to post this and then came upon your post. This sounds a whole lot like college basketball. Lots of polls and computer rankings that determine the best team all by different methods. In the end, it gets settled on the court. The finals are a one game playoff and they happen this Tuesday.

[molson]

Which polls are just based on "gut instinct"? People love to frame their side as the "math side," but I don't think it's that simple, either in polling or baseball stats. Math is perfect, but the humans choosing how to apply it and how to interpret the results aren't. There's a lot of room for error, bias, impact of unknown factors, and reasonable debate in there. You don't get to say "MATH, I win." (well, I guess you can, but you're not necessarily right, just because you applied math in some capacity.)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Some people make it personal because they put their trust and faith into politicians and the political process, just as some put their emotional well-being into the success/failure of "their" team. It's part of human nature.

Yeah what's most funny is that the "lessor of two evils" people flip places with me in the baseball thread. I am a huge Cardinals fan and the general consensus is nobody can stand the Cardinals or the Yankees and a big portion of the board openly hates on them. But you do it on Romney and Obama in this thread then you are just arrogant and trying to be a troll.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The finals are an eight-week morass of multi-state recounts and lawsuits and they start this Tuesday.

Here's hoping I didn't fix it for you

[lungs]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah what's most funny is that the "lessor of two evils" people flip places with me in the baseball thread. I am a huge Cardinals fan and the general consensus is nobody can stand the Cardinals or the Yankees and a big portion of the board openly hates on them. But you do it on Romney and Obama in this thread then you are just arrogant and trying to be a troll.

Oh come on, you know damn well the Cardinals have it coming to them

[SirFozzie]

Mitt.. come on man, this is..

Romney compares Sandy relief to cleaning up after high-school football game — MSNBC

Yeah, cleaning up after a 20Billion Dollar storm is like cleaning up after Northville vs Milford on Friday night. Sheesh.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Which polls are just based on "gut instinct"? People love to frame their side as the "math side," but I don't think it's that simple, either in polling or baseball stats. Math is perfect, but the humans choosing how to apply it and how to interpret the results aren't. There's a lot of room for error, bias, impact of unknown factors, and reasonable debate in there. You don't get to say "MATH, I win." (well, I guess you can, but you're not necessarily right, just because you applied math in some capacity.)

But how else would you judge polls than math? For example, if you're saying Nate Silver is biased because he works for the NYT and is giving Rasmussen a lower weight than they deserve and giving CBS/NYT a higher weight than they deserve, then someone responds with numbers showing Rasmussen's poor track record and CBS/NYT's good track record, you don't think the latter response is more compelling?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

His choices are based off actual data. It's basically like stepping on your scale and it is constantly showing 2 pounds heavier than what you actually weight. At some point you start subtracting those 2 pounds when you step on the scale to get your actual weight.

That's all he's doing. He is taking polls, matching it to the actual results, and determining which polls lean one way or the other on average. He's determining which polls are more likely to be correct based on actual data. That's math, not some retarded conspiracy that assumes he put together a formula years in advance that assumes Quinnipiac will do well in 2010 while Rasmussen will do poorly just in case he got purchased by the NYT so he can satisfy them. If he truly did that, he's a prophet and that's far more impressive than predicting Presidential elections.

It's fine if you want to call him bias and show why his formula is bias. But you don't do that, you just say "gut instinct". Don't call something simple math when your explanation has absolutely nothing to do with math.

Read what I wrote regarding gut instinct. I'm tired of having my words twisted.

He has a good point about Rasmussen, but Rasmussen isn't the only one. Unfortunately, that point doesn't translate to CBS/NYT. It doesn't take a genius to see the new marriage between CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac is producing different results than Quinnipiac alone did - it's producing numbers like CBS/NYT produced - at a time when Silver called them on it. The fact that he can't see it makes me question his bias.

He decided to assign this new marriage his highest weight, without any past data. You can look at Silver's numbers, compare them to other amalgamations, and Silver is on the left. At some point, "gut instinct" is necessary when putting together a model. Silver has done it, I've done it, pretty much every one has done it. It doesn't replace math, but it's a necessary part of the process.

However, in addition to weighting, I massage the numbers. Rasmussen I give a high weight because he's prolific and consistent. I also move his numbers to the left because he's using a model that assumes too many Republicans. He's not going to say Romney +10 in Florida and make a fool out of himself, he's going to say Romney +4. Using this model, I get value out of Rasmussen's polls, but I also still have Obama in front in the electoral college. I wish Survey USA was doing more polling.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

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."

I did a check of these actual numbers yesterday. I was close on the number of signs, but a little off on the distribution:

14 "vote yes on the build-new-schools referendum"
6 (3 each) for the two school board candidates in my area
1 Tim Scott

I have seen some other Scott signs around town, but now that I've seen those actual spending numbers....just wow.




Ah, life in a pretty much uncontested state. *shurg*

[Easy Mac]

I'm not sure I've seen political signs in Greenville. I see houses with Romney-Ryan signs... not sure who they're trying to convince.

In Orangeburg, my dad's Obama sign has been stolen 3 times.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'm not sure I've seen political signs in Greenville. I see houses with Romney-Ryan signs... not sure who they're trying to convince.

In Orangeburg, my dad's Obama sign has been stolen 3 times.

I've not seen any signs for Obama or Romney anywhere in the Charleston area. Not a single one, and not many bumper stickers, even. The local referendum/school board/Tim Scott thing isn't just a "my neighborhood" deal, either. Saw the same thing, with different school board candidates and referendums based on the locales, heading into a large-ish development in two other parts of town that are different demographics from mine: lots of "vote for me for school board/vote for or against this referendum" stuff, with some Tim Scotts sprinkled in.

[Butter]

I was just down in Greenville, SC this past weekend... there seemed to be a lot of "Vote for Petition / Write-In Candidate" for various offices there. Can our men in SC tell me what that's all about? Did a bunch of people forget to file paperwork, or just your run of the mill people who lost in the primary still trying to win the general election stuff?

[Easy Mac]

Hmmm. Haven't noticed anything. I do tend to stick to the interstate. The only signs I see are for open houses or yard sales.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I was just down in Greenville, SC this past weekend... there seemed to be a lot of "Vote for Petition / Write-In Candidate" for various offices there. Can our men in SC tell me what that's all about? Did a bunch of people forget to file paperwork, or just your run of the mill people who lost in the primary still trying to win the general election stuff?

I believe this is what you are referring to, about five paragraphs down:

South Carolina election officials seek to dispel voting myths » Anderson Independent Mail

[sterlingice]

We don't have a ton of yard signs around here. There's not going to be much for the Presidential or Senate race as they're already decided but I don't see much for judges or school board or any of that.

SI