My main source of neutral info on election is down

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Nov 3, 2012.

  1. 63dot, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    I have looked at left leaning sites like Huffington Post which posts numbers that seem to be slightly inflated in favor of the president. Then I look at local paper Examiner or Fox and they post numbers inflated for Romney. A number in between all those has been Gallup, which has called this a close race for the past couple of months at least.

    But the last numbers available are for the week ending Oct. 28 showing a 48% percent tie.

    Later numbers are not available due to Hurricane Sandy and like those victims, I am in the dark, as well as the whole nation, about the election numbers from a neutral source like Gallup. There seems to be a slight electoral vote favor for the president and a popular vote advantage for Romney, but Gallup isn't saying (yet). From their site today:


    Election 2012 Registered Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney
    Tracking suspended as of Monday, Oct. 29 due to effects of Superstorm Sandy

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

    To me I think Romney will get Virginia (barely), North Carolina, and Florida. Colorado and NH as remaining close tossups are for the president who is comfortably over 270 without them. I only think there is enough time and external factors to change Virginia for president and NH for Romney but I doubt either will happen in what has been long held battle lines.


    Thoughts?
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    Again, check Nate Silver. He does an excellent job of tracking all the polls and adjusting for what bias may exist. You can't get a fairer reading of the stats anywhere on the internet. Or anywhere else, for that matter. His posts go deep into explanations of why you might want to count this but discount that.
     
  3. 63dot, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    Thanks, I do remember this guy. It appears to show Obama with both the electoral college and popular vote.

    One interesting thing is I listened to an ABC radio show with a political consultant as guest. Basically, she explained why it was in the best interest of that field to try and heavily influence those involved in even marginally close races to be deemed too close to call. In order for the work to be there, the point is to make all believe it's too close to call and thus have your side spend money. There's no work if your side is comfortably ahead. You have to convince your side that any uptick on opponent's side is a total disaster, and thus to spend!
     
  4. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #4
    Take a look at Nate Silver's article about gallup:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/gallup-vs-the-world/

    Historical trends actually indicate that Gallup might not be as neutral as you think.
     
  5. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #5
    That article seems to suggest that the Gallup sample is not very solid. They are not doing a good enough job distinguishing those who are likely to vote and those who actually do. With Gallup being so off with 2010 and 2008 elections, there isn't much indication that they will be closer this time.

    It probably makes sense to use many samples of polls to get somewhat of an idea and look to where the polls make a consensus. If the polls say Obama will have between 1%-4% percent more of a popular vote, but the consensus of many polls shows Obama by 1.3% percent, I would go with the consensus. It appears in last two cycles, Gallup has been far from the consensus.

    My gut feeling is that Obama will definitely get the electoral college, but it's too close to call for the popular vote from the different polls I have been looking around. I am weary right now of any poll saying that Obama will have more than a full percentage point in the popular vote. I won't be surprised if the popular vote will be within a 1/2 of one percent. That being said, this time it's still the electoral college and by that yardstick, this race isn't even close as Obama will at least get 300 electoral points easily.
     
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #6
    One reason I haven't ever put much stock in polls is Gallup. I'm not saying Gallup is biased in the partisan sense, but, Gallup seems much more random in any given election. In recent years, much more accurate polls have emerged that have much better track records with regard to accuracy. Still, while I think most of the (non-partisan polls) do a good job of measuring registered-voter sentiment, it seems to be very difficult to predict who will actually turn out to vote.
     
  7. 63dot, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #7
    I think predicting who actually votes is a really tough one.

    I think many will agree that most of those who answer the surveys but don't vote are usually liberal. Most of the most loyal voters are conservatives making up for their smaller numbers. While those are not really disputed, it's hard to say who will win in close elections like 2000, 2004, and now. By this time four years ago, it was more than obvious that Obama had it but this time it's not as clear. My hope is for Obama to prevail and even though he probably has the electoral college, a win but with fewer popular votes will lead to a giant conservative backlash resulting in the GOP easily retaining House in 2014 and retaking the Senate in 2014.

    If Obama wins without the popular vote on Tuesday, those far right wingnuts who took over the (once independent) Tea Party and who basically gave conservatives a bad name will populate Congress in numbers unseen in 2014. Just when I thought the GOP infused version of the Tea Party was about dead, they can be reconstituted in a few days.
     
  8. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #8
    I don't even understand why people look at the popular vote and "national polls" to begin with. We elect by the electoral college, not the popular vote, so these numbers aren't very relevant.

    It's like trying to predict who's going to win a football game by analyzing which players are better 3 point shooters.
     
  9. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #9
    I know the rule is the electoral college, but if Obama wants a strong consensus, he better win the popular vote. He's already on pretty shaky ground with this economy (which was the previous president's doing though), and I hope Obama gets a large popular vote consensus bringing America into 2013.

    While I don't think the dems could take the House, I hope they make gains there while holding onto the Senate.
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    I believe that the reason is that there is quite a bit of extrapolation involved. You can use a frequent nationwide poll to estimate overall trends, which are then applied to statewide polls that you aren't going to do in every individual state every few days (expensive).
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    because usually the winner of the popular vote is also the winner of the electoral college
     

Share This Page