Oh, No! Election Day is Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010...

@realjohnboy,

L.A.Times refers to it as Morning Call/Muhlenberg College Tracker. Looks like it may be a daily poll (rolling?) from now until the election.

0 Replies

I read something very interesting the other day about the current political polls being bandied about. It seems that more conservatives own cell phones than liberals, and that the polls necessarily weigh their collection of data from more conservatives. That the percentages are is still an unknown is a concern, but even a five percent difference can make a world of difference on polls.

What do you think?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I have no data, C.I., but I think it is the other way around regarding cell phones. More young people, minorities and/or urban dwellers (liberals?) have them vs older people in rural areas (conservatives?).
Nate Silver was on NPR last week talking about the challenges of polling in the cell phone age. I, as I have said before, am not as big a fan of his. Irishk perhaps is. I concede he is very bright.
Anyway, he claims that pollsters are able to overcome the cell phone thing. It used to be, as I understand it, that cell phone users were charged for incoming calls. If that was ever true, it is no longer the case. And, with robo-dialing, pollsters can hit cell phones.
I readily admit I am way over my head on this.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I'm pretty sure it's the opposite way around - people who own cel phones ONLY tend to be younger and liberal.

Not a fan of Nate Silver? But, he's running great fact-based analysis. The great thing about him is that he doesn't bullshit around with his opinions.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

I readily admit I am way over my head on this.

You are correct except that pollsters by law can not robo call cells, so most don't bother due to the added expense. There is currently debate about how much error this throws into the polling data...

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/18/2326959/polls-might-skew-results-by-skipping.html

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-cant-pollsters-call-cell-phones.htm

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Two interesting articles re cell phone polling, Hawkeye. Thanks.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not a fan of Nate Silver? But, he's running great fact-based analysis.

Yep.

Quote:

The great thing about him is that he doesn't bullshit around with his opinions.

Nate was mightily annoyed with Rasmussen a few months back...he was unhappy that Ras wasn't polling the Repub primary in Arizona during the last month before the election. Said he was going to 'punish' him (how I don't recall lol). Thing was, McCain was so far ahead of whatshisname in that particular time frame, there was really no reason to poll that race as it was clear that McCain was going to win handily. Still, it got under Nate's skin and he made some remarks about it...I think RJB was a bit put off by those posts, with good reason IMO. I remember his commenting on the silliness of it.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk, Thanks for those links; seems I had my thinking ass-backwards from the article. At any rate, the article was very good, and I believe makes sense.

0 Replies

Yeah, when Irishk first suggested that I consider watching Nate Silver, he happened to be engaged in a bit of a rant against other pollsters (notably Rasmussen).
He is very bright and nailed the 2008 elections. I will wait until after these mid-terms to consider elevating him to guru status.
My problem with him is that he expresses the outcomes of elections in odds:
There is a 57% chance that the Dems will hold the Senate. Or, there is a 84% chance the Repubs will take the House.
Great analysis if I had something to compare it with.

0 Replies

There's also a report that more women are switching to the GOP for this election. I wonder what their beef is?

0 Replies

Charlie Cook is predicting a pickup of 40 seats for the Republicans.

Nate Silver says 49.

Ras, I think, has predicted 55.

Larry Sabato (Crystal Ball guy) says 47.

Charlie goes on to say the Senate is safe for 2010 but will flip in 2012.

0 Replies

Newsweek ran a poll that actually contacted cel phones, and guess what? The Dems do much better, and Obama does much better.

http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1006-Ftop.pdf

Quote:

Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK Poll (full results) shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared with 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK Poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK Poll since February 2010. However, his approval rating, which is notably higher than many recent polls of the president’s popularity, may be evidence of a closing “enthusiasm gap” more than a sea change in voter attitudes, and may not substantially affect Democrats’ fortunes come Election Day. In 1994, NEWSWEEK Polls showed a similar steep climb in President Clinton’s approval between late September and late October, but Democrats still suffered a rout in the midterms.

Cycloptichron

0 Replies

Nate upped his House prediction yesterday by forecasting the Repubs will win 51 seats. They won 54 in 1994.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Nate upped his House prediction yesterday by forecasting the Repubs will win 51 seats. They won 54 in 1994.

Saw that. Pretty good result for them, as 40 would be the magic number.

It all depends on how accurate these likely voter models have been... Nate's model relies so heavily on the assumption that the polling is accurate, but the screens are the least scientific part of the whole thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There are so many conflicting stories out there on who will win that the real results must be unknown. An article in today's newspaper also claims most will vote in their incumbants. These contradictions only confuse.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There are so many conflicting stories out there on who will win that the real results must be unknown. An article in today's newspaper also claims most will vote in their incumbents. These contradictions only confuse.

I think that there are two issues here, one that there are a lot of races in play that are close so the pollsters can not tell how it will turn out, two that both sides are working on the motivation of the dems. The GOP wants to make it seem like this election is a lost cause for dems so that dem supporters will stay home, dems want to get their supporters to the polls so that they have a chance so they are peddling hope.

This dispute about which way women will break confuses also, as dems are trying to get women to the polls but it is a strange year so this year women might not overwhelmingly support dems, so this might not help.

I have been looking for some clarity on what the blacks will do, but have not found it. My guess is that given how hard blacks have been hammered by the great recession that they will stay home, maybe with some disappointment in Obama not promoting black issues thrown it.

0 Replies

The "enthusiasm gap" between potential Republican and Democrat voters seems to be very real. The President, the First Lady and people like Bill Clinton have been pounding the drum hard for voter turnout.
Mr Obama promised a lot in 2008 and, by his own admission, has not delivered enough to get Dem voters enthused about turning out for the mid-terms. The economy is bad and has impacted Blacks and Latinos hard.
A black lady at one of his back-yard meetings expressed her sense of discouragement in the lead-in to her question. It was widely reported on.
And in Nevada, ads are being run urging Latinos to show their frustration by, as the ad says in the sig line, "Send a message. Don't vote."
With regards to women voters: there was an article in the NY Times on Friday that included some reference to that. It claimed that women tend to make up their minds later in the campaigns then men and that, this year, the economy has been front and center while other issues, like abortion, have been largely absent from many races. I don't know, frankly, whether those are valid conclusions.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

And in Nevada, ads are being run urging Latinos to show their frustration by, as the ad says in the sig line, "Send a message. Don't vote."

Yah, but these ads are being run by a Republican operative. It has nothing to do with a lack of enthusiasm by Dems and everything to do with trying to suppress a vote which is going to be heavily anti-Republican by their group.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

That is true, with the "Republican operative" trying to stoke the "enthusiasm gap" fire.
Next will come the ads suggesting that, because of expected high voter turnout, Repubs should come to the polls on Tuesday while Dems should show-up on Wednesday.
An aside:
In the Illinois Governor's race, there is the Green Party candidate whose name is Rich Whitney. Due to an error which can not be corrected before November 2nd, his name will appear on voting screens in dozens of precincts (including many predominantly black ones) as "Rich Whitey."
I don't make this sh*t up. Honest.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

That is true, with the "Republican operative" trying to stoke the "enthusiasm gap" fire.
Next will come the ads suggesting that, because of expected high voter turnout, Repubs should come to the polls on Tuesday while Dems should show-up on Wednesday.
An aside:
In the Illinois Governor's race, there is the Green Party candidate whose name is Rich Whitney. Due to an error which can not be corrected before November 2nd, his name will appear on voting screens in dozens of precincts (including many predominantly black ones) as "Rich Whitey."

I read that they are still projecting that the problem could be corrected before voting time. Nevertheless, we rarely see such honesty when it comes to voting!

Early voting patterns are looking more positive for the Democrats than would have been predicted by the polls so far. I've read some analysis which looked into whether or not this was a new thing or just a hold-over of behavior, that concluded that the Dems' massive investment in early-voting and voter outreach in 2006 and 08 is still paying off, as these people are still registered and receiving their ballots in the mail.

I know I'm pretty much the only one left who thinks that the Dems have a chance to hold the House this year, and this is one of the primary reasons: people tend to have patterns of voting which last years and years, no matter what they say to a pollster on the phone. I suspect that a great many of those who have angrily said they will go vote, will wake up on election day and just.... somehow not get around to it that day, because that's what they do every cycle.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Oh, No! Election Day is Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know