5 Point Obama lead in Ohio...Ohio...Ohio

[Liability]

oh well, 4 more years.

better get used to hearing "Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the ?United States of America"

Only in the disturbed fantasies of dopes like Dainty and some assorted lolberals.

President Romney will be laughing at you if he ever sees such silly shit as a USMB post by Dainty.

 

[BluePhantom]

The poll is Rasmussen after all. it is factored in to RCP, with older polls, and the new polls over the next few days will give us a clearer understanding of what is going on in Ohio,.

At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate. The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today. We will get more data in a couple days

Right. So far today there is only polling in Virginia (R+2 Rass), and Florida (R+1 Grav) as far as the real swing states are concerned. There is info on PA but I don't really consider that in play. Both those states are really Romney's to lose at this point. Hopefully we will get more data a the day progresses

 

[AceRothstein]

At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate. The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today. We will get more data in a couple days

Didn't Rasmussen's final polls skew 3-4 towards the GOP candidates amongst state polling in 2010? I'm too lazy to look all of them up but I know he was off nearly 6 points in the Ohio Senate race and nearly 2 points in the Ohio Governor race towards the GOP candidate.

 

[BluePhantom]

At present the only poll that matters in Ohio is the Rasmussen poll as it was the only one that was begun and finished AFTER the third debate. The rest are now completely outdated, even the SUSA poll which was taken prior to the final debate but just released today. We will get more data in a couple days

Didn't Rasmussen's final polls skew 3-4 towards the GOP candidates amongst state polling in 2010? I'm too lazy to look all of them up but I know he was off nearly 6 points in the Ohio Senate race and nearly 2 points in the Ohio Governor race towards the GOP candidate.

Every pollster has what is called a "house bias". That is their results on average tend to favor one party or the other by a given amount. There are no exceptions. But it depends on what you are looking at. Presidential years are far easier to call than non-presidential years. The reason why is because Presidential years have a far higher turnout and people tend to trend toward the party of their presidential choice. In other words, it's unusual for a voter to cast a ballot for the presidential candidate of one party and vote for the Senatorial or House candidate of a differing party. When I say "unusual" I don't mean "rare" I mean it doesn't happen the majority of the time.

As a rule, the closer you zoom in, the greater the likelihood of error. National presidential polls are far easier to call than state polls on the presidential level. Those are in turn easier to call than Senatorial races...the smaller the race and the focus the more difficult it is to call.

Now when you get into averages you have to consider the number of polls each pollster releases. Rasmussen releases tons of polls and they call damn near every state. Consider the likelihood of an outlier poll. If I conduct only three polls it's far less likely that I will encounter an outlier than if I conduct 50 polls. That's a basic law of probability....for example if I take a randomized deck of cards and shuffle them once what are the odds that they will draw in numerical order and according to suit? Very low, obviously. But if you do that exercise over and over eventually, that will happen. You may have to do it 10,000 times to get a result that extreme, but eventually it will happen.

Well the same thing happens with outliers in polling. The more you conduct, the more likely it is that you will experience the freak occurance like a shuffle resulting in the situation I described above. Well Rasmussen releases an absolute shit ton of polls and because they do so many it's more common for them to experience an outlier than say....Mason-Dixon who does very few. Well when that outlier is factored into the average then it results in a greater variance from the mean. Again...basic statistics. What is important is not the mean, it's the mode...that is the most common variance occuring in their data set.

Rasmussen's variance expressed as a mode is extraordinarily low, their variance expressed as a mean is higher but that makes perfect sense because they do so many polls, thus they run a higher risk of experiencing an outlier that will negatively affect the mean. This is precisely one of the little tricks that guys like Nate Silver play. Instead of focusing on the mode, they focus on the mean and that enables them to make the argument that 2+2=10 and people who don't understand statistics and polling are convinced when in reality it's a statistically unsound argument.

So to answer your question directly, Rasmussen has a house lean of about +1.5 to +2 in favor of the GOP. That's within the margin of error though so it's statistically fine. Pollsters like PPP who have a house bias of around +4 in the favor of the Democrats should be ignored (at least on a basic level) because their house bias is outside a standard margin of error. Media polls (CNN, WaPo, FOX, etc) have about a +5 house bias as a group in favor of the Democrats...again outside a standard margin of error and thus they are basically useless.

BTW...yes...Fox polls have a liberal bias believe it or not. Their polls are usually right in line with the rest of the media polls. Feel free to look it up if you question that. The problem is not the ideaology, it's the methodology....that's an entire thread unto itself...but if you doubt me it's pretty easy to go to RCP and look at Fox polls and make the comparison to other media polls vs. professional polls and you will realize they are a media poll with the same variance just like WaPo, CNN, TIME, or whoever.

So in short.....yes Rasmussen has a house bias just like every other pollster. No it's not 3-4 points, it's more like 1-2, yes their mean is roughly 4th or 5th in rank against the major pollsters, but their mode is 1st or 2nd....and it's the mode that matters.

 

[JoeB131]

IN BP Land, Rasmussen is unbiased and fair...

No, seriously.

 

[Sarah G]

We can do this all day. Rasmussen is an outliar and Gallup has become so as well. Also, Real Clear has discovered they can really make any pollster give them any result. But anyway, Nate Silver has a different opinion of Rasmussen.

From 2010 polling:

November 4, 2010, 10:41 pm 179 Comments

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

By NATE SILVER


Every election cycle has its winners and losers: not just the among the candidates, but also the pollsters.

On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.

Other polling firms, like SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University, produced more reliable results in Senate and gubernatorial races. A firm that conducts surveys by Internet, YouGov, also performed relatively well.

What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.

We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.

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

 

[BluePhantom]

Just a follow up Ace. Consider the following scenario. This is bad statistics but good understanding...I should lay all this out in a data set series but you will get the point...I hope.

You are going to bet your life savings on the likelihood that one of two dart throwers will hit a bullseye. Thrower #1 hits a bullseye 75% of the time and when he misses he hits the next ring 25% of the time. Thrower #2 hits the bullseye 90% of the time but when he misses he doesn't even hit the board. Thrower #1's average score beats Thrower #2.

Thrower #1 scores better according to the mean. But here's the deception...the mean doesn't matter. You don't give a shit about the mean..you need a bullseye because anything other than a bullseye and your babies don't have shoes. Thrower #2 is the guy to place your money on because whether a miss is in the second ring or in another state is irrelevant. Thrower #2 hits the bullseye more often according to the mode.

Rasmussen is Thrower #2.

 

[BluePhantom]

We can do this all day. Rasmussen is an outliar and Gallup has become so as well. Also, Real Clear has discovered they can really make any pollster give them any result. But anyway, Nate Silver has a different opinion of Rasmussen.

From 2010 polling:

November 4, 2010, 10:41 pm 179 Comments

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

By NATE SILVER


Every election cycle has its winners and losers: not just the among the candidates, but also the pollsters.

On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.

Other polling firms, like SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University, produced more reliable results in Senate and gubernatorial races. A firm that conducts surveys by Internet, YouGov, also performed relatively well.

What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.

We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.

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

Rasmussen Reports 10/22 - 10/24 1500 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/21 - 10/24 1386 LV 3.0 50 47 Romney +3
IBD/TIPP 10/19 - 10/24 948 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
Gallup 10/18 - 10/24 2700 LV 2.0 50 47 Romney +3
Associated Press/GfK 10/19 - 10/23 839 LV 4.2 47 45 Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/18 - 10/21 1402 LV 2.6 48 45 Romney +3


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

The outlier in that data set is TIPP. Rasmussen is supported by everyone else. If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is. BTW...Nate Silver is a hack. Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.

 

[BluePhantom]

Just a follow up Sarah.....you DO understand that an outlier is a poll way out of whack with what everyone else is saying right? I mean...you call Rasmussen an outlier....it would be the first time in history that an outlier said exactly what everyone else said. Stop listening to Silver...he's rotting your brain.


Oh and Dante...I am STILL fucking waiting.

 

[Sarah G]

Just a follow up Sarah.....you DO understand that an outlier is a poll way out of whack with what everyone else is saying right? I mean...you call Rasmussen an outlier....it would be the first time in history that an outlier said exactly what everyone else said. Stop listening to Silver...he's rotting your brain.

I have followed Real Clear reporting of the polsters every year until this one. They are way off in updating polls for one thing. It's skewed reporting has lost me and I am not giving them one more minute of my time.

Rasmussen has been an outliar for years, I have always discounted their methodolgy and now Gallup. The other polsters are reporting alright but it is Real Clear that is not updating much at their site in a timely manner. That EC map, for instance is way off.

Your brain power has never been of interest to many here, I wouldn't count on anyone other than you being too impressed with it.

 

[Saigon]

These are from Wednesday:

Ohio: Romney vs. Obama Time Obama 49, Romney 44 Obama +5
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 48, Romney 48 Tie
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama SurveyUSA Obama 47, Romney 44 Obama +3

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls

 

[Sarah G]

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama


This is on the homepage. I always looked at the results and electoral map daily.

 

[JoeB131]

The outlier in that data set is TIPP. Rasmussen is supported by everyone else. If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is. BTW...Nate Silver is a hack. Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.

Silver called 49 out of 50 states right in 2008.

But don't let that little tidbit get in your way, man.

 

[BluePhantom]

The outlier in that data set is TIPP. Rasmussen is supported by everyone else. If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is. BTW...Nate Silver is a hack. Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.

Silver called 49 out of 50 states right in 2008.

But don't let that little tidbit get in your way, man.

So did everyone else, Joe. Jesus. The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly. He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance. Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard

 

[BluePhantom]

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama


This is on the homepage. I always looked at the results and electoral map daily.

I am not sure what your point is. It supports every single thing I have been saying

 

[JoeB131]

[
So did everyone else, Joe. Jesus. The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly. He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance. Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard

Pssst.... pssst... don't look now. RCP has put Colorado back in Obama's column...

Shhhhh..... nothing to see here.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The outlier in that data set is TIPP. Rasmussen is supported by everyone else. If you are going to argue that Rasmussen is an outlier then everyone else is also an outlier except for TIPP and that is a total contradiction of what an outlier is. BTW...Nate Silver is a hack. Anyone who puts their faith in Silver doesn't understand statistics.

Silver called 49 out of 50 states right in 2008.

But don't let that little tidbit get in your way, man.

So did everyone else, Joe. Jesus. The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly. He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance. Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard

The expression .. "Pissing in the wind comes to mind"... at least you tried...

 

[JoeB131]

Silver called 49 out of 50 states right in 2008.

But don't let that little tidbit get in your way, man.

So did everyone else, Joe. Jesus. The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly. He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance. Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard

The expression .. "Pissing in the wind comes to mind"... at least you tried...

pissing in the wind is putting the same idiots back in charge who created the mess to start with.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So did everyone else, Joe. Jesus. The 2008 election was such a blowout a monkey could have called that election. Silver follow a very specific pattern and if you go back to 2010 and watch his day by day calls you can see it vey clearly. He will call it heavy for the Democrats until 2-3 days before the election and then SUDDENLY his model will start to show a stronger GOP performance. Calling an election the day before it occurs isn't real hard

The expression .. "Pissing in the wind comes to mind"... at least you tried...

pissing in the wind is putting the same idiots back in charge who created the mess to start with.

Or keeping the ones that made it far, far worse...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If obama is re-elected America is done, obama will finish the job he started in 2009.