Colorado Democrats & Independents Owning In Early Voting Ballots/Conservative Poll!

[mascale]

However many days ago the reporting of the count reflects, apparently the Mail-In Voting in Colorado is tinged GOP as always, but at 41% of the mail. That leaves the Democrats and Independents still in the lead(?)! That's probably a good break for Democrats, since usually for most of them the weekend starts today, which is Saturday. That is different from the usual Republican weekend start on Wednesdays. Likely the GOP weekend, is almost over.

Colorado early voting GOP blows out Dems TheHill

Mostly, even a recent YouGov poll shows Udall trailing by only one percent. YouGov tends to be a conservatively biased poll, on two continents, that anyone has heard of(?).

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(TeaPee Tiny Party even finding no room, for their own, inside!)

 

[Statistikhengst]

However many days ago the reporting of the count reflects, apparently the Mail-In Voting in Colorado is tinged GOP as always, but at 41% of the mail. That leaves the Democrats and Independents still in the lead(?)! That's probably a good break for Democrats, since usually for most of them the weekend starts today, which is Saturday. That is different from the usual Republican weekend start on Wednesdays. Likely the GOP weekend, is almost over.

Colorado early voting GOP blows out Dems TheHill

Mostly, even a recent YouGov poll shows Udall trailing by only one percent. YouGov tends to be a conservatively biased poll, on two continents, that anyone has heard of(?).

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(TeaPee Tiny Party even finding no room, for their own, inside!)

From your posting:

"YouGov tends to be a conservatively biased poll, on two continents, that anyone has heard of(?)."

This is incorrect. YouGov is based in Great Britain and has absolutely no dog in the race.

In 2012, YouGov polled 27 states of our Union for the presidential election. I analysed their end polls here:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond The moment of truth how did the pollsters do


Quote:

YouGov did polls in 27 states, also end-polls in 27 states, including all 12 battlegrounds. It mis-called Florida, so it got as many of the battleground states right as did PPP. It nailed the results in three states, two of them critical battlegrounds: Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia. But 19 of its states had a Conservative mathematical bias, whereas only 5 states had a Liberal mathematical bias, making for a composite bias of R +1.63, which becomes R +1.75 for the 12 battlegrounds.

Perhaps the strangest bias extreme was in Tennessee, with D +9 in a Romney landslide state. And YouGov had this same result for the Volunteer State twice in October!

YouGov has been able to do what Zogby still has not figured out: how to put out accurate internet-only polls. Bravo to YouGov for a good first time out of the gate for state polling in a US presidential election.

To compare that to PPP (D):

Quote:

PPP had absolute bullseyes in four states: Maine, Virginia, Florida and Minnesota. It was one of the only pollsters to correctly call Florida.

Of the 22 states where PPP had end-polls, it was within +/-2 in 10 of those states. You can also see that where PPP, a Democratic leaning polling outfit, erred the most was on the Conservative bias, not the Liberal bias. Let's tear that apart some: PPP was off 4 to the RIGHT in DC, but Obama won DC by almost 84 points. Being off by 4 here is like being off by 0.1 in a tight state like Florida. Likewise, in Montana, PPP was off by 7 to the LEFT, which seems surprising until you see that even Rasmussen was off to the LEFT in Montana. Pretty much everyone was off to the left in that state. But in critical battlegrounds, all of which PPP correctly called, it was off to the RIGHT by +4: WI, IA, NH. Even such a good pollster like PPP was trying to use too constrictive of a model for calculating results.

Still, in spite of this, PPP was without a doubt overall the best pollster of 2012. It ended up with a mathematical bias of R +1.41% for all 22 states averaged, but only R +1.01 for the 12 battlegrounds, pretty much where it was in 2008. Remember that the next time someone says that PPPs results are way too liberal: 11 of 22 polls here had a bias to the RIGHT, not to the LEFT!

So, PPP had an overall conservative mathematical bias of +1.41. YouGov's mathematical bias was +1.63, pretty much identical to PPP. YouGov is hardly a conservative pollster.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, PPP had an overall conservative mathematical bias of +1.41. YouGov's mathematical bias was +1.63, pretty much identical to PPP. YouGov is hardly a conservative pollster.

If the YouGov poll is accurate by showing only a 1% lead for the GOP candidate in CO and it has a 1.6% bias then early voting is effectively tied which means that the GOP is actually losing this race at this point in time because it should be ahead.

 

[mascale]

The YouGov conservative bias reputation does originate of its polling in Great Britain. The organization there does not deny that their results tend to favor conservative issues, but in a relatively conservative environment. In the United States, it is a paid survey site, of origins. CBS and NYTimes have worked with it this year. It makes no pretense of randomization, in its methods, insofar as anyone has even reported. It has many numbers, just like Harlem, or even Laredo(?). You show the Conservative tinge in your comparison. It is not clear how many of the 100,000 are alive in Harlem, or especially in Laredo(?). Probably someone in Laredo, does speak deep, and Mexican, Spanish, at least.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(TeaPee tent tiny, old and white: Even according to Fox-Busy-Smelling-Its-Own-Hole-First(?)!)

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, PPP had an overall conservative mathematical bias of +1.41. YouGov's mathematical bias was +1.63, pretty much identical to PPP. YouGov is hardly a conservative pollster.

If the YouGov poll is accurate by showing only a 1% lead for the GOP candidate in CO and it has a 1.6% bias then early voting is effectively tied which means that the GOP is actually losing this race at this point in time because it should be ahead.

Possibly, but that is not guaranteed. The value is a composite (aggregate) value.

That being said, the final yougov poll of Colorado:

Colorado

Showed Obama +1 over Romney, 48/47.

Actual result: Obama +5.37%

So, that poll from Colorado was off to the Right by +4.37 points, rounded to +4.

So, yes, a yougov poll showing a slight GOP lead for the Senate right now could actually mean a DEM lead in reality. Historically, this has already happened in CO.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The YouGov conservative bias reputation does originate of its polling in Great Britain. The organization there does not deny that their results tend to favor conservative issues, but in a relatively conservative environment. In the United States, it is a paid survey site, of origins. CBS and NYTimes have worked with it this year. It makes no pretense of randomization, in its methods, insofar as anyone has even reported. It has many numbers, just like Harlem, or even Laredo(?). You show the Conservative tinge in your comparison. It is not clear how many of the 100,000 are alive in Harlem, or especially in Laredo(?). Probably someone in Laredo, does speak deep, and Mexican, Spanish, at least.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(TeaPee tent tiny, old and white: Even according to Fox-Busy-Smelling-Its-Own-Hole-First(?)!)

You are misunderstanding me. A mathematical bias is a calculated number, not an intended ideology.
There is a difference, a big one at that. Though I am a Democrat, when it comes to the numbers, I am brutally neutral. I will not accuse a polling firm that is so new to the market of being a "conservative" firm when the end polling values don't really show that. Of a +1 to +1.5 bias in any direction, 0.75 of that may just be statistical noise. A +1 is negligible. A +4, on the other hand, if it is a consistent bias, as is the case with Rasmussen, is a serious case of bias, perhaps intended, even. But +1.4? Nope.