Real Clear Politics presidential polling is far from real clear

TheGreatGatsby

Gold Member
Mar 27, 2012
24,433
3,103
280
California
I've been seeing for probably almost two months in poll after poll that Romney is ahead in the national average. Yes, RCP has him down in the national average by 0.8 percent? That just seems like a bold faced lie.

And of course, the electoral map has shown Obama ahead by a considerable margin when it seems clear that if the election were held today that Romney would win.

Now, I know it's not necessarily an ideological error (though it could be - I don't really follow RCP closely) b/c they use static formulas accounting for various polls, averaging for a wide margin of time. However, if the formula you are using is so inept then does that really count as real clear?
 
Last edited:
The numbers just aren't there for obama. They can manipulate it any way they want, slice the pie into rectangles, but the numbers aren't there.
 
Real clear is pretty much on par with the other major polls most have Obama up by 1-3 points a statistical tie Rasmussen varies a bit having Romney up by 4 mainly because they poll likely voters where the others poll registered voters.
 
Which polls are you referring to, Gatsby? Pretty much every poll I've seen has Obama beating Romney by a few points.
 
Everybody with half a brain realizes that the RCP averages are scewed in favor of lefty candidates. If you notice, the k00k radical libs on here jump out of their shorts trying to post up RCP avearges all the time.
 
I've been seeing for probably almost two months in poll after poll that Romney is ahead in the national average. Yes, RCP has him down in the national average by 0.8 percent? That just seems like a bold faced lie.

And of course, the electoral map has shown Obama ahead by a considerable margin when it seems clear that if the election were held today that Romney would win.

Now, I know it's not necessarily an ideological error (though it could be - I don't really follow RCP closely) b/c they use static formulas accounting for various polls, averaging for a wide margin of time. However, if the formula you are using is so inept then does that really count as real clear?

it is far from clear that if the election were held today, Romney would win.

As for the electoral map, that depends on whose you look at. HuffPo orgininally had Obama at over 300, but revised it downward a few times to it's present 270 (funny... they give him exactly what he needs to win).

I averaged the numbers for 270towin, RCP, HuffPo, Washington Post, NYT, CNN and CBS... Obama 223, Romney 201.

22 is hardly a 'considerable margin'.
 
Last edited:
I've been seeing for probably almost two months in poll after poll that Romney is ahead in the national average. Yes, RCP has him down in the national average by 0.8 percent? That just seems like a bold faced lie.

And of course, the electoral map has shown Obama ahead by a considerable margin when it seems clear that if the election were held today that Romney would win.

Now, I know it's not necessarily an ideological error (though it could be - I don't really follow RCP closely) b/c they use static formulas accounting for various polls, averaging for a wide margin of time. However, if the formula you are using is so inept then does that really count as real clear?

it is far from clear that if the election were held today, Romney would win.

As for the electoral map, that depends on whose you look at. HuffPo orgininally had Obama at over 300, but revised it downward a few times to it's present 270 (funny... they give him exactly what he needs to win).

I averaged the numbers for 270towin, RCP, HuffPo, Washington Post, NYT, CNN and CBS... Obama 223, Romney 201.

22 is hardly a 'considerable margin'.

I think it's clear that Romney would win, though Obama is within the margin of error.

Romney is up in the polls (I semi trust) in NC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Arizona. And the last Virginia poll I saw weeks ago before the recent Obama meltdown, Romney was only down 0.8 (and it wasn't a likely voter poll, it was a registered voter poll).

I also believe that the undecideds will go in Romney's favor and he'll win Pennsylvania too. I don't think it's even close right now in terms of the electoral outlook. That seems to be supported by the popular vote polls as well.

A lot could happen between now and November, but right now my money is on Romney getting at least 300 electoral votes. Yet you go to RCP and Huffpo or whereever and they cunningly show Obama ahead (though not always at 270).

I can understand b/c of the methodologies they're using. They're not calling closely contested states. But I think if there was a website with editors who had balls, they'd make the calls and show Romney winning. :badgrin:
 
I've been seeing for probably almost two months in poll after poll that Romney is ahead in the national average. Yes, RCP has him down in the national average by 0.8 percent? That just seems like a bold faced lie.

And of course, the electoral map has shown Obama ahead by a considerable margin when it seems clear that if the election were held today that Romney would win.

Now, I know it's not necessarily an ideological error (though it could be - I don't really follow RCP closely) b/c they use static formulas accounting for various polls, averaging for a wide margin of time. However, if the formula you are using is so inept then does that really count as real clear?

it is far from clear that if the election were held today, Romney would win.

As for the electoral map, that depends on whose you look at. HuffPo orgininally had Obama at over 300, but revised it downward a few times to it's present 270 (funny... they give him exactly what he needs to win).

I averaged the numbers for 270towin, RCP, HuffPo, Washington Post, NYT, CNN and CBS... Obama 223, Romney 201.

22 is hardly a 'considerable margin'.

I think it's clear that Romney would win, though Obama is within the margin of error.

Romney is up in the polls (I semi trust) in NC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Arizona. And the last Virginia poll I saw weeks ago before the recent Obama meltdown, Romney was only down 0.8 (and it wasn't a likely voter poll, it was a registered voter poll).

I also believe that the undecideds will go in Romney's favor and he'll win Pennsylvania too. I don't think it's even close right now in terms of the electoral outlook. That seems to be supported by the popular vote polls as well.

A lot could happen between now and November, but right now my money is on Romney getting at least 300 electoral votes. Yet you go to RCP and Huffpo or whereever and they cunningly show Obama ahead (though not always at 270).

I can understand b/c of the methodologies they're using. They're not calling closely contested states. But I think if there was a website with editors who had balls, they'd make the calls and show Romney winning. :badgrin:

Why don't you tell us what polls those are??
 
Nate Silver's model gives Obama a 61% chance of victory (and an 80% chance if the election were held today) and Intrade gives about a 54% chance of Democratic victory. These are slight margins, not really distinguishable from a coin flip in practice (can anyone really tell whether 40% or 60% was a more accurate prediction even with the benefit of hindsight?) but they do give the edge to Obama. Is there a single model that's showing a Romney edge?
 
People can post all the polls and models they want they are just snapshots of the moment.

That's not true of models in general. Nate Silver's model separately predicts how the election would turn out if held to today and how it will turn out in November. He uses economic variables to predict how people's voting preference will change. And a prediction market like Intrade is designed to predict the probability of a future event, rather than reflect a current reality. Both models and markets are imperfect of course, but if done properly they do have predictive power.
 
People can post all the polls and models they want they are just snapshots of the moment.

That's not true of models in general. Nate Silver's model separately predicts how the election would turn out if held to today and how it will turn out in November. He uses economic variables to predict how people's voting preference will change. And a prediction market like Intrade is designed to predict the probability of a future event, rather than reflect a current reality. Both models and markets are imperfect of course, but if done properly they do have predictive power.

You been talking to Sheldon again? :D
 
National polls don't matter. Its the state to state ones that do. The swing states are the answer. Look at those polls. That will tell you who is doing better or if its tied.
 
So how do you know how awesome Nate Silver's model is? I mean he works for the NYTimes, Commie until proven innocent
 
National polls don't matter. Its the state to state ones that do. The swing states are the answer. Look at those polls. That will tell you who is doing better or if its tied.

For once I agree with you. The fact that, in recent polls, Romney is ahead in Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin is not a good sign for the President.

But polls now arent going to reflect what people think in November anyway.
 
National polls don't matter. Its the state to state ones that do. The swing states are the answer. Look at those polls. That will tell you who is doing better or if its tied.

For once I agree with you. The fact that, in recent polls, Romney is ahead in Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin is not a good sign for the President.

But polls now arent going to reflect what people think in November anyway.

True and those are not the only states in play. The economy is getting better here in ohio.if it keeps up ohio could swing obama.
 

Forum List

Back
Top