Three New Likely Voter Polls

[Kid A]

Good day of swing state polling has Obama with a solid bounce in the 538 forecast: Now 70% (up from about 65% the day before). 7%+ swing to Obama in the odds on Colorado, too. Will we see stabilization now heading dow the stretch, or some more dips and dives? Nate Silver himself has said for a while he predicts it settling to Obama a smallish +2 (in the popular vote forecast) as we head into election day.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[barryr]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I usually just roll my eyes and chuckle at the stupidity and ignorance of your posts but for some reason felt compelled to respond to this particularly idiotic crap.

On your first point, Obama was very well spoken in this second debate. If anyone had trouble "explaining himself" in this debate it certainly wasn't the president.

On your second point, the "liberal media" declared Romney the winner of the first debate. So now that the same media has given Obama the nod in the second debate they're "helping" him?

Funny, that is what I do with your posts too. Obama was well spoken? I guess like how Biden described Obama as "articulate and clean" as though apparently blacks typically aren't that in Biden's world. Even the liberal media couldn't hide Obama's crap performance since he couldn't explain himself unless given another week or 2 to find out what the questions are likely going to be. We know Obama doesn't do well without teleprompters or when have to give answers on the spot, explaining why he's hidden on the golf course and not spending much time answering questions from reporters for 4 years. But I know, in your little world, Obama is doing a bang up job

[BroncoInferno]

Obama "firewall" holding in the midwest. Per new NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, Obama leads 51%-45% in Wisconsion, 51%-43% in Iowa, and 51%-45% in Ohio, all basically unchanged from a month ago:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-firewall?lite

Regarding Iowa, the article does point out that polling is difficult:

*** Romney camp: The Iowa race is much closer: The Romney campaign insists, however, that the contest is MUCH closer in Iowa than our NBC/WSJ/Marist poll shows. The X-factor here may very well be early voting. Per our poll, 34% of likely voters say they have already cast their ballots, and the president is winning those people, 67%-32%. Another 11% say they are planning to vote early, and Obama is up with them, 55%-39%. On the other hand, Election Day voters have Romney ahead, 54%-39%. But Republicans have pointed out that 285,000 early and absentee ballots have been received in Iowa, which is about 19% of the 2008 electorate in the state -- so less than the 34% in our poll. But an overall total 463,000 absentee ballots have been REQUESTED in the state, and that comes to 30% of the 2008 electorate, which is much closer to that 34%. So what’s going on here? Are likely-voter models overstating those who have voted early? Are Democrats just more apt to say they’ve voted early (even if they haven’t), because Obama is asking them to do so? Are these requested absentee ballots already in the mail but haven’t been received by the Iowa secretary of state? These are all fair questions to ask. And, yes, it makes polling in these heavy early-voting states much harder.

[razorwire77]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Obama "firewall" holding in the midwest. Per new NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, Obama leads 51%-45% in Wisconsion, 51%-43% in Iowa, and 51%-45% in Ohio, all basically unchanged from a month ago:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-firewall?lite

Regarding Iowa, the article does point out that polling is difficult:

Not good math for Mitty. He basically needs one of these three states and a clean sweep of the swing states still in play. Of those swing states, as best as I can tell Florida is leaning Romney, but Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia are statistical ties. Mitty needs all to win all three.

Nate has Mitty's chances at about 30 percent. Again the electoral college math is really tough. But don't let that get in the way of a good media daily national tracking poll horse race.

[TonyR]

On Thursday, that story was one of President Obama continuing to hold leads in most polls of critical states. Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them. In contrast to most days since the first presidential debate in Denver, the state polls did not necessarily show a decline for Mr. Obama. As compared with the previous edition of the same survey, instead, he gained ground in five of the polls, and lost ground in four others. (Two of the polls showed an exactly unchanged margin, while two were published for the first time.)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...g-state-polls/

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by TonyR

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...g-state-polls/

As I expected, Romney got a modest initial bounce from the 1st debate, and now the numbers are starting to normalize. That's way it always goes, whether you're talking about convention or debate bounces. Of course, the lemmings will be here any moment to tell us the polls that were gospel a week ago now reflect a socialist plot afoot.

[TonyR]

The reality in the states – regardless of how close the national polls may make the election seem – is that Obama is in the lead. At the Huffington Post, Simon Jackman notes “Obama’s Electoral College count lies almost entirely to the right of 270.” Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium recently put the election odds “at about nine to one for Obama.” The DeSart and Holbrook election forecast, which also looks at the current polls, places Obama’s re-election probability at over 85%. Romney would need to move opinion by another 1%-2% to win – but voter preferences have been very stable for the past two weeks. And if 1%-2% doesn’t seem like much, consider that Romney’s huge surge following the first debate was 2%, at most.

http://votamatic.org/into-the-home-stretch/

[TonyR]

It's mostly about one state at this point: Ohio.

Unlikely does not equal impossible, but Ohio is central enough in the electoral math that it now seems to matter as much as the other 49 states put together. I am not sure whether I should be congratulating you or consoling you if you happen to be reading this in Toledo.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ding-election/

[Rohirrim]

I wonder if it will come down to the AARP vote going against the Romney/Ryan ticket? From what I heard on NPR yesterday, the young vote is really not coming out for Obama the way they did in 2008. It sounds like the minority vote, especially among Latinos, is very strong for Obama. I keep hoping the American people will regain their senses and let this Right Wing extremist movement fade into our past, but I've been hoping that for twenty years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Reuters Predicting Obama Landslide

Posted by Nathaniel Downes

The newest Reuters/Ipsos poll has come out with a remarkable prediction. They now hold that Obama is holding enough of an edge that he is looking to be able to take 332 electoral votes.

On top of this, the initial impression of the debate on Monday is showing Obama as the solid winner, with numbers mirroring the Microsoft X-Box polling results, this is forming in to a very good week for Obama. With only two weeks to go, however, this is crunch time.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Reuters Predicting Obama Landslide

Posted by Nathaniel Downes

The newest Reuters/Ipsos poll has come out with a remarkable prediction. They now hold that Obama is holding enough of an edge that he is looking to be able to take 332 electoral votes.

On top of this, the initial impression of the debate on Monday is showing Obama as the solid winner, with numbers mirroring the Microsoft X-Box polling results, this is forming in to a very good week for Obama. With only two weeks to go, however, this is crunch time.

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.

And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The national polls--with the exception of Gallup, which is undersampling minorities--are very close, but as always, it is the electoral college that matters. If Obama wins the states the Democrats have won in the last five elections (which seems likely) plus New Mexico (which is almost certain), he has 247 electoral votes. Throw in Ohio and he is at 265. From there, winning just one swing state bigger than New Hampshire is enough. Without Ohio, Romney has no chance. If Romney wins only his base plus Ohio, he's not home free yet, but if he wins Ohio, he is very likely to win North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida as well, and that would get him very close to 270. So in the last two weeks, there will be a lot of focus, energy, and money poured into Ohio.

http://electoral-vote.com/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oct23 Obama Leads Among Ohioans Who Have Already Voted

Four polls of people who have already voted in Ohio all show Obama in the lead there. SurveyUSA has him up by 19 points. Rasmussen puts Obama ahead by 29 points. The WSJ/NBC poll has Obama in the lead by 26 points. Finally, PPP gives Obama a 52-point lead among early voters. But Democrats should not break out the champagne yet. Democrats tend to vote early whereas Republicans are more inclined to vote on election day. Still, a vote banked is a vote that cannot be changed by events in the next two weeks.

[Kid A]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.

And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

I agree that FL is looking likely Romney (though not so far from the margin of error). But, honestly, by nearly every account Romney has the narrower path to victory, especially considering Obama's lead in OH has steadied following the tightening during the debates.

Obama could actually lose both OH and FL and still win if he still got IA, CO, WI and VA. That isn't the most likely scenario, as a OH loss wouldn't bode great for IA and CO, but it's well within the realm of possibility. 4 states, all but 1 that he has had a lead in (forecasts of CO seem to swing differently each day).

For Romney to win without OH (in which scenario we could safely assume he isn't closing even bigger gaps in PA or WI) he would need to sweep every other close swing state: VA (trails), CO (tied), IA (trails), NV (trails), NH (trails).

So, basically, either guy is in tough position without OH, but Obama may be in slightly better shape for a non-OH win.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

New Polls Show Obama Maintains Lead in Ohio; Closes Gap Nationally with Romney

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fox News had a poll backfire when the majority of people answered they are much better off now than they were a year ago. How could that be if, according to Fox, President Obama is doing such a bad job?

Fox News poll finds more people are better off now than they were a year ago

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-...ere-a-year-ago

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Fox News had a poll backfire when the majority of people answered they are much better off now than they were a year ago. How could that be if, according to Fox, President Obama is doing such a bad job?

Fox News poll finds more people are better off now than they were a year ago

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-...ere-a-year-ago

Not surprising, considering all economic indictators have improved as well. But let's not let that get in the way of good right wing yarn. I'm sure someone will be in here soon to tell us how Fox News is in the bag for Obama

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.

And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

I agree that Florida looks favorable for Romney, but the RCP average there is 1.8%. If you are willing to put Florida in the bag for Romney, then intellectual consistency would require you to acknowledge that states that show a similar lead for Obama are likely to go to him. Of the states that RCP has listed as "toss ups," Obama has RCP average lead of 2.0% or greater in six of them.

Wisconsin: +2.7%
Pennsylvania: +4.8%
Ohio: +2.1%
Nevada: +2.7%
Michigan: +4.0%
Iowa: +2.0%

That's a total of 76 electoral votes, which based on the RCP map would put Obama over 270. Romney, meanwhile, only leads in two of the toss ups, Florida (+1.8%) and Colorado (a scant 0.2%....not sure why you are certain he's going to win there). Viriginia is a tie. Even if you give Romney FL, CO & VA, he's got a lot more ground to cover if he wants to win. The problem is the numbers have pretty much stabilized in the last couple of weeks.

BTW, all of these numbers are as of 10/25 in the AM. RCP updates daily, so there may be some variance on those numbers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

And the response from DBruleU and the right-wing peanut gallery?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.
And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

romney has a hard path regardless,If obama wins ohio,then it is over for romney.Romney won't win without ohio.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Republicans Desperate to Spin Romney as the Front-Runner Are Becoming 'Nate Silver Truthers'

What do you do when reality doesn't look good for your team? Republicans just create their own alternate reality.

October 24, 2012



We are looking at a very tight race right now, with a virtual tie in national polling. But we don't elect presidents by popular vote, and Obama has enjoyed a lead in the race to get 270 votes in the Electoral College every single day of this campaign – Romney has never led in any of the Electoral College projections.

But in recent days, the Romney-Ryan campaign has claimed that it's moving ahead. As Jonathan Chait noted, “This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Despite zero evidence that Romney has made any gains since receiving a healthy bounce from the first debate, reporters appear to be buying it, with a raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney's supposed “momentum.”

A significant problem for conservatives bent on spinning this alternate reality is New York Times ' polling guru Nate Silver and his 538 forecast model, which called 49 out of 50 states accurately in 2008 and is considered the industry's gold standard (the model also pretty much nailed the 2010 mid-terms). As I write, Silver's model gives Barack Obama a 68 percent chance of winning reelection, with a projected 288 Electoral College votes.

As one might expect in such circumstances, Silver is now becoming a target of the Right. We've seen 'poll truthers' who think all the big pollsters are intentionally skewing their results in Obama's favor, and 'debate truthers” who insist that moderators are in the tank and the questions are rigged to make Romney look bad. Now we're seeing the emergence of 'Nate Silver truthers,' who attack the numbers-cruncher as if he's a pundit expressing a personal opinion rather than a statistics geek who developed a very robust computer model. And they're using the same tactics they deploy to deny climate change – launching ad hominem attacks on an expert -- calling him corrupt -- rather than offering a criticism of the methodology of his model, a criticism they don't have the technical knowledge to come up with.

Robert Stacey McCain, a notably dense right-wing blogger who nonetheless holds some influence in conservative circles, framed it like this: “Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard Whistling Choir, raising Obama to a 70.3% likelihood of victory based on . . . what? I dunno.

I’m not an expert with a New York Times column or anything, much less a Magical Forecasting Model™ that can divine future events with the precise scientific exactitude of 1/10 of one percent.”

McCain only reveals his own impressive ignorance with this passage. Silver's quite transparent about his methodology. He built a computer model that uses state and national polls and a number of economic metrics to determine the likelihood of an outcome. It isn't magical, and it doesn't “divine” anything. Any statistical models will result in a number that can be rounded to however many digits one wants. A likelihood, by definition, is not a prediction.

At the National Review , Josh Jordan drew the short straw and got the sorry task of going after Silver . He shows quite clearly the fundamental error of the right's emerging narrative:

While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.

On September 30, leading into the debates, Silver gave Obama an 85 percent chance and predicted an Electoral College count of 320–218.

Today, the margins have narrowed — but Silver still gives Obama a 67 percent chance and an Electoral College lead of 288–250, which has led many to wonder if he has observed the same movement to Romney over the past three weeks as everyone else has. Given the fact that an incumbent president is stuck at 47 percent nationwide, the odds might not be in Obama’s favor, and they certainly aren’t in his favor by a 67–33 margin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Continued from previous page

The main reason that Silver feels Obama is still an overwhelming favorite is that while Romney has surged in the polls to tie (or lead) Obama nationally, the challenger is still, in Silver’s opinion, a long shot to pull together enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. This is the real problem with Silver’s model in the eyes of many Romney backers — the “weighting” he puts into state polls gives an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective.

Jordan is confused about how Silver's model works. He believes that Silver is tinkering with his projection along the way, no doubt because he's “rooting for Obama.” He says Silver "gave Obama” an 85 percent chance of winning, he asks if Silver “observed” movements in the polls, he cites “Silver's opinion” and talks about what “Silver feels.” He calls Silver's weighting of state polls “subjective.”

But here's the thing: Silver isn't a pundit. He doesn't adjust his model once a campaign gets underway -- even if he sees a way to refine it -- because he believes a model should be consistent in its methodology throughout a campaign. It's the model that weights certain polls more heavily than others – based on pollsters' past track records – it's the model that weights the state polls, and it's the model that gives decreasing weight to the economic data as the election grows nearer. No model is perfect -- as Nate Silver would be the first to admit -- but his 538 model is the result of years of statistical numbers-crunching. Having created it long before this election got underway, Silver simply inputs the data from every poll published – not selecting which confirm his view of the race – and the economic data, and runs thousands of simulations per day using those numbers.

He only very occasionally makes a judgment call, and in those cases he's very transparent and his rationale is quite easy to understand. For example, he chose to exclude a poll that was released this week because it was actually conducted in September. He made note of the omission, and he's right not to add September data into the mix in late October.

He does offer analysis of what his model is telling him, but the projections are done by a computer that doesn't have a horse in this or any race. Its microchips and software are neither Democratic nor Republican. It's all based on cold, dispassionate computing of statistical probabilities.

So while desperate Republicans who have convinced themselves that Obama is universally loathed try to stave off cognitive dissonance by insisting that Romney's the clear front-runner, remember that while no model is 100 percent accurate, Silver's has one of the best track records in the game. And that means that while things could change -- and Romney certainly has a good chance of winning (according to Silver, a 32 percent chance as I'm writing) -- Obama's leading where it counts right now.

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...ers?page=0%2C1

[Rohirrim]

It's science. And we all know how Republicans "feel" about science.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It's science. And we all know how Republicans "feel" about science.

Exactly. Using math to predict future results is referred to as "divining".



This isn't reading tea leaves, you lackwit Republicans. We call it "solving a problem". Granted, it's a story problem, and we all know your hatred for any text that doesn't start with "the Book of".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Latest Ohio Poll Shows Trending for Obama and a Continued Four Percentage Point Lead