Go ahead. I promise this is the last one. Now or after. I voted. I'm at peace. It's out of my system. It's just a thought I've had about the differences in national polls that might answer it. If you are a supporter of President Obama, you might like this.
So here it is -- many pollsters when looking at the Obama-leading polls think those polls are oversampling Democrats based on the 2008 election; it makes sense: not evened the most hardened Democrat can think Obama has the excitement behind his incumbency that he did as a challenger. These Obama-leading polls see the voting public falling as something like 40% Democrat, 32% Republican, and 28% Independent; the Romney leading polls see it as 36-36-28. The key to this is that no poll does not have the challenger up big in independents. Up big in independents when the raw electorate is +8 Democrat means a tightening race that could very well go Obama 51-49, like the polls show. Up big in independents for Romney if it's 36-36 means it's Romney by 3 to 5. And these are the two kinds of polls you see out there. But here is where I think the Obama polls "could" be accurate, (because every other stat really makes more sense of Romney's narrow lead), if Romney's lead in independents (something between 8% and 20%) is really Republican-leaning voters now registered independent; that makes the number closer to the 36-36, but then Romney doesn't have a lead in independents, because those aren't independents -- either way the incumbent narrow lead is plausible either way -- they can't count it as a dead heat and Romney big with independents, it's like counting the number twice to get to Romney up by 5 like Gallup had. It's tight either way. Just thought I might have found something here that was worth passing along. So go vote. Have fun.
9 comments:
utterly inpenetrable
i mean impenetrable
Ok. Obama campaign thinks he is going to win 52-48. Romney campaign thinks the same thing about their guy. The difference between both campaigns is 8 points. They can't be this far off. The theory is that the Romney campaign is off 8 pts in their polling because they are looking at a turnout model of 36% for Obama, 36% for Romney, and 28% Ind of which Romney is ahead 8 pts. Obama thinks it is 40% for Obama, 33% Romney, (These are the turnout numbers for 2008), and 27% Ind, which they concede Romney is winning, but his independent gains don't catch up to the loyal Dem turnout, and Obama wins. Now the Romney pollsters think that the turnout being the same as 2008, with all the momentum Obama had, is completely wrong, and I would agree with that; the mistake they might be making, and this is just a theory from a rank amateur: the returning base vote that did not show up for McCain may very well be that Independent lead Romney has, they are registered independents that lean right, are fiscally conservative, or libertarian, or independent registered tea partiers; Romney's polls seem to say this group is 16% of the electorate, but their model may be counting these same people as both a rejuvenated Republican base and a dominant lead in so-called independents, (as in: the 36-36-28, with Romney winning that 28, and thus winning the election), but both models are predicated on a prediction of the turnout, and like I said, if that 8% lead in Independents is 8% of republican voters who have returned as independents, than that 8% is being counted twice in the 36-36-28 model that shows Romney winning. Romney can't bring the R vs D turnout to a 36-36 tie if the 8% he is bringing back from what McCain lost are the 8% he leads in independent voters by. I know, this is a rabbit hole. Sorry. NY. I like stats.
Yeah, I didn't do any better the second time, did I..
No, I think I understood that. I still had the same feeling that I was under sedation halfway through, but I woke up in time for the last two sentences and paid attention. It was a bit like being in a maths exam. I suppose I don't really understand the appeal of polls. I mean, I understand they're v appealing for the candidates themselves... but why doesn't everyone else wait and see what happens on Tuesday? Or maybe I'm missing the point...
by the way, thank you for replying at such length to a comment that was slightly impertinent.
That's sort of like, why does someone look through football stats -- pattern recognition is enjoyable if you are a nerd.
Of course. But whereas football is just an elaborate means of generating stats for men to talk about ad nauseam in bars, only a real cynic would say the same of elections. I know from what you have written on here that you are that cynical, and I think the love of stats is partly guilty for getting you into this state. It is not healthy. Ha ha
Yes -- what you just wrote touches on something deeper -- maybe it is cynicism, or maybe the one thing, the over-focus on stats and the like, is a means of tamping down, compartmentalizing the earnest part of me that cares, who might feel patriotic, that will empathize with those people who will feel terrible tonight when things don't go their way, no matter what side that is -- I can easily become emotionally entangled in something like this election; I kind of know what part of me gets excitable about certain issues; what in my psychology leans one way and the other, and that's fine amongst my friends of both political sides, but for this site, I'll keep it to certain ideas, and rhetorical exercises where I think maybe I can write something original -- feigned cynicism is armor for dreamers. And playing the contrarian can be valuable as well.
Post a Comment