Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:18 PM Oct 2012

Things are about to get a whole lot tougher for Nate Silver

From the Political Wire


Too Tough to Forecast?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-14-breaking-the-state-national-poll-stalemate/

Nate Silver: "If the current polls hold, predicting the election outcome will boil down to making a series of educated guesses about the relationship between state and national polls, and between the Electoral College and the popular vote."

"There have been plenty of elections before when the outcome was highly uncertain down the stretch run or on Election Day itself. But I am not sure that there has been one where different types of polls pointed in opposite directions. Anyone in my business who is not a bit terrified by this set of facts is either lying to himself -- or he doesn't know what he's doing."



Well Nate if you are going to trust every Tom Dick and Doug Kaplan that comes your way you are going to make a mess out of it.

You are actually going to have to look at the pollsters and start throwing some of them out, and give others only a token weight.

But when you are flooded by polls from the right wing including Gravis, ARG, Purple Strategies, WeAskAmerica and Rasmussen you are being played, and being played badly.

Did you really think that with hundreds of millions of dollars going around that they wouldn't try and play the ref by flooding you with a lot of right wing polls?

127 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Things are about to get a whole lot tougher for Nate Silver (Original Post) grantcart Oct 2012 OP
The G.O.P. polling strategy is so obvious that it discredits any commentater who falls for it. Tom Rinaldo Oct 2012 #1
But the problem is - they ARE falling for it. calimary Oct 2012 #76
What are you suggesting? If the Dems try to beat them at the hypnotic hoodwinking game anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #89
Are there any signs that the MSM is picking up on this? Sugarcoated Oct 2012 #2
They know all about it. GoCubsGo Oct 2012 #28
They were clearly chomping at the bit for more of a horse race to this thing. Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #58
Neither eyeballs nor viewership are primary tavalon Oct 2012 #82
Wow Nate. DURHAM D Oct 2012 #3
Especially when they made a miraculous 500 calls in Pennsylvania in just a couple of hours. grantcart Oct 2012 #6
If Nate doesn't fix his model/calculations DURHAM D Oct 2012 #11
Times owned brush Oct 2012 #62
I wouldn't be too sure of that. n/t AverageJoe90 Oct 2012 #83
you mean the current model/calculations that have Obama winning? krawhitham Oct 2012 #84
"you all"? DURHAM D Oct 2012 #85
Yep krawhitham Oct 2012 #88
Get real. Two weeks ago the pollsters suddenly switched from Registered Voters (RVs) to.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #114
What happened in 2010? krawhitham Oct 2012 #120
Wow. Just wow. nt. OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #121
Oh, for heaven's sake! MissMarple Oct 2012 #91
Your post makes absolutely no sense as regards DURHAM D Oct 2012 #99
Gravis had Romney up 57-40 among African-Americans in CO. HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #21
That certainly smells. That simply can't be correct. yardwork Oct 2012 #54
Agreed. Either a ridiculously small sample, HooptieWagon Oct 2012 #67
That seems impossible, but... Spider Jerusalem Oct 2012 #103
Denver and Colorado Springs are home to most of Colorado's African-American population jayschool Oct 2012 #122
Does Bias in Polling Work Both Ways: Right AND Left? SkepticMetric Oct 2012 #4
thanks so much for dropping by, enjoy your stay. grantcart Oct 2012 #8
You should get educated about what goes on here in DU. Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #14
That is a big reason I am here. old guy Oct 2012 #34
Liberal does not mean 'anything that is not conservative'. Marr Oct 2012 #15
In North Idaho liberal means "anything to the left of me" jmowreader Oct 2012 #40
You should have. Chan790 Oct 2012 #94
The boss refuses to run death panel letters jmowreader Oct 2012 #96
Name 6 major Democratic poling firms that are cited in the MSM. now... progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #33
Concern noted. nt. OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #115
We're working on it, man, we're working on it jsmirman Oct 2012 #5
Sites like electoral-vote.com BumRushDaShow Oct 2012 #7
Agree with you...Nate needs to make some choices about the polls he keeps.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #9
Ask yourself a question about nate graham4anything Oct 2012 #10
He gained (and will retain) his fame by being accurate hack89 Oct 2012 #16
^^^ THIS ^^^ (n/t) MadrasT Oct 2012 #17
however...there is a truism about rasmussen-(though its sometimes hard to find the proof) graham4anything Oct 2012 #19
Everyone nailed the 2008 race. It really wasn't that hard. Dawgs Oct 2012 #27
To this degree of accuracy? hack89 Oct 2012 #45
So did the RCP average of state polls. Dawgs Oct 2012 #72
OK. nt hack89 Oct 2012 #73
Everyone knew Obama would win, but Silver was almost perfect. boxman15 Oct 2012 #71
Anyone can nail it if they know what the outcome will be. zeemike Oct 2012 #31
So Obama won by rigging the elections? hack89 Oct 2012 #47
No he won by massive voter turnout. zeemike Oct 2012 #126
Pure luck. nt progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #35
He correctly predicted the winner of 49 of 50 states and every Senate race hack89 Oct 2012 #48
I'm a fan of Nate's BainsBane Oct 2012 #92
i believe that Nate's obstacle is that he made a model that was based grantcart Oct 2012 #23
I'd like to offer a correction to that statement which I believe is significant. gkhouston Oct 2012 #41
Agree 100% with your observations. DURHAM D Oct 2012 #56
Why do you think the polls have changed so much in 4 years? hack89 Oct 2012 #50
NO WE DON"t==there are 4 to 8 brand new companies that only started after aggregates blocked Ras graham4anything Oct 2012 #55
And Nate weighs new polls to give them less influence on the results hack89 Oct 2012 #57
Obama is now where he was before the debate. Mitt & Glove gained nothing but statistical noise graham4anything Oct 2012 #59
And your expertise in polling is what exactly? hack89 Oct 2012 #60
Who was better? Willie Mays or Derek Jeter? I rest my case. (Willie of course). graham4anything Oct 2012 #61
This also happened during the Wisconsin recalls forthemiddle Oct 2012 #68
The polls for the Wisconsin recall were pretty accurate. hack89 Oct 2012 #70
you don't have the facts grantcart Oct 2012 #64
Of the competitive states on Nate's site .. hack89 Oct 2012 #69
Let's stick with your first point grantcart Oct 2012 #93
So agreeing with Nate Silver = "die hard Republican"? Ok. nt hack89 Oct 2012 #102
So is Nate Silver merely incompetent or is it something more nefarious? nt hack89 Oct 2012 #105
As I stated clearly before Nate's model was designed based on baseball which had no grantcart Oct 2012 #106
Time will tell - I suspect Nate will nail it once again. nt hack89 Oct 2012 #108
You keep saying there were more polls available in 2008 hack89 Oct 2012 #109
If you are not aware of the fact that in 2008 that there was the most extensive primary campaign in grantcart Oct 2012 #110
So you have no actual evidence? hack89 Oct 2012 #111
Sorry, but you have to be much more polite to a respected DU poster.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #116
How do I prove a negative? hack89 Oct 2012 #117
And it was not insulting on his part hack89 Oct 2012 #118
Maybe the Dems should start a polling company that removes Baitball Blogger Oct 2012 #12
Grantcart - Sugarcoated Oct 2012 #13
yes conversations are going on by other DUers. We expect something to be ublished by Thus. grantcart Oct 2012 #24
That's great news! dchill Oct 2012 #63
I have David Corn's private email addy if you need it. nt grasswire Oct 2012 #66
We just might, for sure jsmirman Oct 2012 #98
Go Grantcart! Force him to be real! n/t BlueToTheBone Oct 2012 #18
Why don't we just get to the heart of it.... Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2012 #20
Post removed Post removed Oct 2012 #22
I'm just not sure I'm going to vote this time around. AlbertCat Oct 2012 #30
I'm going to assume you are male OldHippieChick Oct 2012 #78
reversal of Roe v. Wade. AlbertCat Oct 2012 #81
"if you vote"??? Really, you like Romney that much? progressivebydesign Oct 2012 #36
Anyone who does not vote is in no position to judge who is 'smart'. Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #38
"you smart DU people"? Good thing you're not one of us, then. randome Oct 2012 #39
Zorro has just become a zombie. Surya Gayatri Oct 2012 #42
here's a fun thing rtracey Oct 2012 #25
Polling has become a political False Flag operation. Blue Idaho Oct 2012 #26
He had a bit of critique for Gravis today: mzmolly Oct 2012 #29
That's because Kaplan's "polls" appear to be made up out of whole cloth. MuhkRahker Oct 2012 #124
I agree. mzmolly Oct 2012 #125
Stop making sense! FailureToCommunicate Oct 2012 #32
The republics are just trying to make it seem confused so they can steal ThomThom Oct 2012 #37
Could very well be... defacto7 Oct 2012 #43
I find Nate Silver's columns to be very interesting... however... Time for change Oct 2012 #44
It is a drawback that he is strictly a numbers guy & admitted that he doesn't like politics Lex Oct 2012 #46
i believe Nate did a piece on voter suppression grantcart Oct 2012 #49
MORE TWO SENSES FROM LAYKOFF HowHasItComeToThis Oct 2012 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #97
I've Been Inundated Ccarmona Oct 2012 #52
Excellent OP. Our side needs to wake up and smell the coffee. yardwork Oct 2012 #53
grantcart: Raine1967 Oct 2012 #65
Grantcart did you send info to Nate? flamingdem Oct 2012 #75
Nate Silver has a rapidly closing window of opportunity Denzil_DC Oct 2012 #74
YOu heard that Rob Portman was talking today about Romney doing it without Ohio didn't you? graham4anything Oct 2012 #77
They do this to mstinamotorcity2 Oct 2012 #79
Please check this out - DURHAM D Oct 2012 #80
I'd like to see a Michael Moore exposé on the corruption and pundit-abuse of polling. anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #86
I think Nate has been punked. Major Hogwash Oct 2012 #87
Silver's model does rate polls BainsBane Oct 2012 #90
Even as the more-obviously dodgy polls are weeded out, anAustralianobserver Oct 2012 #95
The GOP is trying to make it look close. They want to steal the election without having a revolution judesedit Oct 2012 #100
Gravis, ARG, Purple Strategies, WeAskAmerica and Rasmussen 68 Rex Oct 2012 #101
Opinion polling is all fatally flawed Anthony McCarthy Oct 2012 #104
But seldom is it an outright fraud by known con people with previous citations by the FCC. grantcart Oct 2012 #107
Yep....this year has been very bad.... OldDem2012 Oct 2012 #112
I think Nate is going to do just fine. nt hack89 Oct 2012 #113
grantcart you make statistics sound so sexy!!!!!! psychmommy Oct 2012 #119
repubinrecovery ddougherty Oct 2012 #123
Thanks. +1. Nt Mc Mike Oct 2012 #127

Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
1. The G.O.P. polling strategy is so obvious that it discredits any commentater who falls for it.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:24 PM
Oct 2012

Sorry about that Nate. You will have to exercise some common sense in addition to statistical wizardry.

calimary

(81,198 posts)
76. But the problem is - they ARE falling for it.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:41 PM
Oct 2012

These guys really fascinate me! Look at all the devious ideas they've come up with to pervert reality!

And look how successful they are. People fall for it like nobody's business, and only after the damage is done, only years later, do the suckers come out of their stupor and realize that they got played - by somebody or other. And by then, these bastards are back, with all kinds of devious ideas for explaining to the suckers that the people who played 'em are OUR guys - who actually did NOT. And watch the suckers fall for it AGAIN!!!

So MY question is -

WHY AREN'T OUR GUYS COMING UP WITH STUFF LIKE THIS????? WHY NOT????? WHY THE FUCK NOT???????????????? Are we so prissy that we just HAVE to stand with the suckers? 'Cause if we don't (she said, with her eyelashes batting and her fingers pointing to her dimples), gee whiz we'll be just like them!!!

Well, how terrible is THAT - IF THEY'RE WINNING???????????? If they get close enough to steal?????

We can be proper and moral and have our asses marched all the way out the back door while the bad guys pull this shit and succeed!

Now, they've managed to maneuver close enough to steal it, and they have all the mechanisms to do that. And OUR guy decided to be nice and dignified and elegant - and look where that got him - BLEW all his leads because he or his advisors told him to be above it all.

But this is politics. This is not morality. This is not church. This is not etiquette class. This is not let's all get along. And it can't be, as long as the other side refuses to meet us there, and refuses to acknowledge - much less play by - rules.

We're gonna get suckered every single damn time if we don't start getting a little more devious.

I hate that it's that way. I wish it was all about REALLY AND TRULY playing fair, with both sides sincerely agreeing.

BUT IT IS NOT. And as long as the playing field is stacked that way, I think we HAVE to start playing that way or else we're gonna get rolled. Again.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have NO interest in taking the so-called high road here, especially when we have to fight ruthless, amoral, cheating assholes like this. Virtue and valor and honest just don't beat 'em - mainly because the public is so damned gullible and dumbed-down, with the memory of a fruit fly. These are obscenely idiotic conditions that aren't based in reason or reality, that call for different approaches. Any OTHER approach than just being nice and polite and trying to get along.

Under conditions LIKE THESE, taking the high road takes us straight over a cliff.

89. What are you suggesting? If the Dems try to beat them at the hypnotic hoodwinking game
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:01 PM
Oct 2012

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

they will lose, get busted and be the subject of spectacular exposés and investigations that will tarnish them for years.

Better to just call out their tactics. The public is dying for leaders to explain and call out the latest sophisticated techniques of demoralisation, agitation and obstruction.

GoCubsGo

(32,078 posts)
28. They know all about it.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:30 PM
Oct 2012

Some of them are even contributing to it. See: CNN and their post-VP debate poll that was skewed to show Lyin' Ryan winning.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
58. They were clearly chomping at the bit for more of a horse race to this thing.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:56 PM
Oct 2012

I mean, aside from the right-wing corporate bent of the media, the "excitement" of an allegedly close race drives eyeballs and viewership.

tavalon

(27,985 posts)
82. Neither eyeballs nor viewership are primary
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:00 PM
Oct 2012

Citizen's United endless cash flow for ads. That's the golden ring they are pulling for, nothing more. They worship the green that falls from the tree of that awful, awful, did I mention, unconstitutional ruling.

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
3. Wow Nate.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:28 PM
Oct 2012

What is he doing?

From his article -

"And a Gravis Marketing survey of Colorado had Mr. Obama with a lead of slightly over 2 percentage points in that state."

and

"There are also some critiques that one can render about these polls. Gravis Marketing surveys, for instance, rely on cheap automated interviews."



How does he know what Gravis is doing or NOT doing? Did he make a trip to Orlando? I am really starting to think that Nate is part of the vast right wing noise machine.



brush

(53,764 posts)
62. Times owned
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:22 PM
Oct 2012

Well he does work for the New York Times now, not like in '08 when he was on his own. And I'm really disappointed in him. He should be sharp enough not to lend so much weight to Gravis and the other obviously rove/Koch funded polls. He needs to rework his calculation model

krawhitham

(4,643 posts)
84. you mean the current model/calculations that have Obama winning?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:12 PM
Oct 2012

You all loved this man 2 weeks ago.

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
85. "you all"?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:24 PM
Oct 2012

I gather you are not one of us.

And jftr - if Nate pulls the trash data out of his model Obama would be further ahead.

krawhitham

(4,643 posts)
88. Yep
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:46 PM
Oct 2012

I have no problem with nate, "you all" seemed to have turned on him

Obama will win, but it will be close. To think otherwise is delusional

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
114. Get real. Two weeks ago the pollsters suddenly switched from Registered Voters (RVs) to....
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:02 AM
Oct 2012

...Likely Voters (LVs), and then began claiming,

1. GOP LVs were more enthusiastic than Dem LVs,
2. Women and Latino voters were split on the two candidates.

Neither of those two are correct in real life.

Additionally, a number of new pollsters suddenly appeared with data that appeared to support the two points noted above. Where did those pollsters come from, and who is funding them?

Nate took that data and ran with it, but from what I understand he's beginning to see the light.

"You all"?? Your deep concern is noted.

krawhitham

(4,643 posts)
120. What happened in 2010?
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 10:07 AM
Oct 2012

GOP LVs were a lot more enthusiastic than Dem LVs

Fact, deal with it


Dems stayed home because Obama did not personally delivery a pony to each professional left voter

Why should the polling companies assume 2012 will be any different? Sure we need to prove them wrong but they use the last election as model for the next, always have

MissMarple

(9,656 posts)
91. Oh, for heaven's sake!
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:31 PM
Oct 2012

It's a statistical model. Human behavior is complicated. We have not been devolved to computer code yet. He knows that, he has said that.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
21. Gravis had Romney up 57-40 among African-Americans in CO.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:18 PM
Oct 2012

Certainly makes you question if they did any poll at all, and just pulled the data out of their ass.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
103. That seems impossible, but...
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:57 AM
Oct 2012

Small or negligible sample, probably, if they're polling randomly; demographics: Colorado's population is only 4% black. That 4% is concentrated in Denver and Boulder. So depending on where they were polling and how many calls they were making...I don't really think that the result can be considered significant, anyway.

jayschool

(180 posts)
122. Denver and Colorado Springs are home to most of Colorado's African-American population
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 10:16 AM
Oct 2012

Denver is 19.2 percent African-American.
Colorado Springs is 6.8 percent African-American.
Boulder is 1.2 percent African-American.

If you've ever walked around Boulder, you'd know it simply by observation.

SkepticMetric

(7 posts)
4. Does Bias in Polling Work Both Ways: Right AND Left?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:30 PM
Oct 2012


I also cringe when I watch Fox News Tackyheads swearing on their mother's milk that we should believe and swallow whole Ram-ass wrong Rasmussen Polls and similar drek!

At the same time, as a progressive fair and balanced (really soothsayer, is the implication that polls oft accused as having liberal tendencies generally are as good as gold? "Our" pollsters wear white hats; their pollsters are wicked polecats? Is it that simple?

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
8. thanks so much for dropping by, enjoy your stay.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:36 PM
Oct 2012


What 'our pollsters'.

Zogby, he's owned by the Brazillians.

PPP ? Well its hard to see bias but ok call them Democrats if you want.

Go to RCP and add together the polls from ARG, RAS, WeAskAmerica, Purple Strategies and Gravis and you will see a flood of polls not a couple.

Now who exactly do you think is polling for 'our' side.

Baitball Blogger

(46,699 posts)
14. You should get educated about what goes on here in DU.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:47 PM
Oct 2012

Anyone who pushes an opinion had better back it up with statistics or direct links to sources. We do our homework here, and grant has gone above and beyond to make his point.

It's too easy to lie through statistics. DU was made to debunk the liars.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
15. Liberal does not mean 'anything that is not conservative'.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:52 PM
Oct 2012

There is such a thing as a scientific poll, which aims to get a dispassionate reading of *reality*. You're familiar with reality, right? It's this thing that just IS, no matter what people say or think.

jmowreader

(50,552 posts)
40. In North Idaho liberal means "anything to the left of me"
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:51 PM
Oct 2012

Which is one thing if you are Bush the Elder, another if you're Goldwater and quite another if you're Attila the Hun. Two weeks ago we got a letter that said if we elected a liberal like Romney & Ryan we'd have gun confiscation and death panels w/i 6 months so vote Constitution Party.(We didn't run it.)

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
94. You should have.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:38 PM
Oct 2012

Imagine if the Constitution Party won ID...it lowers the total number of EC votes needed by Obama to win.

Better, imagine if Obama won ID because half the conservatives voted for the Constitution Party.

jmowreader

(50,552 posts)
96. The boss refuses to run death panel letters
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:53 PM
Oct 2012

We'll run anything except that which is total bullshit, and death panels top the list of that commodity in my editor's eyes.

progressivebydesign

(19,458 posts)
33. Name 6 major Democratic poling firms that are cited in the MSM. now...
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:35 PM
Oct 2012

I'm waiting... where are the big democratic-funded polls??? Name 6.

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
9. Agree with you...Nate needs to make some choices about the polls he keeps....
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:39 PM
Oct 2012

....and any poll less than a year old should be deep-sixed.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
10. Ask yourself a question about nate
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:41 PM
Oct 2012

did anyone nationwide ever really hear of him in 2004 and 2008?
He was more famous for being a sports Billy Beane type numbers man

He now is a very famous person, celebrity, talking head
He knows(as he is smart) it is in his best interest to have a horserace so he keeps his fame through election day

And Nate wants to be the despicable Tim Russert(remember what he did to Kucinich???) or Chuck Todd or something like that.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
16. He gained (and will retain) his fame by being accurate
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:56 PM
Oct 2012

he nailed the 2008 election - if he nails the 2012 election he will be set for life.

Juggling his results to produce a false horse race does not help him maintain his fame past election day.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
19. however...there is a truism about rasmussen-(though its sometimes hard to find the proof)
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:06 PM
Oct 2012

ras before a big moment, like before the repub convention, has Obama high pollled, higher than ever in his polls
then after the convention ras drops obama so instead of a 2 point shift, its 6 points

then the very last poll he does, what he does is a fully accurate poll.That way his subscribers(and the majority of the polls are hidden only seen by paying members)

2012-he was outed, electoral-vote.com created a separate page
voila, the last week or so, the poll pages were equal mostly (though not on the senate)
Ras knows 5 to 7 other polls are the same as Ras' used to be, so Ras can play honest

good cop bad cop

So Nate can call it exact, taking out the crap at the end, and be a hero in the talking heads world.

Rove is playing all of them

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
27. Everyone nailed the 2008 race. It really wasn't that hard.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:30 PM
Oct 2012

I think he's making excuses now because it won't be easy this time.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
45. To this degree of accuracy?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:05 PM
Oct 2012
Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race.

boxman15

(1,033 posts)
71. Everyone knew Obama would win, but Silver was almost perfect.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:56 PM
Oct 2012

He predicted 50 of the 51 "states" correctly (including DC). He only missed the ridiculously close Indiana. Most of his analyses accurately indicated how close or how not close the races would be.

Plus, he predicted the results of every single US Senate race perfectly.

He knows what he's doing.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
31. Anyone can nail it if they know what the outcome will be.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:33 PM
Oct 2012

If the elections are rigged the person I wold most like to know it the rigger in chief....then I would always be accurate with my predictions.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
126. No he won by massive voter turnout.
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 03:59 PM
Oct 2012

And that is what it will take this time too....but this time the right has erected some barriers like purging and voter ID so they have a better chance.

But look, I hope to post my eat crow post on November 7...I hope I am wrong to the point of delusional and will gladly eat my crow and make you think I like it....I want to be wrong...but I am a cynic who knows just how morally corrupt the right wing is, and puts nothing past them especially with big money behind them.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
48. He correctly predicted the winner of 49 of 50 states and every Senate race
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:11 PM
Oct 2012

that is not luck.

This was how he did in 2010:

Of the 37 Senate seats contested in the November 2, 2010 elections, 36 were resolved by November 4, including very close outcomes in several states. Of these 36, the FiveThirtyEight model had correctly predicted the winner in 34. One of the two misses was in Colorado, in which the incumbent Michael Bennet (D) outpolled the challenger Ken Buck (R) by less than 1 percentage point. The 538 model had forecast that Buck would win by 1 percentage point. The second miss was in Nevada, in which the incumbent Harry Reid beat challenger Sharron Angle by 5.5 percentage points, whereas the 538 model had forecast Angle to win by 3.0 percentage points. Silver has speculated the error was due at least in part to the fact that polling organizations underrepresented Hispanic voters by not interviewing in Spanish.[95]

In the remaining contest for U.S. Senate, in Alaska, the electoral outcome was not yet determined as of November 4, pending a count of the write-in ballots, but in the end the FiveThirtyEight forecast of GOP nominee Joe Miller as winner ultimately proved to be wrong, as write-in candidate, incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, prevailed.

The 538 model had forecast a net pickup of 7 seats by the Republicans in the Senate, but the outcome was a pickup of 6 seats.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
92. I'm a fan of Nate's
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:33 PM
Oct 2012

This is a very tight election, which is why his models shows it to be tight. He has no incentive to be anything other than as accurate as he can be.

This is down to voter turnout. Make sure you help the Obama campaign or your state Democratic party get the vote out.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
23. i believe that Nate's obstacle is that he made a model that was based
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:24 PM
Oct 2012

On his baseball experience tnat had a high volume of statistics coming constantly.

In 2008 there was a very high volume of polls which fit his model.

The volume isn't there this time so he is thirsty for numbers.

gkhouston

(21,642 posts)
41. I'd like to offer a correction to that statement which I believe is significant.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:56 PM
Oct 2012

His baseball experience was with a high volume of untainted statistics. The statistics came from events (baseball games) that anyone could theoretically have observed, if they'd had the time and a superduper sports channel package on their TV. The statistics, absent some bad umpire calls, were an accurate reflection of the games being played. To taint that pool of data, you'd have to compromise the umpire's ability to make calls in some way. Even if you did that, the public would notice an unusually high number of bad calls.

IMO, that experience only maps well to political polls if we can legitimately assume that the polls are well-constructed and administered in good faith. To taint the data pool, all you would need to do is subvert existing polling firms or establish new ones. Although some might suspect the polls are skeevy, it would be a lot harder to prove because the act of polling is not publicly observable.

Given the amount of effort and money that's been poured into every other facet of voter suppression, it would be odd to assume that polling numbers are as pure as driven snow. Unless Nate takes a more critical look at where his data is coming from, he's likely to lose a lot of credibility this year.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
50. Why do you think the polls have changed so much in 4 years?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:17 PM
Oct 2012

we have the same polling companies using pretty much the same methodologies. He has all the numbers he needs - you just don't like the results.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
55. NO WE DON"t==there are 4 to 8 brand new companies that only started after aggregates blocked Ras
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:47 PM
Oct 2012

so it probably is skewered by 7 points
Obama +7 (maybe it's only +4, but it is a good number)

I sent some emails to some of them months ago stating I thought they were 5 to 7 points off and I still think so.

The more we out them, the more honest they will be.

I now predict Obama is going to win well over 270, and as soon as they get to 192 before 11pm eastern, we won.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
57. And Nate weighs new polls to give them less influence on the results
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:53 PM
Oct 2012

while giving more weight to established and reliable polls. He also establishes a "house bias" for each poll to see whether it consistently favors one party over the other.

I think Nate knows what he is doing. I dismissed Republican hysterics over "skewed" polls when Obama had a commanding lead and I will do the same now. The race tightened significantly - election politics are dynamic. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
59. Obama is now where he was before the debate. Mitt & Glove gained nothing but statistical noise
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:57 PM
Oct 2012

the race has not tightened.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
60. And your expertise in polling is what exactly?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:04 PM
Oct 2012

I can understand supporting the President - that doesn't mean you have to deny reality.

There is nothing to indicate it is "nothing but statistical noise" other than your wishful thinking.

Look - Obama will win. He still leads in major battleground states. But the race is closer now.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
61. Who was better? Willie Mays or Derek Jeter? I rest my case. (Willie of course).
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:06 PM
Oct 2012

Nate is like Kreskin.

It's fun entertainment.

but the main thing is, betting on politics is illegal in the USA.

it's only for fun.

forthemiddle

(1,379 posts)
68. This also happened during the Wisconsin recalls
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:37 PM
Oct 2012

One of the reasons I joined back up with DU during the Wisconsin recalls was the unending denials of the Wisconsin polls. They were all saying Walker would win with about a 5 point margin. There were very few outliers, yet everyone here was complaining about how wrong they were (generally oversampling Republicans).
I stood up and stated that in my part of the state (very rural, and red to purple) that is what I was experiencing.
I have learned to pay attention to the polls because when taken as a whole (or an average) they tend to be pretty close. When a final election is less than a % difference, that is when polls become "unreliable", but in the 2012 election so far, on average Obama is in the lead, and that is the solace (at least today) I take. Even if they tighten even more, a very small percentage has had Romney ahead, and none of those by a huge amount.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
64. you don't have the facts
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:27 PM
Oct 2012

In the key states Gravis is the most used and most heavily rated poll by Nate Silver.

Gravis posted its first poll only 66 days ago, even though he is recorded on Russian radio talking about polling in January.

The main victims are the conservatives who are blogging like crazy about Gravis great numbers. Trust me when everything is finally released its the right wing that is going to be the most upset, so prepare yourself for more bombshells about Kaplan.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
69. Of the competitive states on Nate's site ..
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:48 PM
Oct 2012

Gravis has Obama leading in Florida, Colorado, and Nevada among recent polls

Gravis s lightly rated in Virginia.

Gravis has Romney winning North Carolina but then so does most every other poll.

Gravis is not even included in Iowa and Virginia.

I just don't see it.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
93. Let's stick with your first point
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:37 PM
Oct 2012

How have the polls changed

Kaplan goes on Russian radio and talks extensively about a whole series of polls that he has just completed and is now doing.

None are published. He does go and register a political action committe so that he can raise money and spend it on behalf of candidates he supports.

Tell me when in US history has a pollster announced polls, not published them and then gone to try and raise money to spend on candidates.

Then 6 months later he becomes the most prolific pollster in the country even though he has no staff and claims he is making no money.

As for his polls RCP is much easier to manipulate because it has the all of the polls on a single page.

Ohio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html#polls

23 polls and only 3 show Romney leading

Gravis
ARG
WeAskAmerica

All 3 are highly discredited right wing pollsters. Everyone else has Obama ahead.

North Carolina

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nc/north_carolina_romney_vs_obama-1784.html

basically all of the polls are showing either Romney or Obama within the Margin of Error.

Gravis is the only one that shows it being significant just under double digits with a +9.

So you are impressed with Gravis Colorado poll showing Obama ahead.

Well you are easy to impress. They came out with the most laughable poll of the season on October 4th in Colorado showing Romney ahead of Obama with African Americans here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Gravis_CO_1006.pdf

Then two days later in an effort to fix their obvious fuck up they immediately publish another Colorado poll showing Obama back up.

I could go on but you are obviously a die hard Republican who will again be embarassed when Kaplan is completed revealed as the con artist he is.



grantcart

(53,061 posts)
106. As I stated clearly before Nate's model was designed based on baseball which had no
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:24 AM
Oct 2012

problems with the supply of statistics. In 2008 you had an explosion of polls many times more than this year due to a completely different primary context generating thousands of statewide polls.

I am not a statistician but I qualified as an intertnational ISO 9001 Systems inspector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000


There are 20 key elements that are needed to maintain quaility in any system. One of them, and you could consider it the most important is establishing the quality standards of your raw material because once it is in your factory it is impossible to improve the quality of the raw material you have received.

So Nate Silver's model had two weakenesses. The first it requires more statistics than the market normally produces. 2008 was an exception year 2012 is a more typical one.

The second Nate did not make a serious enough attempt at grading the raw material.

I am not going to pursue this any further with you except to say that the working group on Gravis now has materials into the hundreds of pages and it is so voluminous that we are having a hard time cataloging it. When it becomes published, and it will, Gravis Marketing is going to be laughed off the scene.

Anyone who continues to attach any weight to Gravis Marketing is going to be discredited.

In ISO 9001 we stay away from words like 'incompetent' or 'nefarious'. In ISO 9001 terms Silver's 538 site is "non conforming to a quality standard". You either conform to a quality standard or you don't. In Nate's case he didn't.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
109. You keep saying there were more polls available in 2008
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:33 AM
Oct 2012

may I please see your evidence? Just curious what the delta actually is.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
110. If you are not aware of the fact that in 2008 that there was the most extensive primary campaign in
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:43 AM
Oct 2012

US history with the unusual circumstances of a contested primary in both parties and that the one in the Demcoratic side was the most media intensive extended campaign not in US history but world history and that this created an explosion of polling that sparked a whole new industry of poll watching that launched not just 538.com but also pollster.com and that carried forth all the way to the GE and all of the state wide races well then you just fell below the bar of "your points are so full of nonsense you are wasting my time and you now go on ignore".

That is why I know you are a Republican. You end up wasting so much time talking about facts that are already known that sucks up all of the oxygen on the discussion of really relevent facts.

Its a never ending effort into proving retro history. Soon we will be talking about founding fathers and then we have to work our way all the way back and prove Copernicus was really right after all.

Let me guess. You aren't quite convinced of climate change or evolution either.

Post all you want. You are now the third person on my ignore list.

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
116. Sorry, but you have to be much more polite to a respected DU poster....
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:07 AM
Oct 2012

...who has done his homework and has no time to deal with personally insulting posts.

Here's a simple solution: If you think he's wrong, produce your evidence to prove he's wrong.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
117. How do I prove a negative?
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:14 AM
Oct 2012

he says there were many more polls in 2008 - I cannot find any such evidence.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
118. And it was not insulting on his part
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:17 AM
Oct 2012

to call me a diehard republican because I had the nerve to support Nate Silver? Is that what it has come to here - the slightest disagreement can only be due to pure partisanship?

Baitball Blogger

(46,699 posts)
12. Maybe the Dems should start a polling company that removes
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:43 PM
Oct 2012

ARG, Gravis and the other dildo, and try to get it into the Silver formula to balance things out?

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
24. yes conversations are going on by other DUers. We expect something to be ublished by Thus.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:29 PM
Oct 2012

If they don't we have an alternative plan.

Can tell you that we are holding back some of the most damning information yet as an incentive for a MSM 'scoop'.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
20. Why don't we just get to the heart of it....
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:16 PM
Oct 2012

This election for Republicans is broken down into three basic groups. The ones who hate Obama. The ones who feel they are fighting for the concept of working for a living because they think it's under assault by pro-welfare types who believe working people should pay for them to be lazy. And the third group are the types who worship business types and think government should be run like a business and the President should be a CEO.

All three of those types are basing their vote on what they hear from the Right Wing and they aren't going to have their minds changed.

Keep in mind that this represents a minority of voters.

Republicans used to know this and used to at least TRY to lure in people of color and women but they act like they not only don't need those people anymore but they don't even WANT them, like it will taint their purity if their guy gets Latinos to vote for him.

They're calling BUSH a "Liberal" now.

And we are supposed to believe it's close?

Response to grantcart (Original post)

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
30. I'm just not sure I'm going to vote this time around.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:33 PM
Oct 2012

Obama... Schmobama! Romney .... Schmomney!

The presidential race is all flashy and stuff...

but it's the Houses of Congress that make laws.

So get out there and vote for the party that is not NUTS.... vote for Reps and Senators!!!!!

Your biggest concern is getting out the vote.... but you don't know if you are gonna vote??????

OldHippieChick

(2,434 posts)
78. I'm going to assume you are male
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:50 PM
Oct 2012

And do not give a whit about the Supreme Court and the possible reversal of Roe v. Wade. But even a male has to be concerned about Citizens United and the possible reversal of the Ohio lower court ruling on early voting. The next President will probably select two justices and possible more. Get your head on straight! Please

progressivebydesign

(19,458 posts)
36. "if you vote"??? Really, you like Romney that much?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:39 PM
Oct 2012

Which Romney do you like? Last week's Romney? April's Romney? Or tomorrow night's Romney?

You may not care at all, but I have kids and grandkids and I DO care what happens to them. We cannot survive going back to another Bush era, but this time even worse. If you aren't going to vote, why are you here?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
38. Anyone who does not vote is in no position to judge who is 'smart'.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:41 PM
Oct 2012

Non voters have no rights when it comes to discussing elections they are taking a pass on, not before, during and especially not after. What sort of an adult claims they will not vote unless the campaign motivates them? Not the brightest of bulbs, that is certain....

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
42. Zorro has just become a zombie.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:57 PM
Oct 2012

Well, at least his "not voting" post has been axed and I suspect he'll be among the walking dead before long.

 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
25. here's a fun thing
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:29 PM
Oct 2012

Maybe whoever gets the most electoral college votes wins the presidency. Is knowing Obama is ahead in Ohio by 3 or Romney ahead in Texas by 2 really going to sway voters here or there. I say we just ban ALL polls and vote on who and what we believe is the best candidate.

Blue Idaho

(5,045 posts)
26. Polling has become a political False Flag operation.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:30 PM
Oct 2012

Reputable polling firms may have served the public interest in the past - but this year the republican party seems to have launched a number of orchestrated efforts to control public thinking by releasing false polling data.

It is entirely possible these polls will not alter voting patterns but will instead make all the talking head political celebrities look like complete idiots. You know what they say about data - garbage in, garbage out.

I say its about time America had a chance to see just how shallow all these political media "experts" really are.

mzmolly

(50,985 posts)
29. He had a bit of critique for Gravis today:
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:32 PM
Oct 2012
There are also some critiques that one can render about these polls. Gravis Marketing surveys, for instance, rely on cheap automated interviews. While they are usually more Republican-leaning than the consensus, they also seem to wander about randomly with little rhyme or reason.

MuhkRahker

(104 posts)
124. That's because Kaplan's "polls" appear to be made up out of whole cloth.
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 11:21 AM
Oct 2012

Hope Nate Silver takes notice of this HUGE story and corrects for this error in his current methodology. Then he needs to take a closer look at the other pollsters he trusts, a few of them consistently put out right-leaning data only slightly less egregious than the bulk of Gravis' phony numbers.

Time for change

(13,714 posts)
44. I find Nate Silver's columns to be very interesting... however...
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:00 PM
Oct 2012

One thing that concerns me about them is that, with all the extensive and minute detail that goes into his statistical forecasts I've never seen him mention a word about the possibility of election fraud, voter disenfranchisement, etc. Perhaps the NY Times won't allow that.

Anyhow, I consider the neglecting of these things to be a serious oversight. Even in years when there may not be much outright election fraud, the poor and minorities have been systemically disenfranchised by the fact that they typically use older voting machines (punch card machines in particular) that are inferior in their ability to record a voter's intended vote compared to more affluent voting precincts. This is a major reason why exit polls ALWAYS indicate a better result for the Democratic Presidential candidate that what the official vote count shows. Silver refers to this as an indication of an "enthusiasm gap". Clearly, there is much more at play than an enthusiasm gap, if such a gap exists at all as an explanation of why Democratic candidates fail to measure up to their registered voter poll results.

Lex

(34,108 posts)
46. It is a drawback that he is strictly a numbers guy & admitted that he doesn't like politics
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:08 PM
Oct 2012

and I think therefore he doesn't always know the political motivations of various polling groups.



grantcart

(53,061 posts)
49. i believe Nate did a piece on voter suppression
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:11 PM
Oct 2012

That In PA it would cost a couple of oints but not change the outcome.

HowHasItComeToThis

(3,566 posts)
51. MORE TWO SENSES FROM LAYKOFF
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:19 PM
Oct 2012

The Little Blue Blog

Framing Basics
The Little Blue Book
Authors

About this Blog
The Little Blue Blog is a continuation of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic. The book addressed a problem that progressives face everywhere: conservatives have framed just about every issue in conservative moral terms. Progressives all too often find themselves stuck with using conservative language and ideas, which reinforces those ideas even in arguing against them. The Little Blue Book tells how to get out of the trap. Use the progressive moral system you believe in. This is about much more than words. Words mean things. You need to say what you believe and what is true. Progressive communication is democratic communication. It requires that you be transparent, authentic, honest, and strong if your fellow citizens are to trust you. This is advice for all citizens, not just our leaders.

Why Obama Lost the First Debate
Moral Leadership: What Obama Has to Show Tomorrow In the Debate Performance, and for Real
By George Lakoff On October 15, 2012

As Nate Silver, NY Times polling expert put it, “Instant polls conducted after the debate are suggestive of something between a tie and a modest win for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”

Biden held his own and maybe a bit more. That was important. But President Obama has to do a lot better than that. He has to go beyond the policy wonk to be a moral leader once more. Here’s how Jennifer Granholm put it on her Current TV show video.

On the whole, the public and especially the undecided voters don’t keep track of policy details and which numbers are right. The worst thing the president can do is to just compare details of policy. That just elevates Romney to the status of an equal, who can come back with lies that will sound just as good if not better to most of the undecided.

The TV debates are not primarily about policy details and the numbers in themselves. As Ronald Reagan showed, the debates are about choosing a moral leader. And we do this through a performance.

Reagan didn’t debate policy details and numbers. Instead he did the following:

Stated his values.
Connected with the viewers by projecting empathy.
Communicated clearly.
Appeared authentic, appeared to be saying what he believed.
Was positive and upbeat.

Those are the basic rules of the performances called presidential debates. The content that goes with the performance is to show that you will be a moral leader. Policy discussions and facts can flesh that out, but those are the ground rules.

Romney was prepped the Reagan way — to project the necessary appearance for this performance. The President was not. President Obama needs to follow the ground rules, especially because he IS authentic, he DOES have the right values, he DOES have empathy.

Moreover, those moral values are really what this election is about. The president sees democracy as based on citizens caring about each other and using a government as an instrument of that care, protecting and empowering us all, equally, through public provisions. America started out with building roads, bridges, public schools, a national bank, a patent office, public records, etc. We now have many more citizen provisions — clean air, clean water, safe food and drugs, sewers, policing, disease control, a federal reserve, basic scientific research, college loans. Now we need, and have, more that is provided for all. Think of a cell phone. It couldn’t exist without what citizens have provided via the government: the computer science research, the internet, the satellite system, the PDF system. Once you have all these things, you have certain basic freedoms — you can live well and maybe start a business, or work for one, on the basis of what your fellow citizens have given you. The issue here is freedom, the real material freedom that other Americans have provided us with. You can only build it starting from what other Americans have built for you.

When the president made his “You didn’t built that” gaffe, he was intimidated out of talking about this truth. But this is the central truth of this campaign. Citizens built all the mechanisms for each of us to access. If you worked hard to build a business, you used all that to start with. The president needs to go back to that deep truth and say it right this time. You, our citizens, have provided all this not just to yourselves but to every American. That’s what makes America America.

You, the citizens, use our common government to make this country what it is.

Consider the 96 percent study by Mettler and Sides at Cornell. It showed that 96 percent of Americans make use of the help provided by their fellow citizens through the government — and most don’t even know that government is involved and that their fellow citizens are helping them. An itemized deduction on your taxes means that your fellow citizens are paying to make up for the amount of the deduction; they are helping you. Most homeowners take a home interest deduction on their mortgages. Your fellow citizens are helping you out with your home. If you take a deduction on college investments for your children, your fellow citizens are helping out your children. If you are out of a job and living on unemployment insurance, or if you are a veteran depending on veterans’ benefits, your fellow citizens are helping you. They are helping you, and you have been helping them. Your government is the intermediary, the one who helps you help or be helped. Most of the time, most people do not even see the government helping, or their fellow citizens helping. But 96 percent of you gladly accept that help — and you deserve it. Who are the other 4 percent? Mostly those of you who are still too young to need it — but you will, and soon. Almost all Americans do.

Conservative radicals — not moderates — have a different idea of democracy: They define democracy as providing the liberty to seek your own interests without any responsibility for the interests or well being of others, and without others helping you. They consider illegitimate all the things citizens do for the citizens of our country as a whole. And under Romney-Ryan, all of that would be eliminated.

The moral difference is clear: Do we have both personal and social responsibility, or just personal responsibility? Are we in this together, or are we on our own? The conservatives say we are, and should be, on our own. Are we the United States or the Separate States — or millions of isolated individuals who don’t care about anybody else?

The answer to these questions affects every issue. If Romney and Ryan win, our nation will never look the same. It should be made clear, in every discussion of every issue, that this is the moral value behind the issue: what is our national moral character? When Romney looked at Jim Lehrer, and said, smiling, that he liked him and loved Big Bird, but that he would fire them both, he revealed a deep meanness of spirit that is the very opposite of our national character.

The fate of the nation, and in many ways the world, hangs on this election.

Mr. President, this is a grand performance that means something; it is much more than a policy debate where most people won’t understand or remember the fine details of the policies. We need you to show America what real moral leadership is.


Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.
Platform by PageLines

Response to HowHasItComeToThis (Reply #51)

 

Ccarmona

(1,180 posts)
52. I've Been Inundated
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:24 PM
Oct 2012

by telephone polling that begins shortly after 8a and doesn't stop until sometime around 9p. I haven't answered one call, and I'm wondering who else is ignoring the pollsters. If I don't answer, how does any polling agency take this into account? They know I'm a member of the Democratic (not Democrat, take that Rushbo) Party, so does this lead to skewing the numbers. Just asking.
In any event, I don't know why Nate would be wringing his hands over the national popular vote, since its the Electoral College vote than only matters.

yardwork

(61,588 posts)
53. Excellent OP. Our side needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 02:39 PM
Oct 2012

I thought about this after the debate. Our side - the so-called liberal media - is made up of people who may or may not be liberal but at least still retain the fundamental bases of journalistic integrity. The other side is flat-out lying, stealing, and cheating.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
65. grantcart:
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 03:30 PM
Oct 2012

I wrote this a few days ago. It was about another polling firm, We Ask America. I put an OP up here at DU as well...

The thing is, Nate and others have a choice to make. They can consider every polling outfit or decide to choose reputable polling firms. This was the very reason why I researched and wrote about We Ask America.

They don't need to be terrified, they need to figure out who is legit and who is NOT.

Just because one has tons of information to sift thru doesn't mean you should assume all that info is factual.

flamingdem

(39,313 posts)
75. Grantcart did you send info to Nate?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:41 PM
Oct 2012

You've probably written about this somewhere. Seems like he make use of the info.

Denzil_DC

(7,230 posts)
74. Nate Silver has a rapidly closing window of opportunity
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:36 PM
Oct 2012

He can either quit being lazy and actually draw on the good research that folks like grantcart have been putting together, along with severe reservations from the likes of Sam Wang, and make a big splash of removing some of these astrotrurf polls from his model and admitting it's been compromised up to that point, or go into the election in a total state of confusion and maybe cost himself his reputation.

I'm so impatient and disappointed with him at this point, I'm surprised how little the latter prospect bothers me.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
77. YOu heard that Rob Portman was talking today about Romney doing it without Ohio didn't you?
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:45 PM
Oct 2012

If the man Mittens actually wanted to pick as VP, and from Ohio said they could do it other ways-

what does that mean?

IT MEANS ROB PORTMAN SEES THAT MITT WILL NOT WIN OHIO, therefore the election is over.
There is no other logical way Mitt can win without Ohio.
Because losing Ohio means there is no major run toward Mitt.
And Rob portman, without saying it, just told the world that it is true

mstinamotorcity2

(1,451 posts)
79. They do this to
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:57 PM
Oct 2012

confuse the Voter!!!!We will have our Victory on Nov.6,2012. That is when members of the Democratic Party will confuse Republicans. We will be out like a blanket at one of their so called picnics lol.I have friends who have their ballots and are fired up and ready to go. They want to do it after the debate on Tuesday, Oct.16. To give him a debate surge. I will do mine after next debate. For my participation on debate surge. And my husband is doing same. And all my children are actually going to the polls and cast their ballot.My sisters and brother in laws and really my whole family is doing 235 votes to check in for this President. We are getting early votes and we are going to put enogh people out there until it is clear that Our President has retained his seat in office. Sorry Mr. Romney, the Potus Chair is occupied.lol

86. I'd like to see a Michael Moore exposé on the corruption and pundit-abuse of polling.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:38 PM
Oct 2012

I regard the pushback against the echo chamber's presumptuous calling of the first debate, and the rise in scepticism and meta-discussion about polls - as very healthy developments for democracy.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
87. I think Nate has been punked.
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:39 PM
Oct 2012

There is no way Gravis has any credibility of polling in the states he is reporting on.

I'd like to see the phone bills for Gravis.
They probably only made 4 calls a day, and then, only to talk to each other.

Pathetic.

BainsBane

(53,029 posts)
90. Silver's model does rate polls
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:31 PM
Oct 2012

He adjusts them according to their house effect, or whether they tend to lean Dem or Rep.

95. Even as the more-obviously dodgy polls are weeded out,
Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:47 PM
Oct 2012

the big ones should also be scrutinised, some of whom I suspect use similar but more sophisticated techniques.

eg If I was to rig polls, I'd do accurate scientific polling most of the time to sustain my credibility, but compartmentalise my company such that at potential moments of historical imprint/turning points - I could change results with a view to manipulating the echo chamber and real public opinion.

Such a strategy may have helped in:

- agitating/co-opting the Tea Party against health-care reform.
- demoralising/disorienting Dems after the debates
- intimidating lawmakers against starting various investigations

judesedit

(4,437 posts)
100. The GOP is trying to make it look close. They want to steal the election without having a revolution
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 06:06 AM
Oct 2012

Nate is way smarter than they give him credit for. The GOP pollsters call only landline owners and twist the questions in a way to get the anwser they want. Most of us use cell phones anymore. Their polls are skewed. Not once have I seen a picture of Rob-me with thousands of people attending. It's always a narrow screen shot. He has to bus them in to try to make it look good. Folks, we cannot let them get away with it this time. They are blaming Obama for the mess they got this country in, and, unfortunately, their sheeple followers swallow their bullshit hook, line and sinker. Speak the truth loudly and clearly. If it works to wake one person up you've done something good. Go Nate and go Obama!

 

Anthony McCarthy

(507 posts)
104. Opinion polling is all fatally flawed
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 07:15 AM
Oct 2012

Opinion polling is all fatally flawed in that it relies on people telling you the truth about what they think and what they're going to do. There is no way to guarantee an accurate response. On top of that there are the wildly variant quality of the methodologies. For example, the survey being touted on NPR this morning about a "landslide" for Romney in the "rural vote". All based on a massive sample of 600 "likely voters".

The widespread belief that opinion polling is a scientific exercise is mass superstition by those who have too much faith in the social pseudo-sciences.

OldDem2012

(3,526 posts)
112. Yep....this year has been very bad....
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 08:52 AM
Oct 2012

...how the President could suddenly lose his huge edge in women and minorities virtually overnight is a major red flag to me. No switch from RVs to LVs is going to make that big of a difference in the polling, if any.

I also seriously doubt the enthusiasm to vote is that much higher among GOP LVs. In fact, based on the extreme right-wing stances of the GOP on women's issues, enthusiasm should be much lower among GOP LVs.

psychmommy

(1,739 posts)
119. grantcart you make statistics sound so sexy!!!!!!
Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:51 AM
Oct 2012

You rip them a new one. Really proud of you. Thanks for making du worth coming to.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Things are about to get a...