We are too over confident at DU

[dennis4868]

about tomorrow. Yes, I agree that Obama has momentum and to a certain extent so does Romney. Also, Obama being up in virtually every Ohio state poll for the past 4-5 weeks makes me feel good about his chances even though many of those polls are within the MOE. Obama also seems to be doing better now in Colorado

But the fact is this race is very close. I say this because of the closeness of the polls, voter supression and yes -->blue state governors and sec. of state playing games with the voting machines. Many (but certainly not all) here at DU are acting like an Obama win is a done deal. It's NOT! I remember this place back in 2004 when we thought the day before and on election day itself that Kerry had it won and then look what happened.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The Same Aggregators Who Accurately Predicted A Bush* Win In 04 Are Predicting An Obama Win Now./nt

[JRLeft]

2. People on DU getting overconfident has no effect on most Americans.

We are a small percentage of the country. Chillax.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Why Can't Folks Let Other Folks Be Happy And Cheerful?

They are uncommon enough commodities nowadays.


I hate this Debbie Downer stuff...

[dennis4868]

23. sorry

I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer but I remember DU on election night in 2004. Now that was a DOWNER! Many of us were very confident that Kerry had all the momentum at the time, polls moving in his direction, and he lost.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Respectfully If Folks Thought Kerry Had The Momentum In 04 They Were Woefully Misinformed

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.htm


That being said, raw exit polls were released in the late afternoon on Election Day that showed Kerry winning but that's a horse of a different color.

[LuckyStrykes]

102. I remember watching Kerry's last rally

And I cried because I thought he was going to lose. You could feel it.

[progressivebydesign]

27. not about not being happy... it's about the idiotic posts about

"what song will you play when you are dancing around your living room after the President wins???"

"what should I wear to the victory party?"

"what will Romney say in his concession speech?"

Maybe those of us who lived through the 2004 debacle here on DU are just gunshy. It was the WORST thing ever. Try to imagine numerous posts for a week, and the night of the election that were LITERALLY "what brand of champagne should I buy??" and pics of the champagne, then suddenly.. "oh fuck, they stole Ohio."

No one is asking people to act like Eeyore, BUT trying to head off the stupid posts is not a bad idea.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. In 04 I Was Shocked For About Six Hours Because Leaked Raw Exit Polls Were Wrong

But I followed the polls every bit as closely as i do now and had already prepared myself for a Kerry defeat. But what I never did here, and even though the polls were on my side, is ever make a dispiriting thread. I see my job here as to uplift...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. I was hopeful for Kerry

and demoralized by his defeat- but it's not like it wasn't a strong possibility that Bush would be re-elected, mostly because of 9/11 and the still potent fear of terrorism at the time. I don't completely rule out a Romney win, particularly given the intensity of the hatred of the right-wing towards President Obama and their likelihood to turn out to vote for Romney just to get rid of President Obama but President Obama has a MUCH better chance of winning this, certainly has more avenues to 270 than Romney does. I'm feeling pretty good right now about where we are poll-wise at the moment: Close but comfortably President Obama. Just GOTV tomorrow and the chips will fall where they may. I never mind losing as long as it's a fair fight but I think we will win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Same Thing Happened In 00 With Leaked Raw Exit Polls In 00

Except all those polls "told us" was that Nader's support had collapsed and Gore had a decent shot.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

60. I was fairly unengaged in that election for some reason

I knew that I was voting Gore but I didn't really pay attention to what was going on before or after that election. I remember sort of shrugging when Bush was (s)elected and thought that he would be a fairly harmless and mediocre one-term President like his father (and he might have been if not for 9/11). BOY WAS I WRONG!!! I got MUCH more engaged in 2004 and have remained more vigilant about what is going on, particularly since I found DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Having Met Al And Tipper I Was Sufficiently Engaged

We will know tomorrow.

I want to be happy...Shoot me... Not you, of course...

[Arkansas Granny]

54. After the debacles of 2000 and 2004, I won't start dancing until Romney gives his concession speech

and there's no chance that he could be declared the winner. After Kerry lost, I was in a blue funk for weeks.

[Mad_Dem_X]

98. Same here.

Until I hear Romney concede, I won't be celebrating.

[demwing]

114. 2004 was the worst thing ever?

in 2009 my 9 year old son died in my arms after battling brain cancer for 6 months, I tried to resuscitate him, but his poor body couldn't fight anymore, and just stopped. I couldn't save him. That was the worst thing ever.

No offense, but please get some fucking perspective.

[easttexaslefty]

121. Amen.

I'm so sorry.
I lost my son to suicide in 2007. As much as I love politics and want Obama to win, I don't put an election in the devastating catagory.

[demwing]

128. A Romney presidency would be horrible

but parents should never bury their children. I'm damaged, probably more so than I want to admit. I'm sure you get it...

[reflection]

124. .

[demwing]

129. ty

[LiberalElite]

44. I agree it's no fun when the shoe's on the other foot

As you can see from my number of posts I haven't been on this list for long, only about a month In that short time I have noticed that all too often anyone who expresses doubt, or worry or, yes, CONCERN is jumped on. It appears that many on this list don't tolerate anything but unbridled giddy optimism and absolute knowledge of the outcome of tomorrow's election. So, go ahead, feel happy and cheerful. But if someone else doesn't share your feelings, it'd be an improvement to acknowledge how they feel as legitimate.

[JRLeft]

125. Oh I do too, it is become a sickness.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

131. They're like jilted lovers and need to spill

their bitterness on everyone else. We all lived thru 2000, 2004 and the consequences.

If your heart and gut tell you what you need to get thru these final hours don't let
anyone take whatever that is away from you.

[kstewart33]

3. You're so right.

Things look good but not that good. I hope we can adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

[sadbear]

4. I think we are absolutely right to be confident about 270.

The only reason not be confident is belief in republican election fraud.

[bigdarryl]

5. IM not seeing that here I see more DEBBIE DOWNER posts on hear you casn shake a stick at

It's as if every favorable post posted there's a unfavorable counter

[codjh9]

6. I agree; it ain't over 'til it's over. Btw, don't get mad, but it's 'too' in this case, not 'to'.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. I'm curious as to what momentum Romney has?

Factually speaking, not cable "news" speak.

[dennis4868]

10. Romney is keeping this relatively close

in many key states...yes, Obama has the lead but Romney is keeping it close enough to give him some chance tomorrow. So I think both candidates have momentum but I will say it's better on the Obama side of things.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

16. Ah, that's not momentum, though.

Polling shows Obama has came up consistently in the polls, while Romney has went down. Even if only by 1-2 points in some cases. That's the opposite of momentum.

[demwing]

110. That's Romentum

which is only slightly more regressive than Joementum

[buckyblue]

53. Totally agree.

I am so EXCITED to vote tomorrow! It is like Christmas!

But, polls only tell the story of a small percentage of American voters. Polls can be misleading. Has anyone ever witnessed polls that completely mirror the outcome of a Presidential election? I haven't.

We have alot of good things going for us, starting with a President that many Americans love.
But I do believe that anything can happen. Nobody can predict the future.
I am confident and happy and excited to vote, but I do believe the election will be close. I think Obama will win, but it will be close.
I am having a party with my family and friends tomorrow night, and do have champagne I hope to be able to pop.
IMHO it is foolish to not wait until America votes to start celebrating. This has been a tough, hard fought, vicious election...lots of people aren't on our side. We all know that.

Forward. The finish line is in sight...tomorrow night we will know who crosses it first.

[jcgoldie]

8. Nate said it best

ALL the polls could be wrong... and theres a small % chance of that... barring that its in the bag.

[Third Doctor]

9. I agree.

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

We should temper our enthusiasm. The fight has not been won yet. We can have our victory party later.

[Maximumnegro]

86. OMG you just proved why polls show

enthusiasm gap in your post. Right there. Don't you even REALIZE what you're saying?

[emulatorloo]

11. Agreed. It is damn close, GOTV!!!!!!!

[dennis4868]

14. Thanks!

That was my point.

[Maximumnegro]

12. ONOZ

Sorry but we need to get over 2000 and 2004. You can steal close election, but they have to be REAL close. You folks are thinking the GOP can steal 2,3pt leads and higher and that's ridiculous. You're conflating national poll closeness with state polls as an excuse to freak out. Tiring. I am confident because I am confident in the CAMPAIGN. The CAMPAIGN which has tried to inform you for the past several months on the true state of the race but you were too busy pulling the covers up to pay attention.

So for the handwringers, well, sounds like a personal problem. Too bad you can't know what confidence feels like in one of the best campaigns in modern history. And let's be honest if you can't feel that confidence now considering how amazing a job Obama has done - chances are you'll never feel confident. Ever. And THAT is very very sad.

[progressivebydesign]

22. I was here in 2004, and in the aftermath of 2000. You wouldn't be so cavalier if you'd been here too

It's NOT a personal problem. You just don't have the experience here to understand what happened in 2004. But thanks for trying to trivialize people's feelings. This race is not 2008. It's more like 2004, and we know how that turned out. And if it's stolen once again, I will remember your post and how you mocked the people that remembered that 2004 did NOT seem that close, and still we got hosed.

[dennis4868]

25. Not sure what you are talking about...

I was here in 2004. I remember very well what happened in 2004. This place was suicidal on election night in 2004. Just look it up for yourself. We all though Kerry had it won because everything was moving in his direction. I'm not mocking anyone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Preach...

[LiberalElite]

47. From a "handwringer"

Give up the analysis, Sigmund. Give up the judgmentalism. You have no damn idea about other people's confidence.

[Maximumnegro]

85. if you're a handwringer

then you're not confident. Or is there some complex gray area that my superior judgemental psychoanalysis is overlooking.

And I DO have a damn idea about people's confidence. It's called reading this forum. It's called the threads where people actually POLL people's confidence on this forum.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. Yes, and why are we comparing John Kerry's campaign to Obama's? Kerry's road was much harder

than Obama's, and he wasn't an incumbent president.

While I understand that it is close and that we need to remain vigilant, we also need to stop demoralizing the voter base. It's not helping the cause.

I live in MD and many of us went to VA over the weekend as we have been doing for the last several months now. We worked our butts off knocking on doors, talking to people. I feel very confident about VA. I think the president will do well.

[Arkana]

13. It's their job to appear confident.

As for us? If we weren't confident we'd have all committed suicide by now.

[Maximumnegro]

87. That post makes no sense. Awesome.

Sums up Dem obsession with negative motivation perfectly.

'Of course we're confident. No one's killed themselves!'

I think that's from the Director's Cut of Braveheart, right?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

15. Funny. I find that most on here are being too cynical. nt

[immoderate]

17. It doesn't matter what we say or do here.

--imm

[progressivebydesign]

21. It actually does matter.. to US. 2004 election was ugly and painful here. nt

[dennis4868]

26. EXACTLY!

[LiberalElite]

55. It certainly was - I did GOTV in Pennsylvania

Americans Coming Together sent us to an affluent area outside of Philadelphia with manicured lawns and three-car garages. Those people didn't need our help but we dutifully knocked on doors anyway. When I got up the next morning to find another 4 years of that moron, it was salt in the wounds to say the least, that we wasted our time where the organizers should have known not to send us. It's hard to forget pain like that. And to anyone who wants to knock that I and others remember that pain from 8 years ago, take it to a right-winger. We're supposedly all on the same side here.

[progressivebydesign]

18. In 2004 people on DU were posting pics of their champagne on ice.

Needless to say, it was ugly here for several days after that. People got too confident. It felt solid, and everyone assumed it was going to happen. they figured that Bush had fucked things up so badly, that there was NO way anyone would vote for him again. But they were wrong. It was close enough to suppress. And with the Ohio issues, we lost it.

Sadly, even in America, if you're a Democrat you have to win by such a BIG margin, to overcome the thousands of suppression, stealing, cheating, lying, intimidating, misinforming, incidents to actually WIN.

The republicans don't steal the election in one BIG move. They steal them small incident by small incident, tossing out enough votes to close the gap. America should NOT have to deal with this shit. And someday the Democrats in Washington are going to address this. We're supposed to be the model of democracy, but now WE have to have the UN here overseeing our elections. It's sick.

So never ever feel too confident. You have NO idea how the numerous incidents of 100k absentee ballots that Husted dumped in Ohio, or the Registration forms that the RNC contractor threw in the trash (thousands) are going to play out.

I'm not confident nor celebrating until they declare the President the winner. He must win by a healthy margin to counteract all of the dirty tricks -- it's not enough to win it closely, the republicans will always prevail in that case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Here Are The Final Nat'l And State Polls From 04.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html



As I said in 04 most of us were hoping the polls were wrong. Now, we are hoping the polls are right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Crickets...

Tumbleweed.

[allrevvedup]

48. Exit polls showed Kerry winning Ohio and Florida, as expected,

Tuesday night, and the strategy all along was to win in the EC. Obviously that didn't happen because Ohio and probably FL were swiped. Look it up. In fact I heard Andy Kohut of PEW rehearse the whole nightmare this morning on NPR, minus the swiping part naturally. Now the story is the exit polls were wrong, LOL.

Wiki article:

The 2004 election brought new attention to the issue of exit polls.[49] Discrepancies existed between early exit poll information and the officially reported results. These discrepancies led some, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to prematurely conclude that Kerry won the election.[50] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. I Already Addressed The Exit Poll Thing.

My point is Kerry was behind on election day in the battleground and national polls.

[allrevvedup]

59. The "exit poll thing" IS the thing.

If you want to spew a bunch of CNN spin fine, but I don't see what good it's doing, we all have TVs.

[Maximumnegro]

88. But you're still uninformed apparently

DSB is showing if you actually paid attention (which I really doubt folks are doing here honestly) Kerry was not favored to win.

Frickin' hilarious. ROMNEY is KERRY this time around and it's very obvious but Dems STILL think Obama is in the same boat as Kerry. It's a delusion all it's own.

[allrevvedup]

90. Lots of people here are spewing baloney.

Why, I don't know. If you think Kerry lost fair and square on Nov. 2, 2004, as many apparently do, fine, but you happen to be dead wrong. Why it's even a question again I don't know but it bothers me to see busy beavers splashing that meme around because it isn't true.

More here: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. If You Just Look At The Data Bush* Was Doing A Teeny Bit Better Than O At The Nat'l Level

And not nearly as good at the state level.

Conclusion:

Money Boo Boo is Kerry.

[allrevvedup]

107. The National Exit Poll showed Kerry at 51.7%

before it was tampered with. Source data from:

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/cf/action/catalog/catalogResult.cfm?label=&keyword=USMI2004-STELEC&fromDate=&toDate=&country=All+Countries&organization=&type=&search.x=0&search.y=0

[FBaggins]

108. The people who would have had to "tamper" with it are the people who DO the national exit poll.

How can you hold them up as sacrosanct on the one hand, and criminally complicit on the other?

[allrevvedup]

109. That's a question Warren Mitofsky got asked a lot

until he died in 2006:

He refused, consistently, to release precinct-level polling data from Ohio to researchers who maintained that the election results were fraudulent, and his own exit polls were a more accurate picture of the vote. He died on September 1, 2006 in New York City of an aortic aneurysm, aged 71.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mitofsky

[FBaggins]

113. Untrue.

He "refused" to treat conspiracy theory nuts as if they were "researchers".

That's not at all the same thing.

But the question isn't for him. It's for those conspiracy theorists. You can't start off with a position that exit polls are the gold standard (over even actual vote counts)... and then claim that the same people who produced those polls for decades are all part of the conspiracy.

[allrevvedup]

116. "He refused, consistently, to release precinct-level polling data from Ohio...."

If you don't like the answer, too bad, do your own damn research.

[FBaggins]

117. Lol! Think anyone missed that you dodged the issue?

Anyone at all?

If you don't like the answer, too bad

The "answer" from Wikipedia? Wow... I guess that's final.

The reality is that he did work with respected researchers in a number of ways (the Election Science Institute comes to mind) and the AAPOR specifically requires that pollsters restrict access to the kinds of data that the conspiracy theorists demanded.

More importantly, the use you want to put exit polls to (to validate actual reported vote counts) is not why they exist. So it's perfectly reasonable to deny raw data to groups whose only purpose is to use the data in ways that aren't intended. Exit polls exist to tell us why people voted the way they did, not how they voted... so they are naturally normed to the reported voting population.

[allrevvedup]

118. What issue? You're having a conversation with yourself

sans evidence. I answered your questions, WITH evidence, and supplied several links, so please enjoy them, as I'm done.

[FBaggins]

119. Now we're pretending that you answered?

The question is simple... you claim that exit polls are the gold standard and are more reliable than even the reported vote counts (let alone public opinion polls). Yet your theory that certain (all since 2000 if you believe your other source) exit polls have been manipulated to support stolen elections... relies on the manipulator being the very same person who invented exit polling to begin with.

This simply isn't rational. Brushing it off with some version of "that's not my problem" doesn't hack it. It is your problem.

WITH evidence, and supplied several links

Lol... "several links" that lacked any valid content (you are in fact whining that they couldn't get data to work with). There wasn't ANY "evidence" (merely unsupported - and unsupportable claims). They were (as I pointed out) merely claims that themselves proved that the author didn't understand exit polls at all. It is little wonder that the actual authorities on the subject would reject granting such ignorance any credibility.

I'm done.

Got news for you. You were "done" as soon as you started down the conspiracy theory path.

On edit - I point out that also unanswered is the internal inconsistency of your argument. Your second link in your attempt to prove that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polling is filled with claims that the exit polling is faulty as proved by the pre-election polls.

[LeftInTX]

46. RCP Avg - Ohio 2004 - Bush 2.1%

[Dr Claw]

75. yep

I'm thinking this is just 2004, with the shoe on the other foot.

[RobinA]

83. Not Quite

If I recall 2004 correctly, part of the problem was that Kerry had the momentum but couldn't quite make it over the top. In this case, Romney clearly does not have the momentum.

[dennis4868]

30. WELL SAID!

Thanks for the post

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I'm Not Trying To Be An Ass

But I am trying to get my arms around your argument. It seems like you are arguing we shouldn't be confident when Obama is winning because he might lose because in 2004 we were confident Kerry would win when he was losing and he didn't.


Do you see the flaw in that logic?

[dennis4868]

39. No

I stand by my statement - we are too over confident right now. Based on the closeness of polls and the games that Repubs play with voter supression and the voting machines. I remember the weeks leading up to the election in 2004 when Kerry had lots of momentum, especially in some key states, and he lost. I have never gotten over that lost. Maybe that's why I am gunshy to say the election is in the bag for Obama right now.

(By the way, Angus Reid poll of PA has Obama up just 51-47 (last time it was 52-42). Both campaigns have momentum now. I am not trying to be a debbie downer. I just remember the hurt from 2004.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. See Post Thirty Six./nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. If The Fix Is In, Why Vote? That Would Seem To Just MakeThe Pain Worse.

Just me but I rather get the hit by a truck then intentionally try to make people unhappy;especially the people here.

[allrevvedup]

58. If the fix is in we need to challenge the results.

Seems pretty obvious. If we get blindsided we lose. Do you want to lose?

[Orangepeel]

127. You think it will hurt less if you aren't confident?

If the polls are not accurately reflecting the way votes will be counted, it is going to hurt like hell regardless of how you act now. You might as well have fun now, because if Romney is declared the winner, there won't be much fun for a while.

[Jennicut]

41. I was around in '04 then I left and came back near 2006.

I did not post that much back then but I was around and remember that some were very confident.

The issue in '04 was that many of us wanted to believe the polling for Kerry was wrong and that 1 to 3 points behind did not mean anything. We would make it up on election day. Kerry made OH and NH very close.

But he never had the ground game, GOTV and early vote push that Obama has had. A lot of talk after that election about the ground game Bush had. It was very good. But McCain and Romney have not been able to match it. Obama and the Plouffe and Axelrod were very smart about that. It makes a huge difference. John Kerry did a great job with what he had. And Obama learned from the swiftboating to attack back very quickly.

In 2000 I was honestly not involved enough. I voted but thought Gore would lose and then watched in hope that he would win after FL was too close to call. I was only 24. That turned me off for a long time as did 2004 but I jumped back in.

[meadowlark5]

20. I remember last time I was so nervous and worried I was a wreck

I was certain the American people couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black man. It was a huge variable that had never been in a presidential election before so I was really worried for a McCain/and especially Palin presidency.

I am not as worried this time, although I probably should be because of the shit happening with voting in Florida and Ohio. But I have decided to not think about the possibility of a Romney presidency like I allowed myself to do with McCain/Palin in 2008. In the end, it did no good for me to fret the way I did last time. My fretting and worry had no effect on the electorate. I did what I could, I made calls and donated money and all the worrying in the world wasn't going to influence the voters on my part.

So I am going to allow myself to feel optimistic this time. If I am blindsided, then that's what will happen. But at least this past month hasn't been filled with worry and fear because my emotions only hurt me and don't have any influence on other people's vote and the election outcome

[JudyM]

28. Unfortunately I have to agree with you. CNN just reported latest polls: concluded dead heat nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Res Ipsa Loquitur

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

http://electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu/election12/index.html

http://electoral-vote.com/

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

http://election.princeton.edu/

http://research.uvu.edu/DeSart/forecasting/

[FBaggins]

35. So ??!?

I fear that this race is much closer than many here assume (and our chance of losing is likely more than Silver's 15%)...

...but so what? People work harder when they see victory on the horizon... they lose focus and energy when they worry about losing.

It certainly doesn't hurt to be over-confident. It isn't as if the president is playing this as if the confidence were important. He isn't getting cocky and campaigning in Alabama aiming for a sweep.

The worst that that can happen is that IF we lose the letdown will be that much more painful.

And again I say... so what?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. The Whole Argument In The OP Flows From A Faulty Premise

The national and battleground polls showed Kerry losing and he did.

As I have said ad nauseum and ad infinitum, in 00 we were hoping the polls were wrong. This year we are hoping the polls are right.


BTW, I was here the Saturday before the election when Newsweek dropped this lil bomb on our heads:


Newsweek 10/27-29 50 44 1 5 6


http://pollingreport.com/2004.htm

[FBaggins]

51. I just don't know.

The national polls show a dead heat.

Yes, the polls in the key states show the president leading comfortably enough, but something doesn't quite make sense. I can't figure out where Romney's "extra" support is to account for a national tie but a 2-4 point loss in OH/VA/NC/FL/etc. Has there been a huge Romney surge in CA that just doesn't show up because nobody is polling that race in CA?

Just look at 538's summary. I'm a huge Nate Silver fan and defended him here in 2010 (and was right) and again earlier this year as many turned against him... but the puzzling issue is right there on his front page. He takes all those state polls and rolls up a 2+ point lead nationally for the president. But the consensus of the national polls hasn't been 2+ points in our favor since before the first debate.

Either the national polls are wrong or the state polls are wrong (sometimes by the same pollsters).

The good news (and the reason I'm not TOO worried) is that there's plenty of room for the state polls to be "wrong" and still have a comfortable victory. So this is by no means a 50/50 proposition.

But I won't be comfortable until a couple early states show clear leads proving the polling to be accurate.

I figure either way I'll probably be up late drinking something.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Lot Of Research That Indicate Aggregated State Polls Are More Accurate Than National Polls

I want to be happy. It shouldn't be a crime. If I want to get depressed there's plenty of places where I can go to get depressed.


As an aside, whatever disagreements we had was always on the science.

The only way Obama can lose is if almost all the polls are wrong and they are all wrong in his direction. This seems to me a remote possibility. If this remote possibility comes to pass I will be devastated. But for now I'm happy....

[FBaggins]

73. Can you point me to some?

State polls are run less frequently, have smaller sample sizes (and thus larger margins of error), are more often run by less-experienced firms, are more frequently done by organizations with a dog in the race, and it's harder to get a good representative sample (because there's less historical/demographic/etc data available).


If I want to get depressed

Not depressed. Just nervous enough to avoid the complacency that assuming you're going to win can cause.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Here's Something By Professor Wang:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/02/national-polls-and-state-polls-same-methods-different-predictive-accuracy/


Here's a peer reviewed paper by Professor Linzer:


http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dlinzer/Linzer-prespoll-May12.pdf

[FBaggins]

79. I'll have to read through the second piece...

...but the first seems to agree with me. It isn't so much that the state polls are likely to be more accurate, it's that the current state polls have larger margins, and thus any error is less likely to cause the loss of that state.

But thanks!

[jeff47]

97. National polls are utterly irrelevant

The national polls show a dead heat.

Well, if we elected the President by national popular vote, then that would matter.

We don't do that.

Winning, say, Alabama with 90% of the vote instead of 51% makes Romney look good in a national poll. But it doesn't get Romney any more electoral votes.

I can't figure out where Romney's "extra" support is to account for a national tie but a 2-4 point loss in OH/VA/NC/FL/etc

The south, mostly. Regional breakdown of those national polls show Romney doing much, much, much, much, much better in the south than the rest of the country.

He takes all those state polls and rolls up a 2+ point lead nationally for the president. But the consensus of the national polls hasn't been 2+ points in our favor since before the first debate.

That's because you're still trying to make it work as if we had national popular vote. Silver is using the system we actually use to elect presidents.

Either the national polls are wrong or the state polls are wrong (sometimes by the same pollsters).

Nope, they can both be correct. Again, winning by a large margin in a "red" state makes Romney look better in national polls. But doesn't actually help win the election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. I Largely Agree For The Reasons You Cited But I Expect Them To Roughly Converge/nt

[jeff47]

104. Why should they converge?

They use entirely different samples, sampling methods, and voter turnout assumptions/tweaks.

[FBaggins]

106. Because they're supposed to model the same thing.

The results of a given election.

Everyone knows that you can "win" the national popular vote yet lose the race. We get that.

It's just that an election where the president wins OH by 3-4 and VA by 2-3 and FL by 2 and (some say) NC narowly (etc/etc/etc) is not an election that sees the national result finish dead even... unless the challenger is making up support somewhere else (and the state polls elsewhere simply aren't showing that).

That's why when 538 adds up the state predictions, they get a national D+2 result.

[jeff47]

122. No, they're not

The state polls are modeling the actual election.

National polls are modeling a theoretical popular vote election.

It's just that an election where the president wins OH by 3-4 and VA by 2-3 and FL by 2 and (some say) NC narowly (etc/etc/etc) is not an election that sees the national result finish dead even... unless the challenger is making up support somewhere else (and the state polls elsewhere simply aren't showing that).

Nobody's bothering to poll "dark red" and "dark blue" states. So we don't know how they are doing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. Because They Are Measuring The Same Universe. State Polls Are Measuring Just Individual Parts Of It

I understand your argument. I expect O to win the EC and Pop Vote.

[jeff47]

123. But they aren't measuring the same universe

We're not talking about literally adding up responses here.

First they add up responses, and then they go through a demographic and "likely voter" screen. Those screens look wildly different if you're talking about voters nationally or for a single state.

[FBaggins]

105. Can you give some examples of those southern polls?

The president won by about 7% four years ago. Can you point to southern states that are seven points higher R margins than 2008 plus enough to offset the deficit in the battleground (keeping in mind that VA/NC/FL are southern states too) and bring the total back to even?

For instance. McCain won Georgia by five points. But the post-debate polls show Romney up by about 9%. The largest gap in any recent poll has been 12%. That supports a national shift of 5-7%, but not a national shift of 7% plus an offset for battleground states that are overperforming for the president.

The single (PPP) poll I can find of WV shows a Romney lead of 21%... but McCain won by a tad over 13%. Nothing there.

McCain won AR by 20%... and leads in the only poll by 27%.

PPP has Romney up by 18% in the only poll I find. McCain won it by 13-14%.

OK is Romney +26%... McCain won it by 31%

PPP says that MO is R+9... and it was a tie last time.

Louisiana was McCain +19%/ I only see two polls (R+23 and R+16)/

And, of course, VA/NC/FL have clearly not shifted more than 7% from 2008.

[allrevvedup]

52. Wrong, exit polls showed Kerry WINNING Ohio and FL

and I went to bed assured he'd won as most other did. Were you paying attention that night? You really ought to get your story right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Maybe You Shold Have Read What I Wrote Before You Disrespected Me.

DemocratSinceBirth (45,455 posts)
31. In 04 I Was Shocked For About Six Hours Because Leaked Raw Exit Polls Were Wrong

But I followed the polls every bit as closely as i do now and had already prepared myself for a Kerry defeat. But what I never did here, and even though the polls were on my side, is ever make a dispiriting thread. I see my job here as to uplift...
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

I don't expect an apology. That would require, ummm, character...

[allrevvedup]

61. What's the point of misleading people?

Ohio was clearly stolen in 2004 and so was the election. There are plenty of places we can be told to shut up and move along, like every channel in the universe, so why bring that same stuff here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. That's A Different Argument That You're Entitled To

And it's not my role to tell you what arguments you are and aren't entitled to.

My point was that the lions share of the pre election national and battleground polls in 2004 indicated Bush* was winning thus none of us should have been surprised. We were surprised (I was right here) when leaked exit polls showed Kerry winning and he didn't.

[FBaggins]

65. Exit polls are not the same thing as pre-election polling.

The people who tell you that there's something magical about exit polls and they're never wrong simply don't know what the heck they're talking about.

[allrevvedup]

69. Right, exit polls are more accurate.

Pre-election polling is basically a crapshoot, even when conducted fairly. Depends on landlines, leading questions and all the rest. I've been polled by legit pollsters and they weren't much different from push polls, just longer.

[FBaggins]

77. No... they aren't.

People started saying that when the (small) error was enough to cause a loss when they expected a win... but there's little historical evidence for your position (which isn't just that they're more accurate than traditional polling, but that they're accurate enough to prove that actual vote counts are fraudulent)... and the people who have performed those polls for decades have told you so.

Depends on landlines, leading questions and all the rest.

Yeah? And exit polls depend on correctly picking precincts that are representative of the electorate as a whole and getting a representative sample of those voters to stop and talk to you (and who vote during the hours that you're at that polling place). There isn't any way to validate that sampling apart from comparing it to the very data that you want to use it to disprove.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Exit Polls Are Raw And Have A MOE Of 3%

President Dukakis says hi.

[FBaggins]

80. Yep

And when the professionals who have done those polls for decades corrected for the unbalanced sample, people like our interlocutor immediately moved them into the "part of the conspiracy" camp... claiming that they were just tweaking the numbers to validate the election.

[allrevvedup]

82. "Footprints of Electoral Fraud: The November 2 Exit Poll Scam"

Global Research, 5 November 2004, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE411A.html

If you think this article somehow misrepresents "the professionals" can you point out where the article goes wrong?

[FBaggins]

89. How can they "misrepresent" the professionals?

They don't cite them at all.

The article "goes wrong" in several places. The most obvious is the root of their argument that a small change in the sample group caused a large change in the final results.

This demonstrates that they don't have the first clue how exit polling (or polling in general) works in the first place.

The fact that the author is an english teacher at an agriculture/veterinary college in Canada makes this something less of a surprise.

[allrevvedup]

91. So basically you have an ad hominem fallacy. Fail.

How about Charnin's article?

[FBaggins]

93. Nope. But I'm not surprised that you missed that.

The "ad homonym" was merely pointing out that the author lacks any apparent experience qualifying his opinion as something more than a waste of my time. Rather than being the argument, it merely explains why he is likely ignorant (he literally lacks the appropriate knowledge). The fact that he is ignorant was apparent from the error that you seem to have glossed over.

The point of the post was simply that his primary (really only) argument has no basis in reality. He assumes that the only legitimate factor that can swing the initial results is the addition of the final few interviews.

That simply isn't the case. It has never been the case. It's proof that he places unwarranted faith in exit polls without understanding how exit polls are conducted.

How about Charnin's article?

Largely SSDD.

But I find it interesting that your second argument for exit polls being better than pre-election polling is really an argument that uses the pre-election polling to create the "true" model that proves the exit polls were wrong. Hilarious.

[allrevvedup]

95. SSDD, okay. But if you don't mind I'll stick with the numbers

and leave you to your feelings.

[FBaggins]

96. Lol!

You aren't "sticking with the numbers"

You're picking entirely fictional numbers that conflict directly with what the experts have said for decades... and deciding that those are "the numbers".

That's relying on "feelings" since there are precisely zero facts involved.

Frankly, it's an internally inconsistent argument.

[allrevvedup]

84. Charnin: "The Final 2004 National Exit Poll switched 6.7% of Kerry responders to Bush"

The myth that the early 2004 exit polls were biased for Kerry is refuted by the National Exit Poll (NEP) timeline.

Kerry had 51% at 4pm (8,349 respondents). His exit poll share remained constant up to the final 13,660 respondents (51.7%).

The pollsters had to switch 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to have the Final NEP match the recorded vote.

Assuming that Kerry had 51.7% of 125.7 million votes cast, he won by nearly 6 million votes. The True Vote Model indicates that he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/

[faithfulcitizen]

37. oh shut it...

just kidding

[rock]

43. Doubt it

In fact, regardless of how confident we were, how would that effect anything? And yes, I for one think Obama's win is a done deal. I don't believe the race is close enough to be stolen.

[WI_DEM]

49. It doesn't surprise me to find you posting one more downer post

on DU.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

62. Some people are happy being miserable, Kemo Sabe...

[allrevvedup]

64. I was pretty miserable on Nov. 3 2004

and for the next four years. Actually eight years, 2000-2008. Not anxious to relive them either.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

67. If you're miserable now, you like being miserable.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I'm Getting Reamed In This Thread For Not Being Sufficiently Miserable

[A-Schwarzenegger]

71. Again, some people are happy eating misery.

Even when joy is the first item on the menu.

[allrevvedup]

72. No you're getting reamed for misrepresenting what happened in 2004.

Maybe you didn't like the candidate but I did and I followed it closely and there's plenty of documentation making the case that the election was stolen.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. I Like Just About Any Candidate With A (D) After His Name

After all as my name indicates it's a congenital condition; albeit a positive one.

[Baitball Blogger]

92. Voter suppression, stealing absentee ballots, uncertified software?

Yeah. We need to send twice as many people to vote for Obama than they need to get Romney in.

[OldDem2012]

94. Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh, my!!...

..."We" who, exactly? I'm confident the President will win...does that make me, or anyone else who feels the same way, "overconfident"?

Am I not allowed to feel confident, or will that earn me a reputation as a DU optimist?

[ChiciB1]

100. I'm Hanging With Nate Silver AND

I see Wang's #'s are exactly the same on & off. But still I'm scared shitless! NO over-confidence from me. Florida will do that to you!

[Caroline-Vivienne]

103. Newbie here...

Thank you for this post and for the agreeing/dissenting comments.

I want a sense of reality going into tomorrow.

Smug factor *OFF*

for now.........

[AverageJoe90]

120. Welcome to DU, C.V.!

[Caroline-Vivienne]

132. Thank you!

I'm still learning my way around!

[pismoclam]

111. Urgent Message For All Teapublicans

Dear Teapublicans,

Please be advised that your days of freedom are numbered now. In FACT the buses will be along in just 24 hours now to collect you from your homes and transport you to those FEMA death camps where you'll be forced to endure nonstop liberal propaganda and sharia law. You'll be put to work in chain gangs repaving roads and reparing bridges. Your wives and daughters will be forced to breed with dark-skinned people and their babies will be aborted at random. Your homes and belongings will be redistributed amongst the union thugs who run the camps and your bibles will be used as fuel to heat those homes. You will endure psychologically scarring conditioning regimens to convert you into muslim atheists like Obama and you will all be given free cell phones whether you want them or not and that's a FACT!

This post was made with 100% recycled electrons.

[mgcgulfcoast]

115. several polls show romney ahead or tied. overconfident?

no reason for anyone to be over confident.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. Could You Please Point Me To The Data That Details Romney's Path To 270?

Thank you in advance.

[GeorgeGist]

130. Sure you're not from FOX ...

blue state governors and sec. of state playing games with the voting machines.