Jobs report: Unemployment Rate Drops to 7.8%

[Ddrak]

Yeah, Sullivan seems to have gone way over the edge there. Most pundits seem to think the second and third debates will largely favor Obama? Naturally, he can still blow them both but I'd hardly think that was a foregone conclusion.

Dd

[Harlowe]

He gets very passionate one way or the other when he's emotionally invested in something. I still enjoy reading his blog, but he can be pretty reactionary.

[Lurker]

[Embar Angylwrath]

Rasmussen's newest poll is out,and it shows Romney gaining in the all important swing states. Tied nationally. The real teller in the swing states is that Romney winse 46% to 40% of those that say they are certain to vote and will not change their vote. To me, that indicates Romeny's base continues to solidify and Obama's base has softened a bit.

@Lurker - I think your gif nicely sums up the what the Obama campaign is experiencing right now.

I still think it will come down to Florida.

[Partha]

Rasmussen has a sample that biases Republican, and THAT'S well documented, since they are the only ones who don't call back numbers or call cellphones, among other things.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Whatever their polling method, the results have been more dependable and accurate than other polling compaines. Perhaps its because other polling companies weight Democrats moore havily, sometimes by 10% or more.

Look at the 2008 election... Rasmussen consistantly out performed other polling agencies, probably because the other agencies over-bias Democrats.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/analysis ... l-election

But if it makes you feel better, Pew is reporting much the same thing.

[Lurker]

Whatever their polling method, the results have been more dependable and accurate than other polling compaines. Perhaps its because other polling companies weight Democrats moore havily, sometimes by 10% or more.

Look at the 2008 election... Rasmussen consistantly out performed other polling agencies, probably because the other agencies over-bias Democrats.

Most polling companies do not weight their surveys by party identification.

As Gallup explains, Party ID is an attitude and it is fairly fluid. For example, when Bush ran the country into a ditch many Republicans started identifying themselves as Independents. Conversely, when Romney won a debate by disguising himself as a moderate and lying about his core policy proposals, many Republicans started identifying themselves as Republicans again. When Obama is flying high, more people self identify as a Democrat.

Party identification is a poll question, but of the major pollsters only Rasmussen adjusts their survey results to fit a party ID model. That, among other reasons, is why that Unskewed Polls site is so stupid.

[Embar Angylwrath]

A little bit more on the shift in polls...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16124 ... ing-states

The lead with independents cannot be understated. In 2008, President Obama's victory over John McCain included an eight point margin with independents, 52-44. As of Monday, Romney is now ahead of Obama with independents 52-35, a 16-point margin. The same polls also show a 13-point enthusiasm gap for the Republicans.

Remember a week ago when people were saying that the debates didn't really matter?

We'll see what ahppens in this week's debate between Ryan and the Vice-Gaffident. I'm betting Ryan will end up the clear winner, our crazy Uncle one heart beat away from the Presidency doesn't do so well with policy. If Ryan performs well, hell, even Obama might vote for the ticket.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I never mentioned Unskewed polls. What I sated, is that Rasmussen was one of the most accurate polling operations in the 2008 elections. Pew was up there too.

Also, its common knowledge that most polling companies are over sampling Democrats to mimic the turn-out percentages in the 2008 percentages. The assumption being that this election will have the same proportional turnout. Personally, I don't think that's safe assumption, do you?

[Lurker]

Also, its common knowledge that most polling companies are over sampling Democrats to mimic the turn-out percentages in the 2008 percentages. The assumption being that this election will have the same proportional turnout. Personally, I don't think that's safe assumption, do you?

Common knowledge is often wrong. You have conflated weighting by demographic information (age, race, etc) with weighting by Party ID. It's a common mistake on both sides.

As far as I know, only Rasmussen weights their polls by Party ID. Other pollsters ask the Party ID question but do not weight the data based on the answer. It's simply another survey question, like "who do you plan to vote for?"

If you have information to the contrary, and other major polling firms are adjusting their data based on party affiliation, I'd love to see it.

[Harlowe]

I still like Andrew Sullivan, even when he goes full-blown drama-diva.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/andrew-s ... 8-key-gifs

For polling, I always read Nate Silvers take on them. It's the most reliable.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Take "weighted" and replace with "over sampled". I used the wrong term. Polling companies are over-sampling Democrats to match the turnout in 2008. I don't see that as a valid assumption this time around. Do you?

Also, again, no matter what you think or don't think of Rasmussen's polling methods, it was at the top of the list for predictive accuracy last time around. Do you disagree with that?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lifted from another discussion board. Not my analysis. Its a commentary on the shift in both Independents, Democrats and Republicans from last election to this election. This illustrates why making the same turnout assumptions for 2012 may not be reflective of the changing reality. Its also an illustration why Romney's shift with Independents is so important.

I happen to disagree entirely with that analysis. I'm more inclined to believe Gallup/Rasmussen's numbers as they seem to be more inline with observable swing state trends. A quick glance at the voter registration numbers in a couple of swing states (that I could find the data for) show an increase in the number of Independents at the expense of Democrats, while the number of people identifying as Republicans showed minimal change (and in many cases, an uptick).

First, Colorado.

This is the partisan breakdown of Colorado as of 8/01/2012 (active).

709,496 Democrats
819,398 Republicans
695,921 Indepents
2,246,362 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

31.58% Democrat
36.48% Republican
30.98% Independent

This was the breakdown on 12/30/2008 (active).

842,484 Democrats
857,753 Republicans
725,971 Independents
2,440,011 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

34.53% Democrat
35.15% Republican
29.75% Independent

Do you see a great migration towards the Democrats? I don't.

Next, Florida.

As of 2012, this is the partisan breakdown of registered voters in the state:

4,627,929 Democrats
4,173,177 Republicans
2,782,261 Independents
11,583,367 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

39.95% Democrat
36.03% Republican
24.02% Independent

This was the breakdown in 2008:

4,800,890 Democrats
4,106,743 Republicans
2,504,290 Independents
11,411,923 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

42.07% Democrat
35.99% Repulican
21.94% Independent

Do you see a great migration towards the Democrats? I don't.

Next, North Carolina.

This was the breakdown on 08/04/2012.

2,753,838 Democrats
1,992,465 Republicans
1,609,644 Independents
6,370,984 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

43.22% Democrat
31.27% Republican
25.27% Independent

This was the breakdown on 12/27/2008.

2,870,500 Democrats
2,005,482 Republicans
1,402,471 Independents
6,282,575 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

45.69% Democrat
31.92% Republican
22.32% Independent

Do you see a great migration towards the Democrats? I don't.

Next, Iowa.

This is the partisan breakdown of Iowa as of 8/02/2012 (active).

598,995 Democrats
620,584 Republicans
659,838 Independents
1,881,145 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

31.84% Democrat
32.99% Republican
35.08% Independent

This is the partisan breakdown of Iowa as of 12/01/2008 (active).

708,996 Democrats
598,580 Republicans
727,979 Independents
2,036,912 total registered voters

Broken down as percentages:

34.81% Democrat
29.39% Republican
35.74% Independent

Do you see a great migration towards the Democrats? I don't.

And finally you can go here for Pennsylvania. There are a bunch of .xls files you can download for ease of access. You can clearly see a not-so-good trend for the Democrats in that state (though I don't expect Romney to win it).

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=666493

[Lurker]

Take "weighted" and replace with "over sampled". I used the wrong term. Polling companies are over-sampling Democrats to match the turnout in 2008.

Changing the term doesn't change what you are saying. Polling companies aren't "over sampling Democrats". Other than Rasmussen, I'm not aware of any polling firm that adjusts the results based on Party ID. They take a random sampling and then weight by demographic information... not party affiliation.

[Embar Angylwrath]

How do you explain Rasmussen's performance then? How do you explain the fact that its been the most accurate polling organiztion?

[Partha]

How do you explain Rasmussen's performance then? How do you explain the fact that its been the most accurate polling organiztion?

That whatever else happened in 2008, they shit the bed in 2010, as my link clearly documented.

[Embar Angylwrath]

LOL, ok Partha, whatever helps you in your delusion.

Won't matter what the polls say today, if Obama can't get back on message. Spending a week playing the defender of Big Bird isn't having the optics the campaign thought it would. It's causing laughter on the right and head-scratching on the left.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/201 ... 37878.html

The point about looking backward at the debate and focusing on Big Bird of all things... I think you can look for a campaign staffd shake-up soon. He doesn't have much time to turn it around, and the Vice-Gaffident has yet to put his stamp on the race. Its just way to easy for Romney to change the optics on that... "Hey, Obama wants to save Big Bird's livelihood. I think its better to focus on saving yours, and that's what I intend to do." He can trivialize Obama with that drumbeat. Nothing like making Obama out as the champion of puppets everywhere...

[Lurker]

LOL, ok Partha, whatever helps you in your delusion.

What's the delusion? Rasmussen was inaccurate in 2010.

Not that it's relevant. Polls that were in the field on Oct 4 - Oct 6 certainly captured the bounce Romney got from the debate, but that seemed to fade quickly by Sunday. It's going to take a few more days to see what, if any, long-term effect the debate had.

As I said in the debate thread, Obama is going to need to do a much better job pointing out the fact that Romney is lying about his core policy proposals. And that's harder than it sounds. Romney knows that the conservative agenda is toxic, and revealing the truth would lead to him getting crushed on election day. That's why he lied through his teeth at the debates and became someone who wants regulation, and absolutely would never lower taxes on the wealthy, and would never pass a tax cut that wasn't paid for. It must make you so proud, as a supporter, for your candidate to do everything in his power to obscure his real policy agenda.

[Embar Angylwrath]

LOL, ok Partha, whatever helps you in your delusion.

What's the delusion? Rasmussen was inaccurate in 2010.

Not that it's relevant. Polls that were in the field on Oct 4 - Oct 6 certainly captured the bounce Romney got from the debate, but that seemed to fade quickly by Sunday. It's going to take a few more days to see what, if any, long-term effect the debate had.

As I said in the debate thread, Obama is going to need to do a much better job pointing out the fact that Romney is lying about his core policy proposals. And that's harder than it sounds. Romney knows that the conservative agenda is toxic, and revealing the truth would lead to him getting crushed on election day. That's why he lied through his teeth at the debates and became someone who wants regulation, and absolutely would never lower taxes on the wealthy, and would never pass a tax cut that wasn't paid for. It must make you so proud, as a supporter, for your candidate to do everything in his power to obscure his real policy agenda.

You may find this hard to beleive, but Im not a big fan of Romney. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson in the election. Its a luxury since my vote really doesn't matter all the much in California. Its not even close out here Rep/Dem.

Changing course a bit... the real polling to pay attention to is in the swing states. I just hopped over to Politico to look at their current electoral map and was suprirised Romney has an edge in Florida. Looking at the other spreads in the swing states, his path to the WH is maintaining and stretching his lead in the swing states that poll in favor of him, and make up the very small deficits in VA and OH. He is very very close in those states. That gets hiom over the magic number of 290 electoral votes needed.

I still think this is Obama's election to lose, but he sure looks like he's trying very hard to do just that.

[Ddrak]

FiveThirtyEight has Romney up to 28%, so there's definitely a swing. FiveThirtyEight also outperformed every single pollster on ALL of the last 4 or 5 elections, and as Nate says, it's the pollster's job to tell you what's happening now and it's Nate's job to tell you from that what WILL happen in November.

And yes, Romney has a lead in FL but OH is the real state to watch with an almost 50% chance of it being the critical one (FL is under 10%).

Dd