Okay, I can finally prove all you sample weighters are wrong

[Speed of Sound]

You do your nickname proud, sir.

And while we're ".gif"ing...




But seriously, there's nowhere for this discussion to go from here. Party ID is a dead analysis point. I wonder if people will start overanalyzing these ideology numbers next instead? At least those would have a little more accuracy.

[Speed of Sound]

Doesn't this still leave room for discussion of the ideological vote distribution?

What are your numbers for how the 2012 moderate vote splits between Obama and Romney?

Yeah, it definitely will just shift over to being the same discussion, just with new substance, so long as everyone is wise enough to read what King has put together here. But those numbers should be much easier to track and speculate on and shift accordingly compared to the highly fickle and unclear Party IDs.

[Speed of Sound]

And party self identification isn't volatile? You sir are the fool.

Look at jfern's post to see how consistent that ideology ID has been.

You're arguing with someone who is only a denialist, not an actual debater with actual points to make. Your effort is better spent on your work than on some of these guys.

[Speed of Sound]

Doesn't this still leave room for discussion of the ideological vote distribution?

What are your numbers for how the 2012 moderate vote splits between Obama and Romney?

Yeah, it definitely will just shift over to being the same discussion, just with new substance, so long as everyone is wise enough to read what King has put together here. But those numbers should be much easier to track and speculate on and shift accordingly compared to the highly fickle and unclear Party IDs.

Yup this changes nothing really. Same discussion, now only speculating on moderates instead of independents. It's fancy math-art that really doesn't add much to the discussion although you seem to be peddling this pretty forcefully judging by your links to this thread appearing all over.

For the record, regarding the polling that took place in Alberta in 2012 for our election, and let me say this clearly no amount of reasonable adjustments or corrections to the polling could have predicted the results. None. At all. Adjusting for ideology, party affiliation, demographic turnout, nothing could have predicted the election day results. To match polling with results required taking the highest polling percentage of undecided voters (around 20% although polling ranges were from 3 to 20) and then giving over 80% of those undecided to one party, which no reputable polling firm would do in their right mind.

So bash your heads against the wall with all this nonsense. If anything enthusiasm to vote in my opinion is perhaps the most useful, as I believe it allows for an accurate snapshot of voters. I know many people that give random or deliberately inaccurate information to pollsters and then vote differently or not at all. /endrant

Well, I do honestly believe that the manipulation of these numbers will provide a more accurate picture than does Party ID. I've been posting the link in response to people who keep peddling the obviously useless Party ID crap, looking for their response (to which, I might add, none have had any). Is this perfect? Haaaaaaardly. Is it better? I do believe that it is. But you are certainly free to feel otherwise and I understand why you would. Still, I'm very intrigued to see what the work with these numbers wil produce in the year, and I think we all should be, as at the best it could become a useful and perennial general shifter for better poll accuracy, and at worst we just stop using it.