OH: 52-47 Obama, PPP

[Landslide Lyndon]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Not more than you have.

[Franzl]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

What explanation are you going to provide if Obama really wins Ohio by about this margin?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

[Landslide Lyndon]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

What explanation are you going to provide if Obama really wins Ohio by about this margin?

He won't. He will vanish just like he did four years ago.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

Was J.J. actually calling PPP reasonable at some point in this campaign? I don't specifically remember that but I don't not remember it either.

[Franzl]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

Was J.J. actually calling PPP reasonable at some point in this campaign? I don't specifically remember that but I don't not remember it either.

Yes.

[J. J.]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

We've been talking about the same problem for 2-3 weeks.  It looks like they have a fairly strong D house effect.  Their methodology is good, but they have this house effect.  

[Brittain33]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

Was J.J. actually calling PPP reasonable at some point in this campaign? I don't specifically remember that but I don't not remember it either.

Yes. When other pollsters had Obama +8 and PPP had him +4 in Ohio, and when after the debate Obama fell to +4 for other posters and +1 in Ohio, J.J. frequently cited the PPP polls from this state as indicative of Romney's strength. That lasted as long as Ohio was atypically pro-Romney in PPP results.

[J. J.]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

Was J.J. actually calling PPP reasonable at some point in this campaign? I don't specifically remember that but I don't not remember it either.

Yes. When other pollsters had Obama +8 and PPP had him +4 in Ohio, and when after the debate Obama fell to +4 for other posters and +1 in Ohio, J.J. frequently cited the PPP polls from this state as indicative of Romney's strength. That lasted as long as Ohio was atypically pro-Romney in PPP results.

What part of house bias don't you understand.  I've been talking about it with PPP in MO. 

[Franzl]

I think J.J. is only capable of one thought at a time.

Last time it was the Bradley Effect, this time it's PPP's supposedly massive house bias. And in every state without exception, of course.

[Lief 🗽]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems.  

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

We've been talking about the same problem for 2-3 weeks.  It looks like they have a fairly strong D house effect.  Their methodology is good, but they have this house effect.  

The last week of polls in Ohio show TIE (Rasmussen), Obama +1 (Gravis), +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +5, +6, +8 (Zogby). PPP's result here is completely in line with the consensus. No house effect. Try again.

[Brittain33]

The part of house bias that didn't make sense was the allegation that PPP favored Dems by 3 points when those polls skewed Republican compared to other polls at the time, matching Rasmussen, and given that Obama's going to win Ohio handily in two days.

[Yank2133]

J.J's PPP criticism makes absolutely no sense.

PPP's house effect is merely 0.5, the Democratic lean has been gone since the spring. Face it, you don't like the results and your simply coming up with a lame excuse.

[Speed of Sound]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems.  

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

We've been talking about the same problem for 2-3 weeks.  It looks like they have a fairly strong D house effect.  Their methodology is good, but they have this house effect.  

The last week of polls in Ohio show TIE (Rasmussen), Obama +1 (Gravis), +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +5, +6, +8 (Zogby). PPP's result here is completely in line with the consensus. No house effect. Try again.

Don't bother. He's not even trying to feign actual level-headedness anymore. If JJ is actually arguing that the only person that's right is Rassmussen and 13 other polls have it wrong, there's nothing more that can be done but wait for Tuesday and watch him vanish.

[Franzl]

Even if a "house bias" exists , J.J. isn't interpreting what that means correctly.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Even if PPP did still have a house bias in the D+3 range, Obama would still be up two and breaking fifty here.

[President von Cat]

Please, please let this be the end of Romney/Ryan, and by extension the irritating blue av' brotherhood.

[Seriously?]

Initiate J.J effect, tied race

Probably.  PPP has problems.  

Jesus, JJ. You've lost it all now.

Yes... when PPP is saying what you want, they're reasonable... now they've got problems

We've been talking about the same problem for 2-3 weeks.  It looks like they have a fairly strong D house effect.  Their methodology is good, but they have this house effect.  

The last week of polls in Ohio show TIE (Rasmussen), Obama +1 (Gravis), +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +5, +6, +8 (Zogby). PPP's result here is completely in line with the consensus. No house effect. Try again.

Lmfao. Zogby. I'll go poll 20 of my friends on the internet and ask them who they are voting for and report back to you. I'll get a closer result than Zogby.

[DrScholl]

Probably.  PPP has problems. 

You claiming that anyone has problems is just downright hysterical. Sit down.

[Franzl]

Zogby is only 1 poll of those listed. Reading comprehension problems?

[Seriously?]

Even if PPP did still have a house bias in the D+3 range, Obama would still be up two and breaking fifty here.

Half these PPP polls have better D+ margins than 2008. Others claim ridiculous stuff that does not line up with the early vote, such as the equivalent of Obama taking 80% of the Independent early vote. It takes a suspension of common sense and belief to believe those numbers.

[Seriously?]

Zogby is only 1 poll of those listed. Reading comprehension problems?

Sure, play spot the outlier and throw Zogby in there. Ok.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Please, please let this be the end of Romney/Ryan, and by extension the irritating blue av' brotherhood.

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

[Speed of Sound]

"When a campaign is claiming all polls are wrong, they are going to lose."

Isn't this how the old 'rule' goes?

[ajb]

The question I have for all the blue avatars out there is as follows:

Given that the range of polls conducted in the final week of a campaign is:

TIE (Rasmussen), Obama +1 (Gravis), +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +6, +8 (Zogby)

and given that a new poll is released showing Obama +5,

how do you go about deciding whether or not that O+5 poll shows a D-leaning house effect, and, if it does so show, then how large that effect is?

If you simply average those polls, they show  O+3.3. If you want to throw out Zogby, and keep Gravis, that leaves you with an average of O+2.9. The new poll is therefore about two points more Democratic than the polling average, suggesting a house effect of two points.

But it seems like Republicans here are using a different method. They're "picking winners" among the polls released, deciding that polls should or should not count towards the average, based on whether or not they come up to a standard of professionalism, whose terms were not set in advance of this election campaign. As a result, there seems to be a very strong correlation between polls that Republicans think are soundly conducted, and those which happen to be most favorable to the Romney campaign.

Given this model, polls which show results different from those most favorable to Romney can be dismissed as outliers, even if that means dismissing three-quarters or more of the polls actually released. They may be entirely consistent with the average of all polls, but are deviant by comparison with the ever-shifting list of "good polls."

It's a tempting method for all of us, but it's awfully difficult to keep from letting your desires interfere with your judgement if you use such a method. Who among the Republicans talking about polls here can honestly say that they haven't let their desires influence their methodology, and who, in particular, can support that claim by citing a post from the past two months in which they've endorsed a poll whose methodology they respect, even though they didn't like its results? And if you can find such a post, are your current posts entirely in keeping with that post?