OH: 52-47 Obama, PPP
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:43:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  OH: 52-47 Obama, PPP
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: OH: 52-47 Obama, PPP  (Read 5604 times)
Fargobison
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,692


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2012, 09:27:04 PM »
« edited: November 04, 2012, 09:46:39 PM by Fargobison »

The blue avatars need to hope the national polls are accurate because if they are we would have to see some unprecedented shifts against the nation in VA and OH and some bizarre things happening elsewhere to make PPP's polls accurate.

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2012, 09:40:44 PM »

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.

Here is what I've been arguing:



They seem to lean Republican in some states in 2008, but got others well.  They nailed Florida and Missouri, but had McCain up in Ohio and North Carolina.    They were perfect in 2004.  I really want to see their Ohio poll this year.  They nailed it in 2004.  If Obama is winning in the final Mason-Dixon Ohio poll, that will give me the clue that Obama has won.  


The one time they leaned Dem was in 2010 when they had Alex Sink ahead by three in their final poll in the Florida governor's race.  

Well, even a three point lean puts Romney up by double digits.  

The point I'm making is that we have four polls from MO, all showing Romney with a comfortable lead, all recent.  Three of them have it double digit lead and only PPP has it about half of that.  PPP also shows no movement.  Are these three off and PPP right?  Does PPP have a problem?

This was last week and I think I've been talking about it longer.



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

If it is five points I'll say PPP got it right and these others got it wrong.  Now tell me, if it isn't five points, will you say the same thing.  
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2012, 09:43:57 PM »

It depends what the margin is, J.J., and what happens in other states. If Obama wins by 3 in Ohio but is underestimated in other places...that wouldn't be indicative of a house bias.

I'm sure you'll cherry-pick random states, though, to argue that it did exist and was relevant. The same thing you attempted with the Bradley Effect 4 years ago.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2012, 09:50:22 PM »
« Edited: November 04, 2012, 09:52:26 PM by Nathan »

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.

It's only 'ridiculous' if one doesn't know how Ohio election law works and why one might end up listed as 'unaffiliated' in the early vote numbers under it.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2012, 09:53:46 PM »

It depends what the margin is, J.J., and what happens in other states. If Obama wins by 3 in Ohio but is underestimated in other places...that wouldn't be indicative of a house bias.

Well, I have tried to find another state, where everyone basically agrees on the winner, and where there are several relatively good polls (Rasmussen, M-D).  It is nice how you equivocated, however.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't random.  I wanted a state where the outcome was clear and where there were several good polls (one, Yougov is secondary) that were comntemporary.  I wanted to make sure one of them wasn't an outlier.  MO was the state.

We may be seeing a similar effect in PA, where it looks like it is tightening much more than PPP says (and I still give it to Obama).
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2012, 10:26:39 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2012, 11:03:39 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

BRTD, you forgot:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2012, 11:06:35 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

BRTD, you forgot:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."

But, J.J., we are trusting several polls. You're barely trusting any of the polls at all.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2012, 11:18:18 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

BRTD, you forgot:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."

16 polls out of the last 17 (since the 25th) have shown Obama with a lead and you think that it's tied?!?!? You're the one trusting no-one. You're only further proving our case...with your own freaking rules. Hack.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2012, 11:19:36 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

BRTD, you forgot:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."

But, J.J., we are trusting several polls. You're barely trusting any of the polls at all.

You are focusing very strongly on PPP.  It is a good poll in its methodology, but it produces a house effect.  I really don't know how much, but it looks like it's above D+3.  
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2012, 11:21:22 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

BRTD, you forgot:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."

But, J.J., we are trusting several polls. You're barely trusting any of the polls at all.

You are focusing very strongly on PPP.  It is a good poll in its methodology, but it produces a house effect.  I really don't know how much, but it looks like it's above D+3.  

We are focusing on the sixteen polls out of seventeen that show Obama ahead in Ohio.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2012, 11:42:56 PM »

Here are polls since the 10/29:

11-04   Public Policy Polling   O +5   47%   52%   0%   2%   3%   1,000 L   0
11-03   YouGov   O +3   46%   49%   0%   5%   4%   1,620 L   0
11-03   Zogby   O +8   42%   50%   0%   8%   4%   827 L   0
11-03   Columbus Dispatch   O +2   48%   50%   0%   2%   2%   1,501 L   0
11-01   Ipsos   O +2   45%   47%   3%   5%   4%   936 L   0
11-01   Marist College   O +6   45%   51%   1%   3%   3%   971 L   0
10-30   Public Policy Polling   O +5   45%   50%   0%   4%   4%   600 L   0
10-30   University of Cincinnati   O +2   46%   48%   4%   2%   3%   1,182 L   0
10-29   Survey USA   O +3   45%   48%   0%   7%   4%   603 L   0


Zogby and Ipsos are Internet; CD a mail poll.  Marist is not a good college poll.

So, we have PPP, SUSA, UC, and YouGov.  SUSA has just over a D+2 house bias, YouGov, just under 1.  PPP, at least +3.

Edge Obama, but easily within the MOE, and easily affected by GOTV (which I think will determine it). 
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2012, 11:53:20 PM »

Question, I know the answer, but I would like JJ to say what he believes it to be, since we're now going after PPP, what was their performance in 2008 vs the results?

Also, you just said PPPs house bias was "at least +3" how did you determine that?
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2012, 11:54:21 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."
Logged
Yank2133
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2012, 11:55:40 PM »

Question, I know the answer, but I would like JJ to say what he believes it to be, since we're now going after PPP, what was their performance in 2008 vs the results?

Also, you just said PPPs house bias was "at least +3" how did you determine that?

He pulled it out of his ass.

PPP has a bias, but it is less then a percentage point. In fact, you can argue that they have been fairly bullish on Obama this cycle.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2012, 11:57:02 PM »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."

You keep forgetting:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2012, 12:04:42 AM »

Question, I know the answer, but I would like JJ to say what he believes it to be, since we're now going after PPP, what was their performance in 2008 vs the results?

Also, you just said PPPs house bias was "at least +3" how did you determine that?

The house effect was noted by Silver over the summer.  It appeared to clear up in September, but it looks like it went back in October.  I noticed it in MO, a state that shows a clear Romney victory.

It isn't that PPP is bad, but that it just has a house effect.

PPP was great in 2008, and I think had a slight R house bias.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2012, 12:11:40 AM »
« Edited: November 05, 2012, 12:31:43 AM by Speed of Sound »

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections"If a candidate that say something like 'I don't look at the polls,' or 'The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,' that candidate will lose."
You keep forgetting:

Corollary to the First Rule:  "Never trust just one poll.  Trust several and remember that the electorate changes its mind quickly."
YOU'RE THE ONE ONLY TRUSTING A HEAVY MINORITY OF POLLS. WE'RE ALL TRUSTING 99% OF POLLS BUT YOU.
Logged
Reds4
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 789


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2012, 12:26:54 AM »

PPP has Obama +5 in Ohio and +6 in Michigan... no way there is only one point of difference in those states... if Obama wins Ohio by 5 (unlikely) then Michigan will be a blowout.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 05, 2012, 01:08:56 AM »

Guys, let JJ be. He'll almost certainly disappear for a long time again after election day.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2012, 01:14:29 AM »

It's a good sign I guess if only JJ is left to hold the line for the Republican posters on here ... Wink

Anyway, looks pretty good so far. NV+OH+WI all look more or less stable for Obama.

Everything else is a bonus. I'm also hoping we can increase the Senate majority and gain in the House and that the liberal agenda referendums win tomorrow, just like the Republican ones did in 2004.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 05, 2012, 01:15:52 AM »

PPP has Obama +5 in Ohio and +6 in Michigan... no way there is only one point of difference in those states... if Obama wins Ohio by 5 (unlikely) then Michigan will be a blowout.

I've never really talked to you before, Reds4, but I'd just like to take the opportunity to praise you for your reasonable outlook on this election. Hell, you're probably less hackish than I am this season.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2012, 01:29:11 AM »

Guys, let JJ be. He'll almost certainly disappear for a long time again after election day.

As Franzl noted somewhere, he'll probably come up with some excuse as to why he was right all along and his detractors were wrong (probably involving the hurricane in some way) and then after everyone laughs it off disappear for an extended period like after 2008. He'll probably also find some way to argue that the Bradley Effect happened even if Obama outperforms his poll numbers.
Logged
Reds4
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 789


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2012, 01:39:21 AM »

Nathan,

Thanks! Glad someone noticed. I try to be as objective as possible. I don't see the point in petty arguments or ridiculous talk on forums like this. I'm a statistics guy who loves this site (especially around election time).

I've never really talked to you before, Reds4, but I'd just like to take the opportunity to praise you for your reasonable outlook on this election. Hell, you're probably less hackish than I am this season.
[/quote]
Logged
Mister Twister
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2012, 01:49:53 AM »

J.J., you sly dog you. If Obama does better than this poll indicates, that is proof of the Bradley Effect. If Obama does worse, that is proof of a PPP House Bias. Either way, you win!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 13 queries.