FL: Rasmussen: McCain 49, Obama 44

[J. J.]

Dude, you can run a mathematical trend via the national polls.  FiveThirtyEight does it.  It comes to Obama +2.  Without weighting for pollster quality (a "pure" weight) it's close to Obama +2.5.  Slight lean McCain?  Based on one Rasmussen poll showing a tie, two days ago, with tracking polls tightening since then?

Here is what I'm looking at:

2008-09-14   Rasmussen   Tie   47%   47%   2%   4%   5%   500 L   0
2008-09-09   Quinnipiac University O +3   45%   48%   1%   6%   3%   1,001 L   0
2008-09-07   Strategic Vision O +2   45%   47%   3%   5%   3%   1,200 L   0
2008-09-07   Rasmussen O +2   45%   47%   2%   3%   5%   500 L   0
2008-08-26   CNN/Time   O +5    43%   48%   1%   5%   4%   669 R   0

The Time/CNN was before the convention.  Since then, there has been a drop.  I believe with two exceptions prior to the DNC, no poll had Obama winning PA by less than 5.  Since then, well, you can see the results.  Closing numbers.

I think it's a trend.  Today's Rasmussen isn't part of the bounce.

I also (like the Obama campaign), think those undecideds will break for McCain.

It's close and subject to chance, but if the election were held tomorrow, I'd give the state to McCain.

[J. J.]

Dream on.  OH is solidly McCain. 

McCain has reached a peak in the past 4-5 days. His bounce is now over and his numbers will start to decline (already have really).

I guess we'll see who's right in November, kind of pointless to argue with a guy that says that PA is a tossup.

No, McCain actually has gone down nationally in the last 3-4 days.

[Alcon]

Dude, you can run a mathematical trend via the national polls.  FiveThirtyEight does it.  It comes to Obama +2.  Without weighting for pollster quality (a "pure" weight) it's close to Obama +2.5.  Slight lean McCain?  Based on one Rasmussen poll showing a tie, two days ago, with tracking polls tightening since then?

Here is what I'm looking at:

2008-09-14   Rasmussen   Tie   47%   47%   2%   4%   5%   500 L   0
2008-09-09   Quinnipiac University O +3   45%   48%   1%   6%   3%   1,001 L   0
2008-09-07   Strategic Vision O +2   45%   47%   3%   5%   3%   1,200 L   0
2008-09-07   Rasmussen O +2   45%   47%   2%   3%   5%   500 L   0
2008-08-26   CNN/Time   O +5    43%   48%   1%   5%   4%   669 R   0

The Time/CNN was before the convention.  Since then, there has been a drop.  I believe with two exceptions prior to the DNC, no poll had Obama winning PA by less than 5.  Since then, well, you can see the results.  Closing numbers.

I think it's a trend.  Today's Rasmussen isn't part of the bounce.

I also (like the Obama campaign), think those undecideds will break for McCain.

It's close and subject to chance, but if the election were held tomorrow, I'd give the state to McCain.

If you plot those relative to national poll averages, and then track accordingly, it comes out to Obama +2.  You're basically saying, "I'm pretty sure if you did the math, the trend would show McCain up."  It doesn't.  Is it possible that McCain has surged in PA more than elsewhere, and we under-estimate this trend?  Yes, if the two recent PA polls were off too.

Is it proven by evidence?  No.  And I think you are (as I think you frequently do) allowing your own cognitive bias to color your analysis.

[J. J.]

Lunar:

[J. J.]

If you plot those relative to national poll averages, and then track accordingly, it comes out to Obama +2.  You're basically saying, "I'm pretty sure if you did the math, the trend would show McCain up."  It doesn't.  Is it possible that McCain has surged in PA more than elsewhere, and we under-estimate this trend?  Yes, if the two recent PA polls were off too.

Is it proven by evidence?  No.  And I think you are (as I think you frequently do) allowing your own cognitive bias to color your analysis.

Alcon, I'm not primarily looking at the national polls.  I'm focusing on the state.  I'm saying, look at the PA trend.

[Alcon]

Why is it more likely that the PA trend continues McCain-ward, when the national trend seems to have leveled or started trending Obama?

[J. J.]

Why is it more likely that the PA trend continues McCain-ward, when the national trend seems to have leveled or started trending Obama?

I'm not saying it's more likely, but I am saying it is, to an extent independent[/i] of the national polls. 

[Alcon]

Why is it more likely that the PA trend continues McCain-ward, when the national trend seems to have leveled or started trending Obama?

I'm not saying it's more likely, but I am saying it is, to an extent independent[/i] of the national polls. 

But if your prediction is that PA is more likely to have an edge to McCain than Obama, that's exactly what you are saying.

Unless your assertion is that the polls aren't picking up on some phenomenon (secret cache of voters, heavy late breaking in undecideds, racial anxiety) that you think likely will make that two-point swing.  But isn't that breaking a self-attributed rule of yours?

[J. J.]

Why is it more likely that the PA trend continues McCain-ward, when the national trend seems to have leveled or started trending Obama?

I'm not saying it's more likely, but I am saying it is, to an extent independent[/i] of the national polls. 

But if your prediction is that PA is more likely to have an edge to McCain than Obama, that's exactly what you are saying.

No, I'm saying it's independent of the national polls.  You seem to think that, when the national numbers move the state numbers move is some proportion to the national numbers.  I don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do think there is a very small Bradley Effect to the extent that it will look like the some those listed as "undecided" shift in grater numbers to McCain.  I believe so does the Obama campaign.  No, I don't accuse them of breaking J. J.'s Second Rule.  This isn't some "new" group missed by the pollsters. 

[Alcon]

I didn't say that.  But is Pennsylvania more likely to move against the national numbers than with?  That's required by your assertion, since McCain hasn't led in a poll there, and a trend calculation with the national numbers comes out to Obama +2.  You've explained why McCain could be ahead fine; you haven't addressed why he probably isn't.

But either way, you have to accept that you are using more than raw, or even trend-adjusted/reweighted polling data -- you are making the claim about an unseen political force.  That's risky, but valid.  But I thought one of J. J.'s rules applied to claiming the polls were not picking up on a certain phenomenon, in general?  No?

[J. J.]

I didn't say that.  But is Pennsylvania more likely to move against the national numbers than with?  That's required by your assertion, since McCain hasn't led in a poll there, and a trend calculation with the national numbers comes out to Obama +2.  You've explained why McCain could be ahead fine; you haven't addressed why he probably isn't.

Alson, as soon as you ask me about the national numbers, that is your implication.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since when is the Bradley Effect "unseen?"

J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections: "When a politician or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group."

I think there is not a large group out there, but a very small one that will not make a difference except in a very close election.  I also think they are being polled, but, like NH, not telling the truth to the pollsters. 

I'd like to see more polls, good polls, of PA, but it looks like a very tight race.  My guess is, that group is less than 1%, but that could make the difference, assuming the poll is accurate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Alson?

At least the immature name calling make sense.

[J. J.]

Alson?

At least the immature name calling make sense.

Typo. 

[Alcon]

J. J.,

You spoke of a trend.  If your claim isn't that the poll numbers are off, and that you thought McCain is probably leading, then you'd have to be assuming an opposite trend from PA versus the national numbers.  And you'd have no proof of that.

Now, I'm seeing that your claim almost entirely rests on the Bradley effect.  I assumed by, unseen, you meant unseen by polls.  By whom, exactly, would these voters be "unseen"?  J. J.?

[Lunar]

J. J.,

You spoke of a trend.  If your claim isn't that the poll numbers are off, and that you thought McCain is probably leading, then you'd have to be assuming an opposite trend from PA versus the national numbers.  And you'd have no proof of that.

Now, I'm seeing that your claim almost entirely rests on the Bradley effect.  I assumed by, unseen, you meant unseen by polls.  By whom, exactly, would these voters be "unseen"?  J. J.?

Furthermore, the assumption is that the bradley effect outweighs all other potential effects.  Including the "cell-only effect" and Obama and McCain's respective organizational strength.  Who knows where the end result of all of these margin-pushers will be for any given state?  To just give McCain a flat +1% because Obama's black seems a little unfair.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Didn't liberals argue in 2004 that Kerry was going to win big because of all the cell phone users not polled?

[Lunar]

Didn't liberals argue in 2004 that Kerry was going to win big because of all the cell phone users not polled?

Maybe we'll say the same thing about Republicans this year and the Bradley effect.  Obama has a LOT more enthusiasm within the  cell-only demographic than Kerry, but it would be hackish for me to attribute the exact number falling through the likely voter screen.  I'm not making any tangible arguments here about results, only hypothetical critiques.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

You spoke of a trend.  If your claim isn't that the poll numbers are off, and that you thought McCain is probably leading, then you'd have to be assuming an opposite trend from PA versus the national numbers.  And you'd have no proof of that.

Alcon, as pointed out, Over the past 3-4 days, McCain's numbers nationally are closer to Obama's .  We have a poll of PA when there was a greater gap.  Guess what, the PA poll from today was closer than the one taken when McCain's nubers were higher.  I'm saying that you cannot look at the national numbers and compare those with PA and expect both sets of numbers to move in relation to each other.  The prior set was at the end of the convention bounce.

The numbers are independent of each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, the Bradley Effect is not unseen.  It also does not imply that the group, " a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election." It says, yes they are being polled (but not answering honestly), and that there will not be "greater turnout."

I've said, a while back, that I did expect a very small Bradley Effect.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Didn't liberals argue in 2004 that Kerry was going to win big because of all the cell phone users not polled?

Maybe we'll say the same thing about Republicans this year and the Bradley effect.  Obama has a LOT more enthusiasm within the  cell-only demographic than Kerry, but it would be hackish for me to attribute the exact number falling through the likely voter screen.  I'm not making any tangible arguments here about results, only hypothetical critiques.

Yes, the my candidates' supporters are not getting polled claim seems to be a common fallacy.

[Alcon]

Right.  If you take the Rasmussen poll alone, assume that it must be right, then McCain is likely ahead.  But if you average out polls, even with the other that came out today, it shows that Obama is likely ahead.  That includes mathematical adjustments for sample size.  You would have to heavily over-weight Rasmussen to get McCain leading ahead in a trend-adjusted poll line.  In other words, you have to claim something beyond the polls, here.

PA and the United States:  They may be mostly independent of each other, but not purely so.  I mean, Pennsylvania is a component part of the United States.  They're not totally independent, and I do imagine they're more likely to correlate than to inversely correlate.  I'm arguing likely here, not definite.  I think it's more likely that PA moves with the nation than directly against, even if the latter is possible.

Again, "unseen" by whom?  Polls, or what?  There are a great number of claimed effects that are not unseen--the cell phone factor, for instance, which is even quantifiably provable.  It's not that I deny the possibility of a Bradley Effect (even if I don't believe in adjusting polls a few points for it), but I want to know how J. J.'s Second Law of Elections defines "unseen."

(What's J. J.'s first law, again?)

[J. J.]

Didn't liberals argue in 2004 that Kerry was going to win big because of all the cell phone users not polled?

Maybe we'll say the same thing about Republicans this year and the Bradley effect.  Obama has a LOT more enthusiasm within the  cell-only demographic than Kerry, but it would be hackish for me to attribute the exact number falling through the likely voter screen.  I'm not making any tangible arguments here about results, only hypothetical critiques.

Yes, the my candidates' supporters are not getting polled claim seems to be a common fallacy.

I think it we had a difference, a known "unpollable group," we could say it.  For example the Amish, some, might not use phones at all.  We didn't have a difference with the "cell phone only" group so far, not even an inkling that there is a "unpolled group."

The Bradley Effect isn't caused by an "unpolled group."  The group is polled, but doesn't give accurate answers to the poll.  I think there still is a Bradley Effect, but, in most places, probably less than 1%.

[Alcon]

People without landlines are more likely to be young and urban.  Not tons of them vote, but plenty do.  They're increasing rapidly.  I'm one of them--I vote.  It's going to be a problem eventually.  I'm not convinced it is now, but by your rules, you can't just dismiss it.

In any case, Obama's trend-adjusted polling margin in PA is >0.5, so...?

[phk]

McCain will win by 3 to 5.

My Cuban friend in Miami says that the Spanish commentators are calling him a communist, practically toxic to the Cuban-vote.

[Lunar]

The Bradley effect has never been observed in a national election with high amounts of information saturation and it's hard to conclude that Obama was underpolled in the primaries.  It could exist, but it also could not (maybe he would have been even more underpolled in the primaries if he were white).

Maybe there are lots of bitter primary voters who are claiming they won't vote for the Hillary-destroyer and are LYING to pollsters about what they intend to do on election day.  Maybe this number will outweigh the Bradley effect.  Maybe people are more open-minded now than they were when Bradley was running for CA governor or Wilder for VA.  There's been plenty of elections with no Bradley effect.

Let's just slab on some random percentages here and there to make the results how we want.

edit: Oh, and the idea that PA is completely independent from the nation overall?  Logically impossible to defend.

[??????????]

McCain will win by 3 to 5.

My Cuban friend in Miami says that the Spanish commentators are calling him a communist, practically toxic to the Cuban-vote.

Are you referring to Obama? A lot of the Hispanics I know have a lot of distrust of Obama. The blacks where I work, of course, are acting completely racist and get a free pass (as usual). I've heard stuff like "McCain is a honky" "Palin is a bitch/whore/honky".