Skip to main content

Got to like the precision of Rand Corp.  the election is inexorably flowing our way.  Excellent as always 538 analysis of the several possible reasons for Obamentum.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    What rough beast, its hour come round at last/Slouches toward Bethlehem waiting to be born?

    by cova1 on Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 07:55:51 AM PST

  •  gee....can you elaborate? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  For Rmoney to win the polls must be biased (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheKF1, karmacop, TheGreatLeapForward

    what Nate Silver said is 100% true.  

    And not biased by a little, but but a couple percentage points across the board.  There's always the possibility of everyone got the population wrong and I am a little nervous.

     I'm not entirely convinced there isn't an enthusiasm gap among people who don't read sites like this.

    But I'm feeling better and better, at least for now.

    •  No, there's not biased systematically. (0+ / 0-)

      That many polls aren't wrong.  Recall Nate's post a few days ago.  The total number of wrong calls based on aggregation of polls is very low.  It is basically not possible for all of them to be wrong in the same direction by the amount Romney would need.  In fact, the methodology and reality of many of these polls (no cell phones, low response rate) might tend to favor Republicans, if anything, although that hasn't been the case much in the aggregates from the past.

      And don't be swayed by Republican "confidence".  They were confident 4 years ago too, and look how that turned out.

      It's easy to be confident when you dismiss reality as they do.  They don't play well with facts.

      •  I don't think this is justified (0+ / 0-)

        Traditional polling methods using random sampling to assure representativeness and likely voter screens are not really methodologically sound given the low response rates we are observing. The methods being used to correct for these issues are mostly similar across firms but not really validated and we will not have any really basis for confidence until after this election. Nate Silver's approach of looking at the historical distribution of aggregate polling errors is really not much better, in that there is no reason to think that there is anything meaningful being measured, and even if the concept of random draws from the universe of polling methods had a meaning, we have too few data points to have any confidence at all in the measured variance.

        I agree with you that there is very little support for the proposition that polling is biased toward Obama, and many well established reasons to think that it is biased toward Romney. Personally I believe that professional pollsters are choosing to bias toward the loser since even with potential problems they will still make the right prediction. I think the perceived tightness of this election is a combination of Republican pollsters manipulating results for Romney, and mainstream pollsters content to show slim leads for Obama rather that risk being outliers in an effort to nail margins which might not materialize.

  •  Only outlier today is Ras. Ras will probably show (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A tie tomorrow. Barring a miracle, Romney will lose a close election.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site