Skip to main content

expected vs actual presidential outcomes, 2012
Slide from a presentation by Bill McInturff on what went wrong with their polling in 2012
Pollsters want to get it right. That's how they make a living. And when they get it wrong—especially when they get it very wrong—they like to figure out how to make it right.

Bill McInturff, who did polling for Mitt Romney, but whose firm also splits polling duties with Peter Hart for NBC/WSJ, did a deep dive to try and figure out what went wrong. A lot went wrong with the composition of the "likely voter" (aka LV).

Elizabeth Wilner, writing at the Cook Political Report, sums it up:

The upshot of McInturff’s findings (you can read his study here): A likely voter model based solely on self-described interest in the election failed to capture the true interest level and the strength of Democratic turnout efforts among voters age 18-29 and non-whites, especially Latinos. These groups are core Democratic groups, heavily dependent on cellphones and thus tougher to poll.
The realization by McInturff that his model didn't accurately account for the actual electorate is not new (the flaws in the LV model were becoming apparent to Steve Singiser and others prior to the election, and after), but it's well done (as is Wilner's write-up) and well worth a read.

Wilner pairs it with a second piece in which she speaks to prominent public pollsters to get a sense of which directions polling is headed.

McInturff's .pdf presentation is here (and highlighted at the top).

We'll continue the discussion after the fold, particularly why defining the electorate properly is so important to the prediction business.

Wilner, in looking at the future:

Elections have consequences for parties—and now, for polling.

An industry accustomed to unquestioned respect that had struggled quietly against its mounting demons for the previous few election cycles is facing an intervention post-2012. A decades-old method of gauging a person’s likeliness to cast a vote for president failed. The resulting gap between some pre-election ballot tests and the actual outcome shook those pollsters including the oldest brand in the business, Gallup.

A robopoll—an automated survey involving no person-to-person contact—mirrored the final results as closely as any set of live interviews.

And by offering a shortcut through the glut, Nate Silver and other poll aggregators became what pollsters once were, our national tea-leaf readers, while diminishing the value of accurate individual surveys.

Pollsters, meet Jesus.

Wilner talks to some of our best known pollsters (names like McInturff, Hart, Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin) and looks at the future of cell phone polling, online polling (which was quite accurate this presidential election cycle), and other tweaks and innovations likely to affect future polling.
But by all means, do not miss the presentation by Bill McInturff dissecting where he (and Gallup as well) failed and how to fix the LV model.
For reference, the white vote via exit polls was 72 percent.

Wilner again:

Here are McInturff’s proposed steps for how to go about it:

- Survey samples must keep pace with the percentage of US households (34 percent in 2012) that are cellphone-only.

- The base of voters who qualify for a likely voter model in a presidential year should be roughly 80 percent of registered voters; this 80 percent should not be further refined through additional filters.

- In addition to self-described interest, other polling indicators such as past voting behavior, recall of contact by a campaign, and intensity of feeling toward a candidate should be factored into the model.

- Turnout models need to be more generous in their assumptions for certain target populations. Even then, additional weighting probably will be needed to help compensate for “missing” likely voters.

- In presidential years, the model should use a default gender breakdown of 47 percent men, 53 percent women.

All good ideas; now let's see how the independent pollsters react to them.

But note this: If the GOP polled 2012 correctly, they'd have been a bit nicer to non-whites. And from that, policy follows.

Originally posted to Greg Dworkin on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 07:44 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Gravis Marketing set the standard in 2012. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 07:53:19 PM PST

  •  If the method only includes "likely" voters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    political mutt

    would a method weighting voters based on estimated probability to vote, discounting rather than discarding less likely voters be more realistic?

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 10:46:48 PM PST

    •  that's what the RAND panel does (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ItsSimpleSimon, teacherken, Albanius

      it's an internet panel that ranks you by your likelihood to vote.

      Why This Poll Is Different

      First, it allows us to ask the same people for their opinion repeatedly over time. In comparison to most polls, this leads to much more stable outcomes; changes that we see are true changes in people's opinions and not the result of random fluctuations in who gets asked the questions.

      Second, we may be more accurately capturing the likely votes of a greater number of voters in the crucial “middle” (i.e., not closely aligned with either candidate) by allowing respondents to more precisely assign their own numerical probability (or percent chance) to both the likelihood that they will vote and the likelihood that they will vote for a particular candidate. By comparison, traditional polls may not be fully capturing the intentions of these voters because they rely on less precise qualitative metrics (such as somewhat likely and somewhat unlikely) when asking respondents to indicate for whom they may vote and the likelihood that they will vote.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:16:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The problem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cherish0708, greengemini

      is that the missing voters aren't there to begin with - so the LV screen never gets them.  The National Journal poll actually had Obama winning by 3.7, so it did not overstate his margin.

      And I will repeat: NO ONE OVERSTATED OBAMA"S VICTORY.  Remember, the odds that of 7 pollsters not ONE would overstate Obama's victory is .007 - or less than 1%.

      THERE IS CLEAR SYSTEMIC BIAS IN NATIONAL POLLING.

      Ironically, if you look at PPP's age cross-tabs THEY mostly missed the 18-29 vote as well.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 11:35:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dick and Karl will have a sad... (0+ / 0-)

    But the rest if the polling world (minus the unskewed polls loser whose name escapes me presently) is fair to pass judgement on next cycle based off of how little or how much they alter their methodologies to reflect this new reality. I am curious, Greg; if polling starts reflecting Texieira's "emerging Democratic majority," to what extent do you see this becoming self-reinforcing in purple and maroon states?

    "When it comes to this thing called the American Dream, liberalism had better very much be alive and breathing fire or we have truly lost our way as a nation." --Dennis Miller (before he turned to the dark side...)

    by Trenchman003 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:29:40 AM PST

    •  polls are driven by the electorate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teacherken

      and are correct or not. What's reinforcing is that if the GOP polled correctly, they'd be nicer to non whites. See immigration, gun control, etc.

      But I don't see the polling changing the electorate, i see the electorate changing the polling.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:39:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  in fact, I'm adding that point at the end (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teacherken

      thank you for making me ponder it.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:42:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gallup reacts by saying - not in prediction game (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Greg Dworkin

    at least, that's my prediction.

    Glad to see the interesting RAND life panel get a shout-out in your diary.

  •  a couple of thoughts (0+ / 0-)

    1.  Did Obama have a unique appeal that somewhat changed the electorate?

    2.  Was Romney such a bad candidate personally that he somewhat changed the electorate (eg, 47% comment, being a Mormon perhaps discouraging some evangelicals)?

    3.  Do any candidates on the horizon for 2016 have a unique appeal like Obama or unique turnoffs like Romney, or might a more traditional pair of candidates somewhat mute the effects of what we saw in 2012?

    It seemed to me that both 1 & 2 had some significance in why some pollsters were so far off this last cycle.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:22:27 AM PST

    •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

      had the O campaign been miraculously appealing, interest would have been up. Reverse is true for R.  He did fine with whites.

      The problem for pollsters was that a moderately interested vote counted as much as a passionate one. That made their LV model wrong. That's especially true in terms of early voting, mail votes, etc. where you didn't have to be a 102 woman committed to standing 6-8 hours to vote.

      They just discounted D leaning groups too much, especially Gallup whose LV model simply failed (as many of us said it would).

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:37:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  for 2016? Hillary will galvanize women, and (0+ / 0-)
      - In presidential years, the model should use a default gender breakdown of 47 percent men, 53 percent women.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:37:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The next Democratic candidate will benefit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CrissieP, greengemini

      by several percent of people who cannot vote for a Black candidate. In spite of the existence in the last two cycles of Rednecks for Obama, and other indications that some racists held their noses and voted for him over the even-to-them unacceptable McCain and Romney.

      Now, if we could fix the filibuster and:

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 09:16:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm, let me tackle this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan

      1) No. This was not 2008 (when that might have been true in some places and with some demographics).

      2) No, the electorate has been changing. I think that the reason that Romney campaigned the way that he did is that he wanted to win his party's nomination. Remember, part of the reason that he signed the universal health care bill in Massachusetts is that he thought that would increase his national appeal.

      3) Only Hillary Clinton.

    •  Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      olo, greengemini

      absolutely had a unique appear to African American voters.  His decision to move left on immigration was a very big deal - and we much discuss in the Latin community - far more than people think.

      It is also clear, thought, that something happened with White turnout.  

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 11:38:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  vagina attacks (11+ / 0-)

    The attacks on women's rights by local candidates made national news--and swayed the votes of both genders.  When you hear a standard bearer claim women's bodies can choose not to become pregnant from rape, you begin to realize that R insanity has gone too far.  That did more harm to Romney than most people admit.  It also motivated some to vote.

    I still wonder why the country is so closely split-- and that, more than standardized tests, makes me question our schools.  Critical thinking--and a touch of cynicism--are needed to get an informed electorate.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:13:54 AM PST

    •  I so agree (6+ / 0-)

      on the woman thing. It was very powerful, & the denial from the Republicans blew me away, and throwing people like Marsha Blackburn R-Completely Crazy out there to deny the air-quote war on women was a critical mistake. Instead of recognizing their problem, addressing it and changing their rhetoric if nothing else, they ended up with truth after truth of how they really felt being blasted over the airways. Binders of women was just the topper. The stupid, backwards positions on women's issues pissed my husband off to no end & he's not even a girl, and not really that political (except for his Rachel & NPR fixes, he'd rather be fishing)
      Why they didn't see this in the polling long before (and after for that matter) Ann Romney came out with her I love women speech is beyond me. I think the people reporting the polling to Mitt's campaign were just telling both Mitt and his advisers what they wanted to hear, candy-coating the reality of how bad they sucked. No way these professionals didn't see it - the polling is only as good as how it's analyzed.

      Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

      by hulibow on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:35:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Media. Schools Are For a Few Years, Mostly Before (3+ / 0-)

      voting age. Media is hours a day for life.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:37:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Obama campaign ran continual (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, gakke, greengemini

      TV ads with Romney, in his own words, saying the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade, and "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

      Did the Obama campaign know something that the pollsters and the GOP did not?

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Pollsters want to get it right. That's how they make a living. And when they get it wrong—especially when they get it very wrong—they like to figure out how to make it right.
    Except, of course, for Rasmussen.
  •  It's not just cell phones... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kinak, devtob, olo

    My home is Internet-only.  We don't have a land line and we don't have a cell phone either.  If we need to make a call, we use Google Voice....

  •  It is not fair to generalize. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shevas01, devtob, greengemini

    Some polling organizations exist purely as propaganda organs, creating sources of disinformation to try and influence the vote.

    It is their job to get it wrong.

    •  extraordinarily few of those (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cardinal, devtob, Mokurai, ItsSimpleSimon

      and they don't stay in business long.

      That's a fact.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:56:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it really a "fact"? (0+ / 0-)

        Argue with these academics, in their publication,
        "Evidence of Systematic Bias in the 2008 Presidential Polling" (pdf).

        Some tidbits from their abstract:

        We compared polls produced by major television networks with those produced by Gallup and Rasmussen. We found that, taken as a whole, polls produced by the networks were significantly to the left of those produced by Gallup and Rasmussen.

        We used the available data to provide a tentative ordering of the major television networks’ polls from right to left. Our order (right to left) was: FOX, CNN, NBC (which partners with the Wall Street Journal), ABC (which partners with theWashington Post), CBS (which partners with the New York Times). These results appear to comport well with the commonly held informal perceptions of the political leanings of these agencies.

        We also compared tracking polls produced by Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline/FD, and the Daily KOS. Here again we found significant evidence of bias. Most notably, the Rasmussen and the Gallup polls were significantly to the right of the Daily KOS poll. A detailed analysis of the Gallup and Rasmussen polls also suggested the likelihood of short-term bias.

        Hmmm..."Rasmussen and the Gallup polls were significantly to the right" ... where have I heard that before?
        •  so you jump from "systematic bias" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          olo

          a neutral way of saying you got it wrong, to (without any presented evidence) :

          Some polling organizations exist purely as propaganda organs, creating sources of disinformation to try and influence the vote.
          The cited academic study (pit simply reinvents the wheel of what we call "house effect" without looking at Rv or LV) doesn't support your comment.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 02:36:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  On the contrary, systematic bias (0+ / 0-)

            does not rule out intentional human interference.
            The definition of "systematic bias" given here includes:

            systematic bias can additionally sometimes be used to imply planned human agency. Systematic bias therefore can also mean that the system produces bias as a consequence of consistent, deliberate and planned human interference.
            It would seem that you need to put your own house effect in order.
            •  I hate when people post things they don't (0+ / 0-)

              understand and cite it as proof.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 04:29:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Economists and pollsters (0+ / 0-)

                trying to force-fit mathematical models developed for the physical sciences onto complex human behavior.

                You are the one that does not understand you use mathematics developed to desrcribe Brownian motion in your work.

                I'll stick with my observation: People lie.

            •  to put it more simply (0+ / 0-)

              in some rare circumstance observation A can come from motivation B

              does NOT mean

              "B caused A, and the above citation proves it."

              Grasp that, please, before going on.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 04:34:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If there was no causation (0+ / 0-)

                I would expect the right wing organizations to "get it left" about half the time. That doesn't happen though does it?

                •  and also expect the converse? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greengemini

                  except PPP got it closest in 2012. So-called "left leaning" pollsters were consistently to the right of the actual results in 2012. Odd, if it were human bias.

                  More likely, it is methodological bias. Past methodology of interpolating results is now inconsistent with the way the present day electorate votes (or doesn't vote).

                •  sure they do (0+ / 0-)

                  Fox polling was reasonably accurate, in some cases more L than PPP who polled for us.

                  Rasmussen and Gallup had issues, which we knew about for a long time.

                  see: Why I remove Gallup and Rasmussen from the Abbreviated Pundit Round-up charts from Aug 2012.

                  Gallup is not a 'right wing organization' and its methodological issues are different than Rasmussen's.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 05:41:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  btw, Drew Linzer had a nice piece on house effect (0+ / 0-)

                  in Sept 2012:

                  All polls contain error, mainly from the limitations of random sampling. But there are lots of other ways that error can creep into surveys. Pollsters who truly care about getting the right answer go through great pains to minimize these non-sampling errors, but sometimes systematic biases – or house effects – can remain. For whatever reason, some pollsters are consistently too favorable (or not favorable enough) to certain parties or candidates...

                  There are a number of pieces of information to take away from this table. First, none of the house effects are all that big. Average deviations are less than 1% in either direction. This is much smaller than the error we observe in the polls due to random sampling alone.

                  Second, even if, say, Rasmussen is getting the right numbers on average – so that PPP’s house effect is actually +1.6% – then that +1.6% bias still isn’t that big. It’s certainly not enough to explain Obama’s large – and increasing – lead in the polls. Of course, it’s possible that even Rasmussen is biased pro-Obama, and we just aren’t able to tell. But I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that.

                  Finally, the firms with the largest house effects in both directions – PPP and Rasmussen – are also the ones doing the most polls, so their effects cancel out. Just another reason to feel comfortable trusting the polling averages.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 05:44:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  What struck me about 2012 polling (6+ / 0-)

    was the proliferation of obviously partisan pollsters getting their desired results.

    And getting them publicized.

    They had little effect on outcomes, but they did affect the narrative.

    A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

    by devtob on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 08:57:02 AM PST

  •  I like to think GOTV makes a difference (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mokurai, ItsSimpleSimon, greengemini

    in likely voters. Pollsters can ask, but how could they know that those unlikely voters would be contacted repeatedly, in person at their door, by OFA volunteers, but the GOP did not have the same level of effort?

    •  huge difference: there's a slide for that (5+ / 0-)

      see this:

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 09:15:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe this only happened in swing states (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ratcityreprobate, greengemini

        but the OFA GOTV effort emphasized effective face-to-face contact, especially for sporadic voters. This was research based. It's quite a bit more effective than phone calls, and it requires a conversation that gets the voters to commit to vote and make a plan to vote so they know when and where they will vote and how they will take care of other obligations (like child care) that might prevent them from voting.

        I don't think the GOP had anything comparable where I was. They just did phone calls and lit drops.

        •  yeah, i can't find the slide (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ratcityreprobate, cocinero

          that illustrates how important contacts are, but O did much better in remembering they were contacted.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 10:18:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I live in blue blue Seattle, had 10 yard signs for (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cocinero, rja, greengemini

            Dems or liberal causes (gay marriage, no charter schools) and was a known contributor and still received a face to face contact from OFA/Dem coordinated GOTV campaign plus phone calls and emails.

            How good was their organization?  As soon as our ballots were received by County (we vote by mail only, with a few exceptions) the contacts stopped.  The GOTV campaign knew we had voted within hours of receipt by County.  2008 they were good but in 2012 it was demonstrably improved.

            Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

            by ratcityreprobate on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 10:58:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  My district consistently votes ~ 70%+ Dem. (0+ / 0-)

            As a reward, there are no TV ads poisoning the airwaves and little or no deadtree mailers for House, Senate Or Prez.

            We are also spared marches by the KKK, nazis, westboro church & other rat-fucked organizations.

            Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

            by olo on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 03:54:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  In Florida (0+ / 0-)

          the GOTV organization was good - but to be honest it wasn't close to what it was in 2008.  There is no question there were fewer volunteers this cycle - and there were absolutely fewer calls and personal contacts.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 11:40:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  presuming a white (0+ / 0-)

    candidate runs at the top of dem ticket in 2016 the minority turnout will be much lower then in 08 & 12 so the progressives had better plan accordingly.

  •  Its cellphones, stupid. (0+ / 0-)

    Young voters don't have landlines. They can't be reached by traditional polling methods. The phone pollsters are going to skew older and bias the results toward the breakdown of that demographic.

    Its so fucking obvious. Why is this still a topic of discussion?

    •  because it's not that simple (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      Gallup included cellphones in their sample. they even polled in Spanish 0few pollsters do).

      They still got it wrong.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 04:31:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site