Why do you keep going on about sample sizes and margin of error when they're completely normal?
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
Why do you keep going on about sample sizes and margin of error when they're completely normal?
You missed "past polls" from the same sample. The last time the same people were polled Obama had an eight point lead, now its six points. So although is good he is still leading in that poll it is not all good news.
BTW - many of these polls are not completely normal from a sample size and accuracy stand point. Anything under 1,500 increases the chances of MoE or completely unexpected results significantly. Polling 1,500 people carries a cost so the media pay for cheap quick polls.
It wasn't the same people, it's just the same place, that's where the margin of error really does come into it. And the last three polls they've done there have been, from the most recent - +6, +8, +7, all in the last month, which isn't a lot of movement in total.
And they are normal compared to others that poll there, state polls seem to rarely go over 1000 if they aren't robo-calls, and even then they're over a longer period of time.
And they are normal compared to others that poll there, state polls seem to rarely go over 1000 if they aren't robo-calls, and even then they're over a longer period of time.
I briefly checked their source data and personally I don't think its a great poll. They are constantly polling 53% women and 47% men, which is weighting 2% to the females. Obama does a little better amongst female voters so there is one reason why they constantly get slightly favorable numbers for Obama.
Fact is if you take the RCP combined polls that look at the last 7-10 days the race is close and tightening.
So it's the methodology now. Okay.
mjs can't be a real person.
Well if they are changing it how can one week be accurately compared to another.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/gallup-poll-changes_n_1955949.html
President Job Approval is ticking up. Above 50% in last two polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Always a good sign for re- election
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Always a good sign for re- election
What because I am not influenced by any preconceived biased, and I actual occasionally analyze the poll data.
We were talking about the NBC polls in Ohio (and mjs was saying they consistently over-polled women), not the national tracker with Gallup. But since you mention it, it does help to explain how Obama was polling at his pre-debate level on the 7th and 8th.
It is actually kind of funny reading everyone's reaction to the various polls.
Is it funny, or does it sort of ruin your faith in humanity that we're reduced to this?
The population is 51:49% women, and that poll uses 53:47%. Women favor Obama by a 10-15% margin so that poll is going to be slightly unreliable based right off the bat. I am sure ALL the poll have some data anomalies so when you take the RCP combined results it probably gives a fairer picture.
The two party system and my guy must win mentality causes most of it. I have lost count of the conversation with republicans or anti-Obama voters that don't really give any alternatives to the things they have issues with. Like healthcare, especially funding, its broken plain and simple yet they would rather go back to the old messed up system with rising costs than even consider alternatives.
Nate Silver analyzes poll data. You post whatever goes against the grain.
In the last three Presidential elections, women have made up 52, 54, and 53% of voters.
Really? Thats actually very surprising to me. Not saying it's wrong just very surprising. I would have suspected mid to high 40's.
There's little disparity in the percentage of men who vote and women who vote. The reason the population is 51-49 is that women live longer. Given that older people (where the gender gap is largest) vote more than younger people (where the gap is smaller), and people under 18 (where there's almost no gap) don't vote at all, it stands to reason.
Mjs strikes again.
Not surprising at all to me, I'd certainly not expect them to be less interested in voting than men.
Then why didn't you bring it up earlier? I knew all along but was having some fun, thanks Excal you twat.
I was surprised too to hear women make up the majority of the voters....
Right, because not being a surprised at a statistic (said in response to another poster saying they were) is the same as knowing it for sure beforehand. I was actually intending to do a little research around it later on and see whether they'd weighted accordingly/whether it actually made any difference. But that seems as good an explanation as any.Ah, white text. So you WERE just wumming.
Higher percentage to start with, then the age thing comes into play plus they are more responsible and inclined to vote. So not only do the GOP have to contend with the changing racial demographic the women voters are slowly creeping up as well.
They are fecked
In this instance a little
Individual polls with small samples don't carry much weight on their own though.Obama is up in the polls, Romney's stock is on the ascendency with a higher budget but its going to be too little too late, thank feck.
The collective weight of the polls are interesting though, seemingly much less of a swing to Romney than nationally and keeping Obama ahead in most of them. Those 47% ads are apparently doing their job.
Nate Silver currently sees Obama as having a 66% chance of re-election, down from nearly 90% before the debate...
I am shocked the Obama campaign aren't banging on about the ramifications of reducing deductions. For me its the single biggest policy from a selfish perspective. We have around $30,000-$35,000 deductions on our tax return, which is a saving of over $8,000. So he wants to raise our taxes to give millionaires a tax break, feck that. I am sure there are plenty of independents and even GOP voters that haven't though that one through.
I usually say the choice is between gonorrhea or syphilis in elections but this time around its Aids vs Crabs.
I usually say the choice is between gonorrhea or syphilis in elections but this time around its Aids vs Crabs.
Because Romney won't ever say what actual deductions he's proposing to eliminate, so if the Obama camp says "Here's the consequences from eliminating deduction X," Romney'll say "I would never eliminate deduction X, and it's unconscionable that the President would try to claim that I would," and PolitiFact will call the statement "Mostly False", never mind that he never said a single untrue word about it.
Romney: 'We Don’t Have People Who Die Because They Don’t Have Insurance'.
Obama should be able to win this one by just keeping his mouth shut.
Obama should be able to win this one by just keeping his mouth shut.
I know that BUT they at least need to let people know the ramifications and who it impacts and let them question Romney's policies.
Obama's giving a cracking speech. I wish the debates were actually just monologues for 45 minutes. Preferably outside.
Higher percentage to start with, then the age thing comes into play plus they are more responsible and inclined to vote. So not only do the GOP have to contend with the changing racial demographic the women voters are slowly creeping up as well.
They are fecked
Do women trend Democrat generally?
think I may have heard this somewhere.
Health care issues, single mothers....
FFS, I can't wait for this debate just so you cnuts shut up about fecking polls for a day or two.
What time is the debate tonight? Same as last time?
Is the US the world leader in polling per capita?
Are you kidding? Once the debate's done, we poll who won.
What time's the debate tonight in the UK? Early hours?
- Status