According to the swing state polls Obama is set to win a second term

[Liability]

The reason it is so fucking close is because nearly half this country lives off the government in some ways. If they can win this election then they will cut the military and everything to keep feeding off the government. We will become greece.

The reason the polls are so close is because the polls are still using 2008 models as the adjustment basis for the poll.

2010 never happened.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Tomorrow will be a busy day for me....I have to work then go vote then I have to go home and make dinner and when I wake up Obama will have been given the pink slip....News will be talking about the protests screaming theft of the election and some stupid shit about counting every vote with burning cars in the backdrop.

Single father?

 

[Uncensored2008]

All the properly weighted polls are showing pretty much a dead heat this morning both for President in most of the swing states and in a lot of the swing states. Go vote for love of America people. It ain't over until its over and I'm not ready to believe that most of America wants another four years of Obama.

Exactly, I'm not seeing an Obama advantage. Particularly not in Wisconsin or Ohio. Florida is in the bag for Romney, as is Virginia. Ohio could literally be the deciding state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The reason the polls are so close is because the polls are still using 2008 models as the adjustment basis for the poll.

Exactly. The turnout for the dims will be a shadow of '08.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Political party is one of the demographics that is used in the weighting.

No, it isn't.

Also, not true. Polls are certainly weighed by demographic information, but party identification is fluid, not constant. People who were black in 2008 are likely to still be black, so race is used as a demographic for weighing. Similar with age, and socio-economic indicators. But party identification is fluid.

So if fewer blacks or fewer Catholics or fewer Democrats or more or fewer of any particular demographic votes in the 2012 election, their polling data will moist likley be off by that much.

As I pointed out above, people's party identification changes, whereas race and religion generally don't. Which is why polls DON'T weigh by party identification.

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Your link doesn't contain anything to back your claim up.

Apparently, the only national polls that weigh by party identification are Rasmussen and YouGov (from a HuffPo article)

A similar variation applies to the US. The difference is that there, most pollsters apply only demographic weights. YouGov and Rasmussen are unusual in taking account of political partisanship; whether people think of themselves generally as Democratic, Republican or Independent. (This is generally known as party identification, or party ID.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Now isn't the time to doubt. We've all worked very hard to elect Mitt Romney.. Let's stay focused and do what we need to do to finish this race out victoriously.

We've done 40 days of prayer in our churches. Facebook users and Twitter the same. MILLIONS UPON 10's of millions took part in that..Have faith.. but remember.. No matter what, God is still in control.

I've worked to oust Barack Obama, not elect Mitt Romney. Romney is no great shakes, but Obama is a cancer on this nation.

 

[Lovebears65]

I was hearing on the news and this expert says that Dems will do the polls and a lot of REP will not answer the phone calls or let them do the poll they hang up and they do most of their voting on Election day. NO incumbent president has won with his numbers and when it is this close the challenger is normally the winner . That is of course if OBAMA doesnt cheat

 

[Liability]

You've confirmed what I've said. They sample/weight to meet demographics but not party.

Political party is one of the demographics that is used in the weighting.

No, it isn't.

They do the sampling of 400 people polled or 1000 people polled or whatever and then weight the results according to some pre-determined criteria. In the case of most of the media polls, they weight their sampling according to the demographic breakdown, including political party, that was the case in the 2008 election.

Also, not true. Polls are certainly weighed by demographic information, but party identification is fluid, not constant. People who were black in 2008 are likely to still be black, so race is used as a demographic for weighing. Similar with age, and socio-economic indicators. But party identification is fluid.

So if fewer blacks or fewer Catholics or fewer Democrats or more or fewer of any particular demographic votes in the 2012 election, their polling data will moist likley be off by that much.

As I pointed out above, people's party identification changes, whereas race and religion generally don't. Which is why polls DON'T weigh by party identification.

I was born a poor black child ....

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it isn't.

Also, not true. Polls are certainly weighed by demographic information, but party identification is fluid, not constant. People who were black in 2008 are likely to still be black, so race is used as a demographic for weighing. Similar with age, and socio-economic indicators. But party identification is fluid.

As I pointed out above, people's party identification changes, whereas race and religion generally don't. Which is why polls DON'T weigh by party identification.

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Your link doesn't contain anything to back your claim up.

Apparently, the only national polls that weigh by party identification are Rasmussen and YouGov (from a HuffPo article)

A similar variation applies to the US. The difference is that there, most pollsters apply only demographic weights. YouGov and Rasmussen are unusual in taking account of political partisanship; whether people think of themselves generally as Democratic, Republican or Independent. (This is generally known as party identification, or party ID.)

Rasmussen certainly does weight by party identification; otherwise they have no way to know whether they are polling all Democrats or all Republicans. It is absolutely necessary to weight by party affiliation. HOW that weighting is done is the problem. If the weighting is done in ratio to the 2008 vote it will reflect much different data than if the weighting is done in ratio to the 2010 vote or via some other criteria. Most of the media polls have weighted according to the 2008 vote which is why most are so far off the mark from say Quinnipac or Pew or Rasmussen or Gallup.

And if you had followed the links within the link of the last one I gave you, you might learn quite a bit about how that is done.

 

[AceRothstein]

Political party is one of the demographics that is used in the weighting.

No, it isn't.

Also, not true. Polls are certainly weighed by demographic information, but party identification is fluid, not constant. People who were black in 2008 are likely to still be black, so race is used as a demographic for weighing. Similar with age, and socio-economic indicators. But party identification is fluid.

So if fewer blacks or fewer Catholics or fewer Democrats or more or fewer of any particular demographic votes in the 2012 election, their polling data will moist likley be off by that much.

As I pointed out above, people's party identification changes, whereas race and religion generally don't. Which is why polls DON'T weigh by party identification.

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Did you read your own link? It basically argues against you and shows that only 2 pollsters currently weight by Party ID. It is most definitely not the industry standard to do so.

 

[decker]

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Your link doesn't contain anything to back your claim up.

Apparently, the only national polls that weigh by party identification are Rasmussen and YouGov (from a HuffPo article)

A similar variation applies to the US. The difference is that there, most pollsters apply only demographic weights. YouGov and Rasmussen are unusual in taking account of political partisanship; whether people think of themselves generally as Democratic, Republican or Independent. (This is generally known as party identification, or party ID.)

Rasmussen certainly does weight by party identification; otherwise they have no way to know whether they are polling all Democrats or all Republicans. It is absolutely necessary to weight by party affiliation. HOW that weighting is done is the problem. If the weighting is done in ratio to the 2008 vote it will reflect much different data than if the weighting is done in ratio to the 2010 vote or via some other criteria. Most of the media polls have weighted according to the 2008 vote which is why most are so far off the mark from say Quinnipac or Pew or Rasmussen or Gallup.

And if you had followed the links within the link of the last one I gave you, you might learn quite a bit about how that is done.

all i know is pa is vital and if romney wins its all over.

 

[AceRothstein]

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Your link doesn't contain anything to back your claim up.

Apparently, the only national polls that weigh by party identification are Rasmussen and YouGov (from a HuffPo article)

A similar variation applies to the US. The difference is that there, most pollsters apply only demographic weights. YouGov and Rasmussen are unusual in taking account of political partisanship; whether people think of themselves generally as Democratic, Republican or Independent. (This is generally known as party identification, or party ID.)

Rasmussen certainly does weight by party identification; otherwise they have no way to know whether they are polling all Democrats or all Republicans. It is absolutely necessary to weight by party affiliation. HOW that weighting is done is the problem. If the weighting is done in ratio to the 2008 vote it will reflect much different data than if the weighting is done in ratio to the 2010 vote or via some other criteria. Most of the media polls have weighted according to the 2008 vote which is why most are so far off the mark from say Quinnipac or Pew or Rasmussen or Gallup.

And if you had followed the links within the link of the last one I gave you, you might learn quite a bit about how that is done.

Most of the media polls don't weight at all by party, confirmed in your link.

 

[AceRothstein]

Your link doesn't contain anything to back your claim up.

Apparently, the only national polls that weigh by party identification are Rasmussen and YouGov (from a HuffPo article)

Rasmussen certainly does weight by party identification; otherwise they have no way to know whether they are polling all Democrats or all Republicans. It is absolutely necessary to weight by party affiliation. HOW that weighting is done is the problem. If the weighting is done in ratio to the 2008 vote it will reflect much different data than if the weighting is done in ratio to the 2010 vote or via some other criteria. Most of the media polls have weighted according to the 2008 vote which is why most are so far off the mark from say Quinnipac or Pew or Rasmussen or Gallup.

And if you had followed the links within the link of the last one I gave you, you might learn quite a bit about how that is done.

all i know is pa is vital and if romney wins its all over.

What if Obama wins VA? You realize Obama is polling much better in VA than Romney is in PA, right?

 

[Liability]

Your link doesn't contain anything to back your claim up.

Apparently, the only national polls that weigh by party identification are Rasmussen and YouGov (from a HuffPo article)

Rasmussen certainly does weight by party identification; otherwise they have no way to know whether they are polling all Democrats or all Republicans. It is absolutely necessary to weight by party affiliation. HOW that weighting is done is the problem. If the weighting is done in ratio to the 2008 vote it will reflect much different data than if the weighting is done in ratio to the 2010 vote or via some other criteria. Most of the media polls have weighted according to the 2008 vote which is why most are so far off the mark from say Quinnipac or Pew or Rasmussen or Gallup.

And if you had followed the links within the link of the last one I gave you, you might learn quite a bit about how that is done.

Most of the media polls don't weight at all by party, confirmed in your link.

They may or may not do so intentionally, but where their methodology RESULTS in consistent Dim over-sampling, they are effectively weighting the outcome by Party.

 

[Sallow]

RCP has Obama ahead in all battleground except for Florida and North Carolina.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it isn't.

Also, not true. Polls are certainly weighed by demographic information, but party identification is fluid, not constant. People who were black in 2008 are likely to still be black, so race is used as a demographic for weighing. Similar with age, and socio-economic indicators. But party identification is fluid.

As I pointed out above, people's party identification changes, whereas race and religion generally don't. Which is why polls DON'T weigh by party identification.

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Did you read your own link? It basically argues against you and shows that only 2 pollsters currently weight by Party ID. It is most definitely not the industry standard to do so.

That depends on what industry you are referring to. Scientific pollsters will strive for as accurate a tally as possible. Media polls are too often looking for advantage for their preferred candidate and the alphabet channels are pretty well in bed with Obama. You seem to be looking for arguments weighted in favor of your point of view so you won't have to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And so it goes. The campaigns themselves conduct their owninternal polls which are likely to be the most accurate out there but they are never published.

How about providing a link from a reliable sourvce stating that the industry standard is not to address party affiliation as you have stated? Good luck with that though.

 

[kidrocks]

Where oh where are all the "poll-lovers" now? For all of last month (October) the wing-nuts couldn't get enough of the polls which had swung towards Romney, and now, they all of a sudden hate those same polls that are swinging back to Obama.

Gotta love those polls now!

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah we really hate them. Which is why we are discussing them on this thread.

 

[Liability]

RCP has Obama ahead in all battleground except for Florida and North Carolina.

Over-sampling will lead to silly, useless, irrelevant skewed results.

 

[AceRothstein]

Party identification is often the most important demographnic in poll weighting when the polls are to evaluate whether one candidate is ahead of another.

http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/weighting.htm

The demographics are divided into those who identify as Republicans and Democrats with everybody else thrown into the Independents division.

Did you read your own link? It basically argues against you and shows that only 2 pollsters currently weight by Party ID. It is most definitely not the industry standard to do so.

That depends on what industry you are referring to. Scientific pollsters will strive for as accurate a tally as possible. Media polls are too often looking for advantage for their preferred candidate and the alphabet channels are pretty well in bed with Obama. You seem to be looking for arguments weighted in favor of your point of view so you won't have to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And so it goes. The campaigns themselves conduct their owninternal polls which are likely to be the most accurate out there but they are never published.

How about providing a link from a reliable sourvce stating that the industry standard is not to address party affiliation as you have stated? Good luck with that though.

Why weighting polls for party identification is wishful thinking | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Survey Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...f6c2af4-06fb-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

Dick Morris: Party Disparities Aren

The Debate Over Party ID in Political Polling - The Numbers Guy - WSJ

Hopefully these are enough links for you and reliable enough sources for you.