[smoothsailing]

[Mr. K]

Just this weekend I heard (for the first time ever) one pollster admit that the biggest problem this election was the number of people refusing to participate. (>5% in many polls)

When polls were created many decades ago everyone had a landline phone and they always answered.

Now a high percentage have ONLY a cell phone and many people screen their calls to the answering machine

I know when pollsters call me I have told them no, I didnt want to participate.

I think these non-participaters are goign to be for Romney more likely than not.

[cicero2k]

There’s a linear equation that could define the model.

Something that would involve party affiliation, age, income level, turnout expectation, expectation to respond to polling calls, landline responder, cellphone responder etc.

Pollsters are smart guys. There’s big money to be made. Why can’t they stay ahead of this?

[momincombatboots]

My husband gets upset... But I can feign obamamania. It’s none of anyone’s business who I vote for. I would tell them I am an independent who voted for Obama. Unfortunately, I never get asked. Why would I ever, ever tell the pollsters the truth. I think I am not alone, based on 2008 exit polling.

[peeps36]

“They say that 60% of the time, it works, every time”. When I look at the polls they make me think about the above quote from the Ron Burgandy movie.

[wardaddy]

this article is not really true ...he cherry picked exceptions...shabby for the source really

i do think Dem oversampling could make this the first gross error in polling since 1948

not since then have poll aggregates been off much but then they did not run a fraction of what they do now

talking about POTUS national...

1980...polls were slow to catch Magnus debate trounce

2000 ...late polls missed Bush DUI...not polls fault really

this time...I think Dem samplings based on 2008 is an error

and if you dig you can see the proof otherwise...not to mention where Axlerod is spending the money

but polls are not inaccurate much

the 2004 exit polls...another matter..done on purpose to some degree

and I would caution of alphabet polls or hired college polls

but the top 4-6 respected ones...even Gallup...are not that far off

I predict Romney 300 plus EV

and 5-8% pop vote margin and carries most states in play

come and get me if wrong..if I can log in

i mean really...this is just frigging awful here

[wardaddy]

this article is not really true ...he cherry picked exceptions...shabby for the source really

i do think Dem oversampling could make this the first gross error in polling since 1948

not since then have poll aggregates been off much but then they did not run a fraction of what they do now

talking about POTUS national...

1980...polls were slow to catch Magnus debate trounce

2000 ...late polls missed Bush DUI...not polls fault really

this time...I think Dem samplings based on 2008 is an error

and if you dig you can see the proof otherwise...not to mention where Axlerod is spending the money

but polls are not inaccurate much

the 2004 exit polls...another matter..done on purpose to some degree

and I would caution of alphabet polls or hired college polls

but the top 4-6 respected ones...even Gallup...are not that far off

I predict Romney 300 plus EV

and 5-8% pop vote margin and carries most states in play

come and get me if wrong..if I can log in

i mean really...this is just frigging awful here

[wardaddy]

this article is not really true ...he cherry picked exceptions...shabby for the source really

i do think Dem oversampling could make this the first gross error in polling since 1948

not since then have poll aggregates been off much but then they did not run a fraction of what they do now

talking about POTUS national...

1980...polls were slow to catch Magnus debate trounce

2000 ...late polls missed Bush DUI...not polls fault really

this time...I think Dem samplings based on 2008 is an error

and if you dig you can see the proof otherwise...not to mention where Axlerod is spending the money

but polls are not inaccurate much

the 2004 exit polls...another matter..done on purpose to some degree

and I would caution of alphabet polls or hired college polls

but the top 4-6 respected ones...even Gallup...are not that far off

I predict Romney 300 plus EV

and 5-8% pop vote margin and carries most states in play

come and get me if wrong..if I can log in

i mean really...this is just frigging awful here

[Wolfie]

Modern polls are about propaganda and shaping opinion. It’s not a shock that they’re disconnected from reality.

[sdcraigo]

“But Gallup uncovered one very significant shift in this year’s voting electorate. There has been a remarkable movement toward the Republican party. As Gallup reports:

The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332386/parsing-polls-michael-g-franc#

So instead of the dems +8 (or thereabouts) that a lot of polls are using, we will be seeing a Republican +1, which makes most of the current polls incorrectly slanted toward the dems, by a lot.

Furthermore, according to Rasmussen, in October the number was actually +5.8 for Republicans, which, in combination with the incorrect dems +8, would mean that the “national polls” are potentially off by close to 14 points:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

Could this possibly portend a landslide? I sure hope so.

[neverdem]

"Sometimes a google search can turn up results."

It did here. I do that when archive searches fail on this forum, frequently, but now a search bombs out, not just fails to do an archive search. I get this message:

Access to the webpage was denied

You are not authorized to access the webpage at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;q=quick;s=The%20Voters%20Have%20Not%20Been%20Kind%20to%20Pollsters%20Since%202002. You may need to sign in.

HTTP Error 403 (Forbidden): The server refused to fulfill the request.