Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $52,930
62%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 62%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by jackmercer

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Virginia Governor Election Day LIVE Thread

    11/05/2013 6:44:48 PM PST · 1,558 of 2,100
    jackmercer to redgolum

    “We will have socialized medicine in a few years one way or another.”

    If you think about it, we kind of already do. We have almost half of the country on socialized medicine or socialized insurance with the VA, Medicare and Medicaid. Then you have millions of children on the sCHIP program and lastly, you have tax free status on employer contributions to health premiums. It’s just a matter of semantics at this point. Even if the whole country goes to something you want to call another name, like Canada’s Medicare for all, we’re pretty much already there.

  • See the New ‘Intelligent’ Rifle That Claims to Give You a Perfect Shot Every Time

    11/30/2012 12:05:16 PM PST · 18 of 27
    jackmercer to Free ThinkerNY

    With a nicely crowned bull barrel, proper breathing, maintaining a consistent eye relief and after months of fine-tuning my own match reloads, I’d have to say that 90+ percent of my error is in my trigger pull. If this thing eliminates that, then sign me up....but at the current 15 to 20k per rifle I think I will just stick with more trigger time. Lot more fun that way anyhow.

  • Who on our side got it right?

    11/19/2012 12:00:09 AM PST · 32 of 33
    jackmercer to VA Voter

    This was my exact call before the election:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=117#117

    You can read through my posts over the last two weeks to get a better idea of how I did this and also how I address the “voter fraud” nonsense argument....that issue just comes down to occam’s razor

    Basically, after Romney won the primary, I started really digging into the demographics and questioned the assumption by the so-called tv, radio and print professionals, both conservative and liberal, regarding the idea that 2008 was special, different or an anomaly vis-a-vis the minority and female voting patterns of that year.

    The political meme of both sides was that 2008 was a unique situation given that it was the first black candidate to win a major party primary. Then I started hearing most on the right say that the polls are being weighted improperly toward the democrats (2010 midterms were supposedly evidence of this) and knowing that 2010 was a midterm election which gives republicans an advantage, I tried to quantify this assumption.

    That then brought me to the 2010 census where I started pouring over the 2010 census briefs released by the US Census Bureau in 2011. After a lot of comparisons to 2000, I came to a staggering conclusion: a democrat could win with only 38% of the white vote...I was pretty stunned by this, that was staggering. Obama got like 43-44% of the white vote in 2008 which meant he had breathing room to lose more white voters! Here’s the best synopsis of the data I was looking at:

    http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn125.html

    Basically, as the csmonitor put it: “primacy of white male voters has passed”

    So I began with a simple but unverifiable assumption, ie, let’s assume that each race/sex of voter turns out in equal percentages. Meaning if 60% of whites turn out, then 60% of latinos, asians and blacks would turn out. Since Obama’s team targeted latinos with the children of illegals executive action, the black vote was tied up and Obama was making an argument to appeal to manufacturing voters in the rust belt, I figured this assumption was shaping up.

    The numbers lined up nicely. If you compare the census numbers in the link above to the actual turnout, it was spooky how much they mirror one another. For example, 72% of the population, according to the census 2010 is white and 72% of voters on Nov. 6th were white. Same for black population and turnout, 13%.

    The country was changing at a steady NON-WHITE pace since 2010 and I concluded that based on demographics, the 2008 dem advantage was NOT an anomaly!

    Next I looked at the outlier since it was such an easy target, Gallup. They were assuming 78% of the electorate would be white.....and there was the red flag. Next I looked at Rasmussen who was getting dem sample numbers in his surveys and bending the number to match his own assumptions , a really bad idea for any pollster but in light of the new demographic makeup of the US and therefore the electorate, these guys had NO idea what they were doing. Conclusion: throw gallup and Rasmussen polls in the trash.

    So I started looking at other national polls who when they sampled 1000 people and 38% said they were dems and 32% said they were republicans, actually kept those numbers in the poll....I have written PAGES on the BS argument of skewing polls based on party ID and how ridiculous that is to anyone that has the slightest idea of how sampling in science, politics, marketing, etc works.

    Anyway...I started looking at these national and the state polls that released internal data and formed a nice little model and weighted them according to my own assumptions. Were their demographic data plausible in light of new census data. If they fell within a certain range, I kept them and then weighted according to automated phone, live interviews, cell phones included and if so what percentage, internet poll.

    As I posted many times before, I messed up on a few things as evidenced by my Obama +1.8% result and Obama getting 290EV and possibly 303EV. In hindsight I can see that compared to people like Nate Silver, I feel like a 5th grader doing arithmetic while he’s doing calculus.

    But keep in mind I was living in the same world as most people on FR. I was being bombarded by pundits, columnists, tv interviews and radio personalities that were making me doubt everything I was doing. I can’t express how difficult it was to not only come to the conclusion I saw on my screen but actually post it here and stick to it. But as a person that had to take graduate level statistics and learn to look at data objectively in very biased circumstances, I was 99% sure that I was right with regard to the data even though people around here were throwing rotten tomatoes at me left and right.

    I think if I weren’t in the conservative worldview, I may have allowed myself to believe the Colorado and Florida numbers and been more accurate with my final projection....but being human, I may have threw out or improperly weighed some polls based on my conservative heart...after all, do you have any idea how hard it is to weigh a Daily Kos poll so high as a conservative? Turns out they were dead on, one of the most accurate polls...but it’s a hell of a lot easier to swallow after the fact than before.

    I know that’s long but I hope it helps answer your question.

  • The Best or Worst Pollsters in the 2012 Election – How did Nate Silver Do It? (Gallup is Dead Last)

    11/15/2012 12:52:21 PM PST · 26 of 27
    jackmercer to spetznaz

    “Ping to FR’s own master poller. Jackmercer is one of the (VERY) few who called this election correctly. He got slaughtered for it, but he was right.”

    Haha, not sure about master poller but I did basically what Nate Silver did but only in a MUCH MUCH more crude way. I put the national and state polls in an equation and only weighted by whether they included cell phones or were internet based. I also threw out Rasmussen and Gallup because if you compared them to at least 12 other polls, they were (seemingly) crazy outliers.

    Turns out that Rasmussen and Gallup were definitely outliers (embarrassingly so) but I had no business throwing them out completely. But since I am a VERY much an amateur, I can forgive myself for over-reacting on that.

    In retrospect, I see that internet polls did pretty decent and should not have weighted them as badly as I did. I was right to give more weight to cell phone polls. I was wrong to completely throw out Rasmussen and Gallup; should have kept them in but weighed them down significantly like Silver did.

    I called Obama +1.8% nationally and got 49 out of 50 states (technically 48-1-1 since I was really unsure of CO). If I had done the things in the previous paragraph, I would have gotten closer to Nate Silver and the actual final results. I’m really going to get serious with my own model next time.

  • Karl Rove and his super PAC vow to press on

    11/11/2012 6:24:47 PM PST · 26 of 71
    jackmercer to Sidebar Moderator

    “To prevent duplication, please don’t alter the published headline. Thanks.”

    My apologies. While I post a lot of responses, I rarely start threads based on articles, so a “re-learning” curve for me.

  • Karl Rove and his super PAC vow to press on

    11/11/2012 6:15:44 PM PST · 19 of 71
    jackmercer to jackmercer

    The irony of the article is that even Romney’s campaign stated (in a very coded and savvy way) that it wasn’t the Tea Party that lost the election, it was Rove’s incompetence. From the article:

    “Others in the Romney campaign, speaking on the condition of anonymity, were bitter that the super PACs didn’t do more to defend the Republican nominee and his business record, particularly in the late summer, when the campaign had run through its own primary-season funding.

    “We didn’t have any air cover,” lamented one senior adviser.

    That, Rove suggested, was the result of a missed signal.”

  • Karl Rove and his super PAC vow to press on

    11/11/2012 5:58:20 PM PST · 1 of 71
    jackmercer
    You will need to read between the lines in this article to see what Karl and Crossroads have planned but in a few paragraphs, it's pretty obvious.
  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/11/2012 5:38:08 PM PST · 74 of 76
    jackmercer to Political Junkie Too

    From a macro view and in a vacuum, you can say Rasmussen did pretty well...and historically, he did do ok. But we live in a new era with lots of other outfits playing along.

    Out of 18 national polling outfits this year, only Gallup did worse than him; Rasmussen was 17th in accuracy out of 18 and contrary to popular belief, he was tied at 6th most accurate in 2008...I have a post on that floating around somewhere

    I’m not saying Rasmussen is a horrible pollster, though I discounted his polls in my calculations, I am saying that there are a very large number of better pollsters in the business today.

  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/10/2012 8:04:20 PM PST · 58 of 76
    jackmercer to squarebarb

    “that’s fatastic information. How do you know all this?”

    The same way any other political junkie does. Follow current and former campaign officials on twitter from both campaigns, read the blogs of political analysts from all sides, liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent, green party, watch shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the major networks. Read papers from all the major cities both north and south, east and west, red state, blue state. Read WSJ, WashPo, NYTimes, New York Post, Washington Times and their major columnists....all of them.

    They key is to cast a wide net for the information, not just conservative media. It’s amazing what you can learn about the other side once you learn to tolerate hippies and bleeding hearts opinions. I still like the red meat of my own views but I’ve never become an expert at anything by staying in my intellectual comfort zone.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/10/2012 7:45:34 PM PST · 184 of 185
    jackmercer to Hot Tabasco

    The type that can’t show my work until I get a decent p-value or other stat tests to deal with the null hypothesis. We have a statistics dept to which we are supposed to submit our work for official validation but I do the preliminary stuff. I know enough to be dangerous and it crosses over nicely when dealing with polls and methodology. Makes for a nice hobby.

    Nebulous response I know but internet and all, I’m just another current events and politics junkie like everyone else here. Actually, since about 2005 I’m more of a policy junkie. Actually reading the bills and understanding how they are implemented and affect lives is more fun for me now.

  • [UnSkewed Polls] Final Projection: Romney 275 electoral votes to Obama 263 electoral votes

    11/10/2012 1:14:56 PM PST · 39 of 40
    jackmercer to snarkytart

    “Well nobody had us gaining less than 55 seats. That was a given. He said we had only a 25% chance of getting 60 or more seats and we got 67. He was flat out off and wrong in 2010.”

    Have you ever had college level statistics? I’m not being facetious or condescending here, I just don’t think you are getting what I am saying. Poll aggregators work in probabilities and their final projects are the peak of their bell curves.

    You keep saying Nate Silver gave us a 25% chance of getting 60 or more seats and see that as a bad thing. You don’t realize how great that guess is until you understand his entire bell curve. There was a 25% chance, according to silver, that we would get less than 30 seats and a 25% chance that we would get more than 60 seats and a 50% chance that it would fall somewhere between.

    Now based on that final projection curve, his best guess was 59 seats but since he works in the realm of probabilities, he was forced to hedge it. He specifically said:

    “If we allocate all 435 seats to the leader projected by our model — no matter how slim the margin — Republicans would net a gain of 59 seats. In 15 of these 59 seats, however, the Republican is projected to win by fewer than 2 points. It is likely that Republicans will lose at least some of these — which is why the model forecasts an average gain of 54-55 seats, rather than 59”

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/house-forecast-g-o-p-plus-54-55-seats-significantly-larger-or-smaller-gains-possible/

    He goes on to explain the right side of the curve like this:

    “Moreover, given the exceptionally large number of seats in play, the Republicans’ gains could be significantly higher; they have better than a one-in-three chance of winning at least 60 seats, a one-in-six chance of winning at least 70 seats, and have some realistic chance of a gain exceeding 80 seats, according to the model.”

    So if you see those odds at those ends, you can conversely call similar probabilities at the other end, i.e., 1 in 3 chance of only 30 seats, 1 in 6 changes of only 20 seats, etc.

    In midterm elections, you have two components, the generic ballot and the house seats. The generic ballot is the only component that is comparable to a president election since it is binary, the republican or the democrat. In the generic, Nate Silver called it 6.8% as the post above showed. The final 2010 generic vote was EXACTLY 6.8%.

    The seats are a completely different animal since you are dealing with 435 elections all with very different polling strengths. His probability curve was not dead on but really good especially since he ignored his liberal friends and said it would be waaay worse than they thought...kind of the converse of what happened here earlier this week.

    My point is that if you can’t see that he is probably the best sports and politics statistician alive, then your ideology is blinding you or you aren’t understanding his work. Trust me, I sure as HELL would like to have that title belong to a neutral or conservative mathematician but it is what it is. Talent is talent and results are results, he doesn’t have many peers in his league.

  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/10/2012 12:03:33 PM PST · 46 of 76
    jackmercer to nathanbedford

    I think you could be right on both counts, certainly on the first. The fundamentals alone should have resulted in a Romney and republican congressional landslide, but Obama squeaked it out with feet on the pavement.

    The second part very likely played a role given the nature of unregistered voters. They are low information voters and therefore very susceptible to group think and the theory of truth by authority, i.e., if this is a person with whom I can identify and feel comfortable with and cares for me says something, it must be right. Kind of how we all inherit the religion and politics of our parents until we are old enough to differtiate intellectually or confirm through own experience that they were right. Then they find those around them with the same views and it becomes solid like cement.

  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/10/2012 11:28:25 AM PST · 39 of 76
    jackmercer to nathanbedford

    Haha being an armchair analyst is one thing, using real money is a different animal. That’s a pond I wouldn’t dare jump in. If I did have more money than I knew what to do with, I’d sure be shorting gold right now out to 18 months if possible.

  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/10/2012 11:23:36 AM PST · 38 of 76
    jackmercer to OddLane

    I think the real damning thing is the GOP GOTV incompetence. Do some google searches on the Obama campaign GOTV methods. They had people by the thousands at malls, outside movie theaters, along strip malls, college campuses, parks, etc etc in not just swing states but very targeted swing counties registering people to vote and persuading them with whatever liberal BS they had in their GOTV manuals.

    On top of that, they had massive databases of people in specific neighborhoods and counties that never voted before. They didn’t just reinforce their base and try to persuade independents, they CREATED new voters by comparing registration rolls to other databases of eligible but non-registered citizens, getting them on the phone or knocking on their door, quickly analyzing what issue is most important to that person, checking their manual and immediately spouting the talking point that would appeal to that issue....bam, another new dem voter.

    Rest assured, liberal policies and issues did not win this election IMO since policy elections are usually wave elections like the 2010 rejection of obamacare. This was a get out the vote election plain and simple and their design and machine put Romney’s outfit to shame.

  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/10/2012 11:04:31 AM PST · 33 of 76
    jackmercer to nathanbedford

    To be honest, I was furious with so many people like Morris, drudge, Rasmussen, Barone etc but finally with a week or 2 to go, let it all go as it was too late.

    Had the campaign and activists like many at FR realized that the Romney momentum was a mirage or that demographics were against from the very beginning back in the spring, the GOTV operations and the base activists would have been working lie bees on Meth to get this election.

    But everyone had their blinders on but really, who can blame them. They had so-called professional pundits like Morris, Barone and half of Fox telling them all is well, Romney has it in the bag with the first debate momentum.

    When I finally got the balls to post my predictions based on my own view of the 2010 census and the equation I put together, I got kicked in the b**ls by a ton of freepers and I knew I would. I admit my cowardice but I’ve posted things that went against the conventional, conservative memes before and being the pariah in a place you find solace and like-minded views really sucks.

  • Obama wins Fla., topping Romney in final tally

    11/10/2012 10:48:18 AM PST · 28 of 145
    jackmercer to sheikdetailfeather

    I’m not discounting very very small instances of fraud or miscounting but to say there was a broad and sophisticated plan to rig the election in Florida doesn’t pass the smell test. During the week before the election, 8 different polling outfits called the election tied or 1 to 2 points for Obama so I can’t see how they all could have coordinated that without someone blowing the whistle.

    I’m going with Occam’s Razor on this one: the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. In this case, the Obama campaign’s GOTV operation was superior in Florida.

  • Here's The Real Reason Nate Silver's Perfect Election Call Was Such An Awesome Breakthrough

    11/10/2012 10:09:03 AM PST · 13 of 76
    jackmercer to nathanbedford

    The really funny thing about the whole Nate Silver thing is that what he is doing is really not complicated or difficult....it IS however novel. No one really weighted pollsters in their averages the way he did.

    All you have to do is throw all the polls in an algebraic equation and weight each pollster based on history, polling method (auto vs live call), percent of cell phones included, fundamentals like economic conditions, what he calls “house effect” which in my opinion is the strongest, and whatever else he deems appropriate.

    If you lay out this equation and multiply each poll (X, Y, Z, etc) with a .5, .75, .9 etc based on their history, house effect, etc, you get a really accurate average.

    Many bloggers have already started to replicate this method and the funny thing is, you can almost reverse engineer some if his model since he posts the weights in bars right there on his blog. Of course he could be BSing those published weights to maintain the proprietary nature of this model but maybe not.

    All I did this year is average the polls and threw out Rasmussen and Gallup (for reasons posted many time before), gave automated polls a < 1 weight, internet polls a < 1 weight and threw out any polls with no history. With that pretty crude method, I was able to call Obama +1.8% and 290 (and possibly 303) for Obama in the electoral college.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=117#117

    I didn’t see Florida at all, the one I missed. I’m not sure how Silver saw that one but next time around, I hope to have fun building a better model of my own.

  • [UnSkewed Polls] Final Projection: Romney 275 electoral votes to Obama 263 electoral votes

    11/10/2012 9:55:34 AM PST · 34 of 40
    jackmercer to StAnDeliver

    “In 2010, Silver gave the GOP only a 25% chance of flipping 60 House seats. It ended up being 67. Some vaunted model...”

    Yes, but he gave us a 75% chance of getting 55 seats. He mapped out the probabilities district by district, no one else did that at that level of precision. They just gave generics. Newsweek projected a 23 seat gain for us and Gallup projected a 77 seat gain. Everyone else gave some guess in between those extreme parameters...he hit it better than any other group.

    Look at paragraph 17 where he sums up his model probability. He projected a 50 to 60 seat gain and got more specific districts right than anyone.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/the-ultimate-hour-by-hour-district-by-district-election-guide/

    It is all a bell curve of probabilities. If you cherry pick the 25% of the right side of the curve and say he is off, then you don’t understand statistics because there was also a 25% chance of 30 or less seats at the left end of the curve. If you chose the peak of his bell curve where the best guess lies, you would see that 67 was right at the right edge of that projection and 55 was at the peak.

  • [UnSkewed Polls] Final Projection: Romney 275 electoral votes to Obama 263 electoral votes

    11/10/2012 8:11:36 AM PST · 32 of 40
    jackmercer to snarkytart

    “Silver got 2008 and 2012. Was he on the money in 2004 as well?”

    No, I’m including 2010. The final results for the generic ballot in 2010 was Republicans by +6.8. RealClearPolitics had their final forecast as Republicans +9.4:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html

    Nate Silver’s model had the final projection as Republicans +6.8....see the 16th paragraph here. He wasn’t even off by a tenth of a percentage point. That’s one hell of a model:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/agreeing-to-disagree-size-of-republican-wave-hard-to-predict/

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/09/2012 7:19:52 AM PST · 182 of 185
    jackmercer to Arthurio

    RCP is wrong to do that. They throw out polls that are PAID FOR by partisan groups, not performed by partisan groups. If the pollsters get it wrong, those partisan groups don’t call them back in the future. The incentive structure is obvious that they want to get it right...for money, and should not be discounted.

    But then RCP goes and includes Rasmussen and Gallup who were the outliers since the summer and just chucked em on in there without questioning methodology, weighting, demographics, nothing. That’s why although RCP did well with its final average, the averages and trends from the summer through October for states weren’t as good as 538, princeton, etc.

    On the other end of the spectrum, you have HuffingtonPost who did the exact opposite of RCP but got the same results. They included ALL the polls, again like RCP, without questioning a thing and got the same results as RCP, good but mediocre compared to the mathematicians that had models.

    The model builders used almost all the polls but was sure to weigh the polls in their equations based on lots of factors and that is where the magic lies.

  • Adviser: Romney "shellshocked" by loss

    11/09/2012 7:06:17 AM PST · 171 of 172
    jackmercer to Arthurio

    “You sound starstruck. RCP got 49 out of 50 states just by mindlessly averaging poll numbers.”

    Starstruck? I am very much starstruck when the star is good at mathematics, statistics and sciences. I’ve studied/worked in these fields for years and when I see someone do amazing work like that, I admire the hell out of it, party id be damned. He is quite possibly the best statistician in sports and politics alive and probably the best in generations...some kind of savant anomaly.

    He showed movement in FL two days before the race and called Obama .5 on that state.....every single pundit, columnist, political junkie on the planet thought Silver was off his rocker for making that call. I thought it was finally proof that he was biased and cheerleading the dems...but I was dead wrong and man enough to admit it.

  • Adviser: Romney "shellshocked" by loss

    11/08/2012 8:58:44 PM PST · 160 of 172
    jackmercer to Arthurio

    “Uh, no he wasn’t. Missed several senate races and was wrong on predicted margins. He was mostly right, but not “spot on” to a “frigging tee””

    Go look again and be sure to look at the “projected vote share” and not the “chance of winning.” for each state:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

    He was so accurate for each state it’s mind boggling. He wasn’t just aggregating and averaging polls, he was using LOTS of other data points in his model like history, census data, house effects, statistical bias history, sample size, date, weather, cell phone percentage, auto/live interviewers, and lots of other apparently relevant stuff.

    This is similar modeling that he used for years on baseball players. He’s trained for this for years and although new to the political scene in 2008, kind of, he’s not new to the numbers game.

    And he only got one Senate race wrong. He thought the Republicans would get North Dakota but democrat Heitkamp got it. But it is interesting to note that she won by barely 0.9%.....and that was the only thing he missed for the entire night.

  • WOW: Most Accurate Polls for 2012?

    11/08/2012 7:19:07 PM PST · 41 of 43
    jackmercer to Kevmo

    “Jack:

    Did you see a D+6 turnout a week before the election? Did you see it sooner than that?”

    Here’s a good summary of the second in the 2010 census series. If you wanna have your mind blown, compare the demographics in this link with the exit polls from election day:

    http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn125.html

    So after reading that, can you see how you could have made a good guess about this election in March of 2011 and be not too far off?

  • WOW: Most Accurate Polls for 2012?

    11/08/2012 7:13:36 PM PST · 40 of 43
    jackmercer to Kevmo

    “Jack:

    Did you see a D+6 turnout a week before the election? Did you see it sooner than that?”

    To be honest with you, and this is going to sound really weird, I saw a higher dem turnout in Spring 2011 when the U.S. Census Bureau released its second in the series of 2010 census briefs.

    The census data is free to the public and posted online for anyone to view. The demographic changes between 2000 and 2010 were mind-blowing. If you graph the changes of each race/ethnicity in 2000 to 2010, you can get a really nice regression line that lets you project the electorate makeup change between 2008 and 2010.

    The 2008 black, hispanic and lower white electorate percentage was not a “hope and change”, “first black president”, “youth vote excitement for a hip president” election year. It was the new normal.

    Anyway, so back in the Spring of 2012 when some national polls started getting ramped up and serious, I couldn’t believe that people like Rasmussen were making adjustments to his surveys like he did. There’s no way he would have done that if he had simply looked at the Census data and the geographic distribution of it.

    Gallup actually thought the white vote would be 78% of the vote and in light of the census data, when I saw that, I could NOT believe that anyone with common sense would dare publish that garbage. But there it was, being quoted day and night on TV, front pages of USA Today and one of only two polls trumpeted over and over by Drudge.

    But back to your question, it’s not whether I saw Dem +6 but whether I believed it. And because I was fully aware of the new demographic makeup of America as of 2010, I was able to put my own bias and wishes aside and believe it. Once I accepted the demographics as real, then I started tracking the trajectory of the race with all of the polls except Gallup and Rasmussen because they were obviously unaware of the census data or worse, inserting their own bias and purposefully ignoring it.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/07/2012 8:43:51 PM PST · 180 of 185
    jackmercer to Big Giant Head

    “You freaking NAILED the projection.”

    3 outfits muddied the waters for all of us. Rasmussen, Gallup and RealClearPolitics. I will never trust any of those three again.

    Rasmussen fundamentally does not understand party ID and spread his ignorance all over FR and in the conservative blogs, FoxNews, Rush, Drudge, everywhere...it was like poison.

    You sample 1000 people and 38% say they are Democrats and 32% say they are Republicans...you leave it at that! Party ID FOLLOW the vote, not the other way around. Rasmussen weighted and fudged the data to fit the way he saw the world. No one person sees the world as it objectively is, Philosophy 101.

    RealClearPolitics threw out any polls they saw as from “biased” sources without looking at their methodologies. DailyKos (Obama +2) had incredibly good methodology and will go down as the best or nearly the best poll of Nov. 2012. But the people running RealClearPolitics are conservative, and I love that about them, but you don’t bring your ideology into the scientific realm....period.

    They did the same thing to PPP. Liberal outfit, throw them out, they aren’t going in our RCP average. PPP ended up the same as DailyKos, dead on at Obama +2.

    Lastly, Gallup. Gallup has been a joke for almost a decade now. In 2010 they’re final poll was so embarrassing I don’t know how or why ANYONE would ever post their results. They called the generic +15 Republicans and were dead last, off by over 8 points. They are possibly the worst polling outfit so far in the 21st century.

    So you take the fact that RCP throws out polls that are from liberal sources without any scientific justification. Ignore RCP during the election but start paying attention to their average toward the end when they start allowing more polls into the average.

    Throw out Rasmussen completely because A) he uses automated phone calls B) he only calls landlines and C) he tinkers with party ID.

    Lastly throw out Gallup because they were such an insane outlier that no one with common sense would have considered their polls. If you have 12 polls saying the race is tied +/- 2 and Gallup, one single poll, is saying Romney is up +5. That’s a no brainer.

    Of course I did some historical research and look at the census data for 2010 to get my projection as well. The census data was amazing. It told me that the 2008 youth and hispanic votes were not a fluke. The millenials, the youth now, are a larger population than the baby boomers...I didn’t know that until I looked at the census. The hispanic vote is growing at insane rates and the black vote is solid 13% and their turnout is pretty much the same.

    Add all that up, it wasn’t tough to project what I did. I will tell you what was tough, POSTING IT HERE! I got by teeth kicked in by a lot of people.

    I have to mention one more thing. My utter disdain for Matt Drudge and his political quackery. He lead us all on and his cherry picking polls and giving false hope bled into the campaigns and the volunteers minds. It could have negatively affected the get out the vote efforts.

    Drudge could have chosen from any of 18 polls to put on his website. There were 18 solid firms to choose from and here is how they did when compared to the final results. I have listed them in order from most accurate to least accurate:

    Ipsos/Reuters - Obama +2
    PPP - Obama +2
    DailyKos - Obama +2
    YouGov - Obama +2
    Pew - Obama +3
    ABC/Wash Post - Obama +3
    Angus-Reid - Obama +3
    ABC/Post - Obama +3
    UPI/CVOTER - Obama +1
    IBD/TIPP - Obama +1
    Gravis Marketing - tie
    JZ Analytics/Newsmax - tie
    Politico/GWU/Battleground - tie
    Monmouth - tie
    ARG - tie
    CNN - tie
    Rasmussen - Romney +1
    Gallup - Romney +2

    Guess which two polls Drudge put on his website nearly every damn day for the last week. You guessed, the bottom 2. He chose the two most inaccurate pollsters, the obvious outliers to anyone that has had even intro to statistics, on to his page. That really pissed me off because of the meme that it created that everything would be fine and no more phone calls or door knocking were necessary.

  • [UnSkewed Polls] Final Projection: Romney 275 electoral votes to Obama 263 electoral votes

    11/07/2012 8:12:14 PM PST · 28 of 40
    jackmercer to PetroniusMaximus

    I didn’t actually nail it completely. I called 290EV (possibly 303EV) and Obama +1.8%.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=137#137

    I didn’t think Obama had any way in hell to get Florida, still close, but it looks like he will pull it off. Nate Silver did call Florida a few days before the election when the average of polls said different and so did every conservative AND liberal pundit and columnist in the country. As much as I hate to say it, I have to tip my hat to his brain. I do not have the proprietary model equations he came up with but as a scientist, I’d LOVE to see them. He really is the best in the business....he blew everyone out of the water 3 elections in a row now.

    Back to your point though, I said that we may do big in 2014 for a very simple reason. Historically, the out-party ALWAYS gains seats in the midterms and right now we already have a very, very significant majority in the House. Adding more will make the House an incredible force at the bargaining table and give the House the mandate in 2014....just like 1998 did.

    BUT! I already see some trouble on the horizon. Mitch McConnell came out today swinging and fired quite a shot across Obama’s bow and that could be bad news. He said something (and I’m paraphrasing) like Obama better not try to put something on the table that won’t pass the House. McConnell is up for re-election in 2014 and there are already strong forces in Kentucky moving to primary him. If he thinks of his own skin first, he could screw us.

    With a nice cushion of 55 seats in the Senate and the entire Executive, the dems have a lot of leverage to make the House conservatives look unreasonable and dangerous. If the House Republicans pull another 2010 debt ceiling showdown, that will kill us, I mean really kill us.

    Obama successfully painted them as obstructionists and the Republican house approval ratings plummeted. Now you can get away with that right after a midterm but not right before. If they do that in first few months of 2013 to force Obama’s hand on a number of issues, it will be ok. If they pull that type of thing in latter 2013 or seem even slightly unreasonable in 2014, Obama, the Senate and their cheerleaders in the media will destroy the conservative house brand and we could have a wave in the other direction.

    The only thing that could soften that wave is the fact that 2010 was a major redistricting year and Republican Governors and statehouses carved some nice lines for us. In addition, liberals are living closer together and more densely in large cities which limits their House representation. Conservatives are more spread out in suburbs, exurbs and rural areas so our House districts are more broad and difficult to lose.

    Anyway....that’s all amateur conjecture but I think 2014 will be ok as long as we give do what Reagan did, give up 20% of our agenda to gain 80%. But with such a shitty Senate situation, we may have to give up slightly more.

  • Dick Morris: Why I Was Wrong

    11/07/2012 1:28:05 PM PST · 70 of 98
    jackmercer to Tau Food

    “If given the opportunity, guys like Rove will do it again in 2016.”

    How the hell Romney got out of the primary I will never know. The primary electorate was, I thought, solidly conservative so Romney had no business winning it. The only explanation I have is that people got scared and thought “we don’t want to look extreme”. Well damn it that’s the second time we did that and the second time it failed. McCain was the “safe” choice as well and look where that got us.

    Next time, conservatives need to slap on some b**ls before voting in the primaries.

  • Boehner: GOP House majority means 'no mandate' for tax hikes

    11/07/2012 1:06:31 PM PST · 8 of 12
    jackmercer to RC one

    There’s a big problem here. They are all in a small room and Obama is holding a grenade with the pin pulled.

    Bush tax cuts expire this year for everyone, including middle class. Obama’s payroll tax cuts expire at the end of the year as well. Lastly, sequestration kicks in at the end of this year which will devastate the defense budeget. On top of all that, Obama never has to run for re-election.

    So you have Boehner looking at a tried and true socialist, Obama, that has the power to raise income taxes on everyone, raise payroll taxes on everyone and destroy the defense budget by doing NOTHING. He doesn’t have to pass a bill, he doesn’t have to sign a thing. He just has to wave his veto pen.

    And it doesn’t matter if we make Obama own it or not. Deep down, he WANTS all those things to happen and since he has no more elections to worry about, he’s the suicide bomber in the room.

    Ugg, Boehner needs to tread lightly, so so lightly or we are all ****ed.

  • Dick Morris: Why I Was Wrong

    11/07/2012 12:56:29 PM PST · 59 of 98
    jackmercer to TigerClaws

    I love how Morris tries to dump some of his error on Chris Christie. If you look at the polls before Hurricane Sandy, the results were already baked in. But you have to look at all the polls OTHER than Rasmussen and Gallup who made the same damn mistake that Morris did.

    Which brings me to the larger point. Morris is the obvious screw-up here but Gallup and Rasmussen did the EXACT same thing Morris did: made the wrong assumptions.

    Gallup and Rasmussen should have known better and not tinkered with their party ID results. If you survey 1000 people and 30% identify as Republican and 40% identify as Democrats THEN THERE IS A +10 DEM ADVANTAGE AND YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MESSING WITH THAT!

    If you survey 1000 people a month later and 35% identify as Republican and 35% identify as Democrats THEN THERE IS NO PARTY ADVANTAGE AND YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MESSING WITH THAT!

    ABC/WashPo said there was a +6 advantage in their final poll and did not weight a damn thing. Exit polls come out election day, +6 dem advantage.

    Please let this election be the end of “skewed” talk....it always was and always will be BS.

  • Daily Presidential Tracking Poll [Day After USA Swallowed Fiscal Cyanide, BO at -6]

    11/07/2012 10:28:21 AM PST · 4 of 15
    jackmercer to SoFloFreeper

    Out of the 18 national polls, Rassmussen came second to dead last. Only Gallup was worse. Rasmussen needs to take his automated phone banks and his party ID algorithm and throw them in the trash. Either that, or find a new profession.

    2012 final polls ranked by accuracy:

    Ipsos/Reuters - Obama +2
    PPP - Obama +2
    DailyKos - Obama +2
    YouGov - Obama +2
    Pew - Obama +3
    ABC/Wash Post - Obama +3
    Angus-Reid - Obama +3
    ABC/Post - Obama +3
    UPI/CVOTER - Obama +1
    IBD/TIPP - Obama +1
    Gravis Marketing - tie
    JZ Analytics/Newsmax - tie
    Politico/GWU/Battleground - tie
    Monmouth - tie
    ARG - tie
    CNN - tie
    Rasmussen - Romney +1
    Gallup - Romney +2

  • Rasmussen and Gallup

    11/07/2012 9:37:43 AM PST · 5 of 15
    jackmercer to jackmercer
    I screwed up the formatting. Here's the data in a more readable form.

    2008 actual results: Obama +7.3

    Polling outfits closest to 7.3: CNN/Opinion Research - off by 0.3
    Ipsos/McClatchy - off by 0.3
    Fox News - off by 0.3
    IBD/TIPP - off by 0.7
    NBC News/WSJ - off by 0.7


    Rasmussen - off by 1.3
    Pew Research - off by 1.3
    GW University - off by 1.3


    And Gallup - off by 3.7 (tied for worst) Fast forward to 2010 and we see that Rasmussen was third from last by being off 5.2 and Gallup was dead last by being off by 8.2 And this year, Obama is currently up about 2.22 points but that will likely increase to between 2.5 and 3 as west coast mail-ins are counted. Here are the major pollsters listed in order of accuracy this year

    Ipsos/Reuters - Obama +2
    PPP - Obama +2
    DailyKos - Obama +2
    YouGov - Obama +2
    Pew - Obama +3
    ABC/Wash Post - Obama +3
    Angus-Reid - Obama +3
    ABC/Post - Obama +3
    UPI/CVOTER - Obama +1
    IBD/TIPP - Obama +1
    Gravis Marketing - tie
    JZ Analytics/Newsmax - tie
    Politico/GWU/Battleground - tie
    Monmouth - tie
    ARG - tie
    CNN - tie
    Rasmussen - Romney +1
    Gallup - Romney +2
  • Rasmussen and Gallup

    11/07/2012 9:30:26 AM PST · 1 of 15
    jackmercer
  • What the hell happened?

    11/06/2012 10:37:03 PM PST · 53 of 157
    jackmercer to Crimson Elephant

    “I don’t think I have ever seen an election go so far against the anecdotal evidence.”

    That is exactly the problem right there. Lots of people here fell into the same trap dems fell into in 2004. They believed in a mythical momentum because they refused to look outside their normal sources and were positive Kerry would win.

    If you look at my post history, I used the lessons of 2010 where Gallup and Rasmussen screwed with the party ID numbers and were consequently waaay off on the final.

    The point is, don’t put faith in anecdotes. Put faith in social science, statistics and data. Nate Silver was dead on on every single thing he projected and it was disbelief or denial to ignore that data when all he was doing was crunching numbers, not rallying a liberal cause.

    I tried to call out Drudge as a Baghdad Bob, Michael Barone as a snakoil salesman and Gallup and Rasmussen as arrogant pollsters who had no business screwing with party ID numbers that are and always have been FLUID, NOT static.

    The polls and Nate Silver identified that the white vote would be 72% of the electorate this year, 2 less than 2008 and 4 less than 2004. Gallup predicted 78%...they bent the data!

    All the while the black vote remained 13% and the hispanic share of the electorate has increased 2 to 3 points each election cycle. All the mainstream polls stated this and no one here would believe it no matter how loud we yelled. The whole demographics are not in our favor is not anecdotal, it is real and we have devastating evidence of it tonight. We have GOT to find a way to deal with this fact as a party or forget about a party altogether and start anew.

  • Dollar falls broadly after Obama heads for re-election

    11/06/2012 9:55:08 PM PST · 5 of 37
    jackmercer to Tailgunner Joe

    On the bright side, this will make our products cheaper for other countries to buy increasing our exports and make it more expensive to buy overseas goods.

  • OK. So, Let's Say Our Worst Fears Have Come To Fruition. What Options Do We Have? I Am Frightened.

    11/06/2012 9:18:13 PM PST · 66 of 105
    jackmercer to AD from SpringBay

    “I cannot, just now, share your optimism.”

    I’ve been seeing this coming for two weeks so I’ve had time to mourn and think ahead...probably why I’m ready for optimism.

    It is not inconceivable that Obama gets just one Supreme Court pick. Ginsburg is very old and very sick and her replacement is a wash.

    The house still has subpoena powers and that is one HELL of a check on the Executive.

    Worst case scenario is gridlock for the next two years and the last time I checked, the government doing nothing is better than the government doing something. With DC out of the way, businesses can get to work.

    My optimism is not blind just like my calling this defeat over the last couple of days was not blind.

  • OK. So, Let's Say Our Worst Fears Have Come To Fruition. What Options Do We Have? I Am Frightened.

    11/06/2012 8:47:48 PM PST · 26 of 105
    jackmercer to null and void

    We didn’t get the House until 2010 and since 2010, the deficit has dropped 200 billion. As economy recovers, deficit will go down even more.

  • OK. So, Let's Say Our Worst Fears Have Come To Fruition. What Options Do We Have? I Am Frightened.

    11/06/2012 8:40:18 PM PST · 12 of 105
    jackmercer to lbryce

    EVERYONE PLEASE LISTEN UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    For the last time, we have an HISTORICALLY SOLID majority in the House. We are going to be ok. The Power of the Purse belongs to US!

    Obama is nothing but a figurehead with the House margins we have...period. Endure his shit on tv but rest assured, the Republic is ALIVE AND WELL!!!!

  • Vanity: 0 wins Ohio

    11/06/2012 8:19:28 PM PST · 2 of 51
    jackmercer to Repeat Offender

    Checkmate.

  • Is This Election Being Stolen?

    11/06/2012 8:01:18 PM PST · 56 of 104
    jackmercer to JoeA

    No, this was not unexpected. Many times I posted about how party ID is fluid and pollsters know this and how Gallup and Rasmussen were screwing with those numbers when they had no business doing that:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=163#163

    I also warned that Drudge was cherry picking the data and was starting to look like Baghdad Bob because instead of objectively embracing social science fundamentals, he was trying to get page views and was not to be taken seriously. I also said the margins were just too wide in PA, WI, MI, OH and NV for Romney to make any inroads there, it was too late:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=137#137

    Also, unskewed polls was a joke and no one had any business listening to a crank with no solid education in statistics and political science. He was playing to a wishful thinking audience and was no different than a palm reader BSing someone down on their luck:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2955525/posts?page=24#24

    Lastly, I warned that Michael Barone was relying on historical precidents without integrating actual data into his opinion and was therefore a snake oil salesman:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2955102/posts?page=150#150

    I was soundly ridiculed for removing my emotions from the situation and looking at reality. This wasn’t the first time this has happened...been here over 8 years and every election cycle, I get called a liberal troll even though I’ve been a solid conservative, slightly moderate admittedly, but a conservative nonetheless that says we need more pragmatism in the party to win. And not Mitt Romney pragmatism. We need Nixon, Reagan, and HW Bush pragmatists people that will compromise 20% of their agenda to get the other 80%.

    The country is changing demographically VERY fast. We get pragmatic or we get used to these results.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/06/2012 11:29:57 AM PST · 177 of 185
    jackmercer to diamond6

    Oh my gosh! We’re doomed!

    I guess Rats +11 is what we’re looking at for this election, because by golly that’s what CNN has, and they are the experts!

    Would you like to buy some ocean front property in New Jersey?”

    Actually no, NBC/WSJ has Dems +2 and I think it will be right around +2 to +3 Dems based on the consistency of 12 major national polls saying similar things.

    I have completely removed emotion and done my best to remove all personal bias as I plug the data into various regression analyses...and this looks just like 2004 but with Obama in Bush’s position.

  • [UnSkewed Polls] Final Projection: Romney 275 electoral votes to Obama 263 electoral votes

    11/06/2012 11:24:19 AM PST · 26 of 40
    jackmercer to Kleon

    “So you actually think Romney could lose? Excuse me, but what are you smoking?”

    Could lose? of course he COULD lose...I’m not saying he could lose. I’m saying based on the data and the statistical analyses I’ve tinkered with in SPSS (which I get free at work) this week, he will lose. Obama has 290 EV locked in already, I posted about this analysis before and emphasized that we will hold the House SOLIDLY so we have nothing to worry about. Conservatives will still be in charge of writing the budgets and have the real power.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/06/2012 11:20:41 AM PST · 176 of 185
    jackmercer to linn37

    “So Barone is risking his reputation to sell papers? Doubt it. We will soon see who was right,who was wrong.”

    He’s not risking anything. People will still read him whether he is right or wrong. The list of pundits with a really really crappy track record that still gets lots of views is quiet a long list.

  • Just Hoping and Thinking Ahead

    11/05/2012 11:43:11 PM PST · 10 of 19
    jackmercer to Secret Agent Man

    That’s exactly right. If you think Romney will do something different, you’re in lala land. He will bring in the same team from Boston that helped him construct the MA system, tweak it enough to stamp it “conservative” but it will be essentially the same.

    Keep in mind that the three architects of RomneyCare: Jon Kingsdale, Jon Gruber and John McDonough all met with Obama MULTIPLE times IN THE WHITE HOUSE in 2009 to help design and put the final touches on ObamaCare. Those three still speak with the Romney team!!!

  • Just Hoping and Thinking Ahead

    11/05/2012 11:38:53 PM PST · 9 of 19
    jackmercer to a5478

    If you are skeptical of that, you need to read the part of the bill that deals with federal exchanges. That’s how they work.

    You will literally log into a website, plug in your income and family size, choose a plan (bronze, silver, gold, platinum) and the you get a list of private health insurance companies that give you their rates with a minimum defined coverage but can offer more than the minimum to out compete the other companies.

    If you make between 133 and 400 percent of the 2014 poverty guidelines, you get subsidized through tax credits to pay for your plan. A family of 4 with a silver plan and making 50k a year would pay $282 for a silver plan with a private health carrier. Here’s a rough cost calculator:

    http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx

  • Geraldo endorses Romney/Ryan but is voting for Obama/Biden.

    11/05/2012 11:26:52 PM PST · 63 of 69
    jackmercer to Livin_large

    This isn’t the first time I’ve had this exact reaction to something said by Geraldo and it won’t be the last:

    WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!?????

  • [UnSkewed Polls] Final Projection: Romney 275 electoral votes to Obama 263 electoral votes

    11/05/2012 11:25:00 PM PST · 24 of 40
    jackmercer to Kleon

    UnSkewed Polls is a joke. They have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of party id. I’ve posted about this exhaustively before but rest assured, they don’t know what they are doing. I’ve made my projections based on statistical data plugged into SPSS many times over the past 3 days and I don’t like the results I got....at all...but I am pretty sure they are accurate.

    I don’t throw out the results because I don’t like them, data are data and we have to deal with them as much as we have to deal with the rising and setting of the sun. But unlike the rotation of the earth, we CAN change the future data with our actions.... in 2014 and 2016. And trust me, we will do waaaay better in 2014. But this election season’s data is baked in now.

  • Just Hoping and Thinking Ahead

    11/05/2012 11:12:00 PM PST · 2 of 19
    jackmercer to a5478

    That’s pretty much how ObamaCare will work for states with GOP state majorities. If the governors and state houses refuse to implement a state health exchange, then the state defaults to the national exchange with multiple health insurance companies that will all compete for your business.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/05/2012 11:05:29 PM PST · 169 of 185
    jackmercer to diamond6

    They aren’t run by the newspapers, they are hired by the newspapers. And if they do a bad job, they don’t get hired the next time. Fox has fired a few pollsters over the last decade because of bad results. They dropped Rasmussen after 2010. They now have 2 of the most reputable outfits in all of polling working for them.

    And Rasmussen did indeed do great in 2008 but he wasn’t the most accurate. He had Obama +6 and Obama won +7.3. He was actually tied for 7th best. He was the most consistent in the entire month of October but there is no way to know if his polls were right or wrong all that month. The last poll before the election is how you can best judge accuracy.

    These pollsters did as well as Rasmussen: George Washington University and Pew Research, both showing Obama +6, same as Rasmussen. Rasmussen, GWU and Pew were off by 1.3 points.

    And these outfits did BETTER than Rasmussen: NBC News, Fox News, CNN/OR and Ipsos/McClatchy, IBD/TIPP, Gallup (traditional):

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

    Not sure how you can look at the last polls done by each outfit shown in that link and say Rasmussen was the best.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/05/2012 9:54:51 PM PST · 163 of 185
    jackmercer to diamond6

    It may very well be garbage in, garbage out tomorrow but it is very, very unlikely. These polling outfits know what they are doing, they are professional statisticians and social scientists. It would be an insane statistical anomaly for 40 or so polling outfits to all be getting similar results....we’re talking 1 in millions. The only alternative is that the thousands of employees of all the polling outfits are involved in a very large conspiracy to depress the conservative vote but keeping that quiet when the incentive to leak is so high is probably 1 in a quadrillion.

    Sample sizes of Party ID do not get ridiculous to me unless people screw with them too much..aka...weighting. One thing I have tried over and over and over to get across to people is that Party ID is an attitude or a feeling, NOT a rigid identity like American or Canadian or Black or White or Hispanic. The mushy middle will call themselves Republican or Democrat VERY often based on how they vote. The party ID FOLLOWS the vote and not the other way around.

    In other words, if Bush is up 5 points against Kerry in Oct 2004, you will see a Dem party ID advantage of only 3 points. If Obama is up 7 points in Oct 2008 you see a Dem party ID advantage of 6 or 7 points and if you see the Republicans up 6 points in the 2010 elections you see party ID tied.

    The party ID is very fluid and not rigid at all and to screw with it too much, you risk becoming the outlier. This is exactly what Gallup and Rasmussen did in 2010:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html

    As you can see, Gallup and Rasmussen were way off that year. They saw the enthusiasm gap in their data and over-corrected the party ID thinking there MUST be a republican advantage when the party ID was actually tied. But since dems usually outnumber republicans in registration by 3 to 10 points historically for over 30 years, a party ID tie was a HUGE advantage for Republicans already...there was NO NEED to weight the data.

    Rasmussen and Gallup are doing the same thing this year and tomorrow we will see if they screwed up again or are doing something novel and genius. I honestly think they are screwing up, they will be off by at least 3 points (possibly more) based on what I’ve plugged in to SPSS many times today.

  • PREDICTIONS THREAD! Lock in your predictions for tomorrow! [Vanity]

    11/05/2012 6:07:43 PM PST · 150 of 185
    jackmercer to linn37

    “And Barones opinion? Is that just wishful thinking on his part?”

    That article Barone wrote wasn’t wishful thinking, it was punditry to sell more page views...fun and entertaining no doubt, but nonsense. Though I REALLY wish that anecdotal punditry translated to measurable, social science data, it doesn’t. The worst part is that even some of his anecdotes weren’t based on reality.

    When I don’t see historical precedents COMBINED with numbers and data in an article about the election, I don’t take it as a data point, I take it as entertainment. Anyone that looks at that article as anything beyond that, just bought snake oil.