Posted on 10/25/2006 11:59:44 AM PDT by Torie
In a new research paper, three political scientists attempt to use the results of generic congressional polls to predict the outcome of the midterm elections.
"Via computer simulation based on statistical analysis of historical data, we show how generic vote polls can be used to forecast the election outcome. We convert the results of generic vote polls into a projection of the actual national vote for Congress and ultimately into the partisan division of seats in the House of Representatives. Our model allows both a point forecast-our expectation of the seat division between Republicans and Democrats-and an estimate of the probability of partisan control. Based on current generic ballot polls, we forecast an expected Democratic gain of 32 seats with Democratic control (a gain of 18 seats or more) a near certainty."
Generic samples, even if sufficiently large (and culled to exclude unregistered and unlikely voters) ignore regional variation, demographic concentration, voter intensity, and a whole lot of other things that determine the outcome of individual races. Like turnout, for example. Or weather. Or ground-game efficiency (how many personal contacts do I need to make to increase turnout by "x" percent in one key district?)
This is just more FUD from the Democrat-Media Complex.
Beat me to it.
NJ Supremes just handed the election to the Republicans, who will hold the House by a nose.
Just a couple of pointy head dopes trying to influence the election. I'm sure the RATS have promised them all kinds of funding for further research on why water runs downhill.
LOL
"No, not for all your money. Why did you think I would?"
I believe now, more than ever, that Republicans will retain control of both the House and the Senate. Maybe only by a slim majority but I think we'll still have the majority.
That's not fair. I'm a poli sci major. I have a 3.75 GPA and I LOVE to argue with my lib professors.
Never trust a political "scientist" to know beans about statistics.
---
Let's break this statement down:
"Political Scientists" are College Professors, since no sane corporation would ever pay anyone to sit around and BS.
"Near Certainty" for an future event is a "Wish"
So, a rough translation is: "College professors wish for Democratic party control of the House of Representatives."
...hardly a surprise there...and well worth ignoring.
Thank You New Jersey!!!!!!!!! Great way to wake up the GOP base.
http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=657
They checked their equations against 2004 info instead of another off-year election.
It's so obvious they should have used 2000 info that it makes one wonder if they secretly did and it failed LOL!
Maybe this paper is a joke...
"should have used 2002 info "
Gambling was the quickest, women was the most pleasurable and believing experts was the most certain.
Do not lose hope or heart.
Regards, Ivan
"Where I went to school the polysci majors were the ones who couldn't make it in any other major (except education)."
PoliSci majors certainly have trouble with basic math, and are prone to bouts of dark ennui, aren't they, lol?
that is pretty persuasive
Actually, this has value because it's near the election. If these guys then match the actual results to their model's prediction, they can then try to figure out why there were deviances and then improve their model.
In other words, past correlation does not predict future results.
Exceptions you forgot: Communications, and Sports Management! (:^D)
Stupid, stupid, stupid. When will these analysts ever learn to stop believing the polls?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.