Okay, I can finally prove all you sample weighters are wrong

[King]

The fact that this whole "lol Obama's only up by 1 with a +7 sample that's junk" thing is still going on is crazy, but I finally woke up and realized that the proof that it's horsesh**t was right in the crosstabs all along.  We all talk about how pollsters don't weigh yet that hasn't seemed to convinced the skew poll people so here's another angle to look at it that proves poll skewing to be non-existant.

First, let's go back to the 2004 and 2008 Exit Polls:

2004
Democratic 37%
Republican 37%
Independent 26%

2008
Democratic 39%
Republican 32%
Independent 29%

Now, simply by looking at that we can say, it was +7 in a Democratic year but +0 in a Republican year and this seems like a Republican year so it has to be close to +0.  It sounds reasonable I suppose, but there's one big factor not being considered: why do people sign up for a political party? Their beliefs.  Personal beliefs are far stronger than affiliation.  If people feel their beliefs are not inline with a certain party, they will claim to leave it.  That's where the poll skewing shows itself to be non-existant, when we look at the exit polls on ideology:

2004
Liberal 21%
Moderate 45%
Conservative 34%
C+13

2008
Liberal 22%
Moderate 44%
Conservative 34%
C+12

Interestingly enough, the electorate's makeup by ideology didn't change much from 2004 to 2008.  What happened? McCain underperformed Bush in moderates by 6 percentage points.  Un-coincidentally, 5 points less  identified as Republican in 2008 compared to 2004; likely moderates who moved to Independent identification in 2008.

So, let's look at ideology identification in some 2012 national polls.  While nearly all polls ask this question, unfortunately, not all polls publish the makeup.  There also haven't been a lot of national polls done in recent weeks.  The most recent poll I can find which did publish the makeup was the NBC/WSJ poll (Obama 49-46) from 9/30.  Let's see what they found, first on Party ID:

NBC/WSJ
Democratic 32%
Republican 26%
Independent 40%
+6

Now, at this glance, it looks like NBC/WSJ is aligned to show a Democratic bias by showing the turnout for Democrats to be the same as 2008.  However, when we look at the ideological identification...

NBC/WSJ on 9/30
Liberal 22%
Moderate 38%
Conservative 37%
C+15

And there we have it.  Pretty close to both 2004 and 2008 exit polls.  In fact, the NBC/WSJ poll, if anything, has sampled this election to have more conservatives in it than even the 2004 election.  "Unskew it" to 2004 levels and:

NBC/WSJ on 9/30 (My Numbers)
Obama 50.44%
Romney 42.53%

Of course, those aren't scientific.

[King]

But seriously, there's nowhere for this discussion to go from here. Party ID is a dead analysis point. I wonder if people will start overanalyzing these ideology numbers next instead? At least those would have a little more accuracy.

from Now i will be studying the numbers.  pls believe my numbers if u want to Live

[King]

The problem is that 9/11 idiocy caused a significant change from 2000 to 2004. Here's 2000.

Liberal 20%
Moderate 50%
Conservative 29%

2004 was more similar to 1996

Liberal 20%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 33%


But then 1992 was like 2000

Liberal 21%
Moderate 49%
Conservative 30%

1992 was pretty different than 1988

Liberal 18%
Moderate 47%
Conservative 35%

Doesn't look like 9/11 caused it to me.  2000 seems to be an outlier (perhaps because conservatism was down in popularity, hence "compassionate conservatism") while the rest of the elections back to 1988 are low-20s liberals, mid-30s conservatives, remainder moderate. 

[King]

According to Gallup, it looks like ideological breakdown hasn't changed too much since 2008, other than a marginal increase in conservatives and a marginal decrease in moderates.

Taking that into account, I think we might be looking at this for 2012:
Liberal 21%
Moderate 42%
Conservative 37%
C+16

those r my numbers will u Subscribe to my blog ?

[King]

LOL, so now we're supposed to believe that GOP party ID is as low as during Watergate.

Look analyzing party ID skew in polls is a bit of a crap shoot either way you look at it, but so is expecting Dems to have a D+6 or more spread or GOP a  R +2 or more spread.

I don't get it.  You have to be trolling.  Did you even read my post?  How can someone read my OP and still try to argue this at all?

Yes, R identity is low because Tea Party members/supporters claim themselves Independent conservatives and because the Rs moved so far to the right to appease these people back in the primaries, a lot of moderates are still staying as Independent.  At the heart of these polls, the ideological background is not only in-line with a 2004 type election, but actually even MORE conservative of a sample compared to 2004.

[King]

And party self identification isn't volatile? You sir are the fool.

Look at jfern's post to see how consistent that ideology ID has been.

[King]

I'm not trying to prove that weighing by ideology is a good thing, bro.  I'm saying it's bad just like party ID is.  If Party ID was good, Party ID should shift ideological ID in each election with it yet it doesn't.  More or less, the same kind of people are voting in each election.  My thesis is that more conservatives didn't vote in 2004 compared to 2008.  The same did.  The shift came in moderate vote.

Answer me this: why did the ideology ID remain pretty constant in 2004 and 2008 (21-45-34 to 22-44-34) yet party ID shift so much (37-37-26 to 39-32-29)?  Wouldn't less Republicans mean less conservatives?  Wouldn't more Democrats mean more liberals?  It seems pretty unlikely that two election years of exit polls could produce the same two numbers.  Not to mention 1996, 1992, and 1988 also came up with similar ideology ID to 2004 and 2008.

If Ideology ID is supposedly more violatile, why does appear to be more constant compared to party ID election-to-election?

[King]

Again I said that I disagreed with the OPs thesis that ideology ID in a single poll validated party ID sspreads of D +7 or higher. The logic doesn't work. But I do think that ideology ID may be worth looking at. I mentioned a first test above.

So a single poll is the problem?  Here.  Fine.  I only used one to be nice, but if you'd like to know all the polls I've within the last month who released their Ideology ID crosstabs here:

NPR Poll 9/30
Democratic 37%
Republican 30%
Independent 33%

Liberal 22%
Moderate 37%
Conservative 38%

D+7, but C+16.  Same as NBC/WSJ, 2004, and 2008.

AP-Gfk 9/20
Democratic 31%
Independent 46%
Republican 23%

Liberal 21%
Moderate 34%
Conservative 39%

D+8, but C+18.  In line with NBC/WSJ, NPR, 2004 exit, and 2008 exit.

University of Connecticut 9/18
Democratic 46%
Independent 16%
Republican 38%

Liberal 17%
Moderate 37%
Conservative 36%

D+8, but C+19.  A bad Uni poll, but still in line with NBC/WSJ, NPR, AP-Gfk, 2004 exit, and 2008 exit.

Reason-Rupe 9/21
Democratic 36%
Independent 29%
Republican 28%

Liberal 23%
Moderate 42%
Conservative 35%

D+8, but C+13.  In line with NBC/WSJ, NPR, AP-Gfk, UConn, 2004 exit, and 2008 exit

5 for 5 so far.  I didn't cherry pick either.  These four plus the NBC/WSJ are literally the five most recent national polls on RealClearPolitics which published this data.  I don't have time to continue doing this, but feel free to keep searching for that magical sample of D+7 that doesn't have at least the 2004 split of C+13 on ideological ID.  

Pro-Tip: It probably doesn't exist and if it does it's only one out of so many polls that it's likely an outlier.

[King]

Ok, I thought you were serious before.  I think Ideological is worse because I know libs who think they're moderates and moderates who think they're conservative, etc.  People don't really get the true definitions, then you add in the somewhats to expand the confusion and it's worse.  At least party ID is fairly simple and generally understood. 

No.  People don't understand what it means to be an Independent or party member.   Consider: Glenn Beck is an independent whom will never vote against the Republicans.   There are a ton of conservative independents as part of the Tea Party movement, which claimed through and through to not be affiliated with the Republican party despite being 100% conservative.

Self identity as liberal, moderate, or conservative is far easier understood to people than democratic, republican, independent. 

Either way, both are garbage things to criticize and "adjust."  The polls are correct MOE +/- 3.  Party ID is correct at D+6 MOE +/- 3 and I'd say C+15 MOE +/- 3.

[King]

Wonkish, you have yet to give me a piece of data that backs up anything you claim.  I am not an argumentative guy.  I see what I see.  If you can prove me wrong, please do so and I will retract everything I've said, but I won't believe you just because you say it's wrong.

Here's a few responses to what you've posted:

• "Those are not all of them in the last month because I know of more." Can I see them?  I've looked high and low.
• "LOL, you say that party ID is more volatile, but look at the numbers you just posted."  Not a single number was outside of the margin of error of D+7/C+16, my prediction for the 2012 electorate.  Show me one.
• "You think that ideological ID somehow pts to D+7 or more being reasonable for a poll. It is most definitely not."  Why is it not? Other than your feelings about the issue?
• "in 2004 the exit polls were a little off in favor of the Dems" On the state level, yes, but the national exit poll had Bush winning 51-48 and appears to likely correct.
  
• "There is no question that a ton of Republicans didn't show up to the polls in 2008. Turnout was not the same."

I'm researching turnout right now.  Sit tight.
[/list]

[King]

On turnout,

Exit polls show 34% Conservative in both 2004 and 2008.  I know that's not good enough for you.  There's only one other piece of data to be looked at on this issue: state data on % of registered voters who voted.  I don't believe this tells the story of turnout at all better, but it's the only other thing we have other than "it felt like less conservatives voted."  48 states published this data (Wisconsin and North Dakota exceptions). 

Of the 31 states which voted for George W. Bush, 17 saw an increase in turnout, 13 saw a decrease in turnout and 1 no data reported in 2008.  Of the 22 states which voted for both George W. Bush and John McCain, 12 saw an increase in turnout, 9 saw a decrease, and 1 no data reported in turnout from 2004.   That's an inconclusive result to me. 

It sounds sensible to say "conservatives stayed home in 2008" or even "liberals stayed home in 2004," but is it true?  I have no data to say it is at my disposal and, frankly, my common sense disagrees as well.

Do you really know any politically active people who don't vote?  Even in bad times for their ideology?  I mean, serious politically-active-enough-to-carry-an-ideology-they-call-conservative-or-liberal people who skip elections?  All the conservatives in my life voted in 2008.  All the liberals I know voted in 2010.  All the conservatives and liberals in my life that I know vote in every election because they really do give a sh**t.

Disillusionment happens, but there is nothing to suggest conservatives were disillusioned in 2008.  Sarah Palin drew big crowds.  Fear of Obama was rampant.  34% of the exit polls still said conservatives were voting.  They didn't like McCain but, as far as I can tell, they showed up.  Ideologues always show up.

[King]

I don't understand "the money where your mouth is" line.  Did you propose a wager that I missed?

(1)  First off, I asked you to show me some data that I haven't looked at which shows I'm wrong.  You linked a graph that's already on page one.  A las, let's look at it anyway:

That's one poll which shows 2004 to have three percentage points more conservatives than 2008 on a poll with a 2 percent margin of error.  That's not a significant move.  It's inline with the exit polls.  And, if I recall, Gallup had Obama winning by a larger margin than he did, too.  

(2) I've already established that the NATIONAL 2004 Exit Poll was completely accurate in its prediction of a 51-48 Bush win.  A good amount of STATE exit polls showed Kerry outperforming the real result, but as we know, subsamples are more inaccurate.  I believe one pollster in the tracking thread released subsamples of its swing states from it's national poll that had Ohio as Romney +19.  That is no doubt wrong but it in no way discredits the national result that the pollster found, because subsamples are not accurate.  The National Exit Poll has a margin of error of half a point and nailed the overall result.  The worst state exit poll was not off by more than two points in the overall result.  

Exit polls are far more accurate than Gallup telephone polls, even when comparing the former's worst days to the latter's best.

(3) Enthusiasm gap is no more or less real than ideology.  It's asking people what party they support or whom they support (both fluid) and then asking them how "enthused" they are about election (so fluid it's almost a gas).------I'm having a great day today.  I'm very enthused.  I might cry myself to sleep on Thursday night.  Who knows.

(3b) By the way, can I get a link to the expert studies on enthusiasm data?  Or do all you have are opinions of experts with no data?  If the latter, then no, I do not have any reason to be believe professionals are more correct than any joe on the street on this if they have no evidence to backup their case.

Margin of error works differently when numbers percentages are divided into 3's instead of 2 equal parts.

You're absolutely correct!  But absolutely wrong.

Asking all of the sample what their Party or Ideology is does not divide the sample into anything.  It gives you three responses, yes, but so does Romney, Obama, Other and Approve, Disapprove, Neither.  It carries the overall survey's margin of error.

Enthusiasm gap does, however, divide the sample into three subsamples: Are you enthused about the election (Obama supporters only)?  Are you enthused about the election (Romney supporters only)? Are you enthused about the election (Undecided and Third Party supporters only)?  Those all carry higher margins of error.

[King]

Why would the moderates automatically vote for Obama?

Romney has always governed as a moderate and appeals to non-religious moderates.

Romney hasn't been setting himself up as moderate until recently.  Either way, your question is unrelated to this thread.

Keep telling yourself that.

As I said with Wonkish, give me a good reason not to tell myself that and I will stop doing so.

[King]

Ah, funny... Is that you're way of sidestepping a bet?

No, that's me asking you what the parameters of the bet are and where you posted them.  I honestly did not see it.  If you want to do a bet, we can do a bet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You read the foot notes.  The margin of error in the fine print is still listed at two points.  And yes it is one poll.  An average of multiple attempts at one poll is still one pollster's job.  That's one poll.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope.  We have the Gallup poll show a drop and the exit polls show no change.  That's not every single pollster.  That's two. There's a bunch more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not arguing that... at least I don't think?  I think you're really confused here.  The rest is an argument, but you're just totally mistaken on this one.

The ideology question isn't dividing the sample into anything just because it has three answers.  It's one whole undivided sample with three different answers. The enthusiasm question divides the sample twice (three times if you included the small undecided/other faction) and then collects sets of answers from each subsample.

Unless you're saying that in polls, each option has different margin of error? (i.e. Romney 47% has a different margin of error than Obama 45% and both have a different margin of error than the 8% undecided/other?) I've done basic statistics work before (though not calculus) and I've honestly never heard of such a thing.

[King]

Yes indeed. Folks with very similar beliefs put different political labels on themselves.  Somewhere should write a paper exploring the motivations behind label preferences.

Reaganfan's posting history is the paper exploring the motivations.

[King]

D+6 or above and I'm in, since D+6 is what I am officially predicting, though there's probably something better we can donate to than a political party, but winner will get to pick.

[King]

You have a deal, brotha.

[King]

Wonkish, given the tragic events of Hurricane Sandy, I would appreciate it if you were to donate $50 to the American Red Cross.