National Tracking Poll Thread

[MorningInAmerica]

So, until now it looks like Romney got a 5-point bump @ Ipsos and basically no bump @ Rasmussen and Gallup. But we need to wait until Tuesday to get a clearer picture.

That's just not accurate. On Monday, the day before the start of the convention, Obama led on 47-44%. Today, ROMNEY leads 47-44%. How is a net +6 pt swing NOT a bounce? How is Rasmussen NOT showing a bounce?

And for that very same matter, Ipsos is showing a net +5 point swing.

Read my post about how Rasmussen manipulated their August target sample to show a sudden "record Republican party ID", which in turn makes their target sample for their daily tracking poll more Republican too:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140899.msg3407250#msg3407250

Again, that "manipulating" statement is purely subjective, though stated by you as fact. Just because you don't like Rasmussen doesn't mean they're manipulating numbers. In fact, Nate Silver doesn't find them doing all that much "manipulating" at all. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

Actually, yes he does.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Uhh..you're citing an article that is TWO YEARS OLD. I'm citing one that is 2 months old. Nice try though, Clinton96. I have difficulty taking seriously someone who will actually take the time to super-impose a pic of Schweitzer and Cuomo in their signature.




 note the dates.

[greenforest32]

Those articles are not comparing the same thing. The 2012 link on the house effect (individual pollster difference from the polling average) is not the same thing as comparing a pollster's results to the election results (the 2010 link).

Obviously we can't compare the 2012 polls to the results yet as the election isn't over but the polling average is not the same thing as the election results.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155124.0

Ras is a well known troll. You don't have to look past his Senate polls to see that. Just look at Florida: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2012#Polling_2

August 15 - Nelson +7
July 9 - Mack +9
April 25 - Nelson +11
March 13 - Mack +7
February 13 - Tie
November 17 (2011) - Mack +4

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

So, until now it looks like Romney got a 5-point bump @ Ipsos and basically no bump @ Rasmussen and Gallup. But we need to wait until Tuesday to get a clearer picture.

That's just not accurate. On Monday, the day before the start of the convention, Obama led on 47-44%. Today, ROMNEY leads 47-44%. How is a net +6 pt swing NOT a bounce? How is Rasmussen NOT showing a bounce?

And for that very same matter, Ipsos is showing a net +5 point swing.

Read my post about how Rasmussen manipulated their August target sample to show a sudden "record Republican party ID", which in turn makes their target sample for their daily tracking poll more Republican too:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140899.msg3407250#msg3407250

Again, that "manipulating" statement is purely subjective, though stated by you as fact. Just because you don't like Rasmussen doesn't mean they're manipulating numbers. In fact, Nate Silver doesn't find them doing all that much "manipulating" at all. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

Actually, yes he does.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Uhh..you're citing an article that is TWO YEARS OLD. I'm citing one that is 2 months old. Nice try though, Clinton96. I have difficulty taking seriously someone who will actually take the time to super-impose a pic of Schweitzer and Cuomo in their signature.




 note the dates.

From Nate Silver's House Effects Post

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So with the likely-voter adjustment that Nate Silver incorporates into his model, the house-effect of the firm is about 1.5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BUT in comparison with other polls, without the likely-voter adjustment, they have about a 3 point GOP lean.

And leave Cuomo and Schweitzer out of this.

[MorningInAmerica]

Those articles are not comparing the same thing. The 2012 link on the house effect (individual pollster difference from the polling average) is not the same thing as comparing a pollster's results to the election results (the 2010 link).

Obviously we can't compare the 2012 polls to the results yet as the election isn't over but the polling average is not the same thing as the election results.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155124.0

Ras is a well known troll. You don't have to look past his Senate polls to see that. Just look at Florida: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2012#Polling_2

August 15 - Nelson +7
July 9 - Mack +9
April 25 - Nelson +11
March 13 - Mack +7
February 13 - Tie
November 17 (2011) - Mack +4

So, that link you provided to "prove" that Rasmussen is a "known troll" would also indicate that Quinnipiac is a troll (a top rated pollster by Silver's standard), Mason Dixon (another good poll), and PPP (which I'm sure, you just think is great).

[greenforest32]

So, that link you provided to "prove" that Rasmussen is a "known troll" would also indicate that Quinnipiac is a troll (a top rated pollster by Silver's standard), Mason Dixon (another good poll), and PPP (which I'm sure, you just think is great).

Neither of them has wild swings like Rasmussen showing 15+ point swing in one month (Mack +7 in March to Nelson +11 in April). The 2010 link above comparing pollsters against the election results should be proof enough no? Don't know why he removed this chart from the article though.

[J. J.]

First, a "house bias," may result in the number being off, but shouldn't have any effect on the change.

If a Rasmussen gives candidate R 47%, maybe R is really at 45%.  If a later poll gives R 50%, maybe he's really at 48%, but there would still be a 3 point change.

Second, looking at the FL polling, Rasmussen has shown a 10 point gain for Nelson.  Quinnipiac has shown a 9 point shift the same way.

[greenforest32]

The point is that the measure of accuracy should be the poll against the election results, not the poll against the polling average as the average can be wrong.

Ras is clearly the odd one out in the Florida polling. They've shown two different 15+ point swings in one month while Quinnipiac had smaller swings (one over two months). Their past results show they are not credible compared to the other major pollsters. They're in their own league:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Edit: missed the second Quinnipiac poll

[MorningInAmerica]

That pretty little pic is about 2 years old. But of course, you don't want to note that.

[greenforest32]

Nobody is saying the 2012 differences will be the same but the point is that the last objective measure we have of the polling results is from the last election: 2010.

I don't really care one way or another but I just get annoyed at the implication that Rasmussen's inaccuracy was the same as the other pollsters or never existed or is now gone.

[J. J.]

The point is that the measure of accuracy should be the poll against the election results, not the poll against the polling average as the average can be wrong.

If there is a "house bias," which you claimed, then that should not effect the change in the poll, only the final number.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the link you posted:

http://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2012#Polling_2

It shows Nelson:

Rasmussen Reports:    July 9, 2012        37%    
Quinnipiac:    June 19-25, 2012:             41%    

Then it shows Nelson:

Quinnipiac    August 15-21, 2012                    50%
Rasmussen Reports    August 15, 2012     47%    

The polls show a gap of 4 points at most.  Rasmussen shows a gain of 10 points; Quinnipiac  shows a gain of 9 points.

[Eraserhead]

Obama regains the lead! We can only hope that John Ker... err Mitt Romney keeps bouncing like this!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE87U1CJ20120901

Obama 44%
Romney 43%

[King]

That pretty little pic is about 2 years old. But of course, you don't want to note that.

Why should he? It's comparing 2010 polling to the 2010 actual results.  How are we supposed to compare 2012 polling to the 2012 results?  We can only look on a firm's history.

Rasmussen has been off in every Presidential and midterm election this century outside of 2004.

I enjoy Rasmussen because of its sheer number of polls and you can still use it to confirm trends, but I don't go to it for a prediction of how a state really looks.

[greenforest32]

The point is that the measure of accuracy should be the poll against the election results, not the poll against the polling average as the average can be wrong.

If there is a "house bias," which you claimed, then that should not effect the change in the poll, only the final number.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is the link you posted:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2012#Polling_2

It shows Nelson:

Rasmussen Reports:    July 9, 2012        37%    
Quinnipiac:    June 19-25, 2012:             41%    

Then it shows Nelson:

Quinnipiac    August 15-21, 2012                    50%
Rasmussen Reports    August 15, 2012     47%    

The polls show a gap of 4 points at most.  Rasmussen shows a gain of 10 points; Quinnipiac  shows a gain of 9 points.

I wasn't talking about Quinnipiac v Rasmussen, I claimed Rasmussen had two wild one month swings in an otherwise stable race:

March 13, 2012 - Mack +7
April 25, 2012 - Nelson +11

and

July 9, 2012 - Mack +9
August 15, 2012 - Nelson +7

I could see swings like that given Todd Akin comments but nothing like that has happened in Florida. They could be outliers but I think it's more narrative setting polls given Rasmussen's track record.

There are legitimate reasons to doubt their credibility. It's nothing new.

[Likely Voter]

Reuters Ipsos


Obama +1
Obama: 44 (+1)
Romney: 43 (-1)  


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE87U1CJ20120901

[MorningInAmerica]

Just curious...Do you doubt PPP's credibility?

[greenforest32]

They've been objectively better so I don't doubt them to the same degree as Rasmussen.

What I like about them is that they release all the cross-tabs and poll questions aside from the main race like state legislature ballots, approval ratings for other officials/issues, etc.

False equivalency is always nice.

[J. J.]

They've been objectively better so I don't doubt them to the same degree as Rasmussen.

What I like about them is that they release all the cross-tabs and poll questions aside from the main race like state legislature ballots, approval ratings for other officials/issues, etc.

False equivalency is always nice.

Yes, and you are making a false equivalency by comparing a "house bias," i.e. how much the poll varies from the result, with swings internal to multiple polls.  As was demonstrated, both Quinnipiac and Rasmussen showed about the same shift to Nelson, roughly over the same period.

[J. J.]

The height of Romney's convention bounce should be around now:

Mid week is more like it.  You still have samples from Wednesday afternnoon in the numbers.

This is a dangerous game you're playing J.J.  You could just accept a 1 point bounce for Romney at his weekend.  Saying this and you run the risk of the DNC going over well and Romney's midweek bounce being Obama +2.

No, I've actually expected a 1-3 point bounce, nothing dramatic.  It will take time for the RNC numbers to go in, and the same amount of time for the DNC numbers to go in.  We won't see DNC bounce, fully, until 3-4 days later.

It's not a game; it's just how polling works.

[greenforest32]

Yes, and you are making a false equivalency by comparing a "house bias," i.e. how much the poll varies from the result, with swings internal to multiple polls.  As was demonstrated, both Quinnipiac and Rasmussen showed about the same shift to Nelson, roughly over the same period.

Who was conflating them? They can do both. Like they push out polls to the right of more accurate pollsters and then correct when new polls come in, that's what I mean by polls setting a narrative.

And since when do we compare shifts solely along one candidate? The numbers could change for the other candidate thus leading to a wider gap between them and for that gap Quinnipiac is lower (+1 Nelson to +9 Nelson) compared to +9 Mack to +7 Nelson for Rasmussen. The same thing happened in November-April.

[Tender Branson]

Obama regains the lead! We can only hope that John Ker... err Mitt Romney keeps bouncing like this!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE87U1CJ20120901

Obama 44%
Romney 43%

I actually thought Romney would end the convention with a 5-point lead, but this is much better.

But still, their Independent breakdowns are nuts. Obama/Romney are tied at 27% (!!!) among Indies, with the rest voting for someone else or undecided. Probably hijacked by Gary Johnson and Ron Paul people, since its an Internet poll.

[J. J.]

Obama regains the lead! We can only hope that John Ker... err Mitt Romney keeps bouncing like this!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE87U1CJ20120901

Obama 44%
Romney 43%

I actually thought Romney would end the convention with a 5-point lead, but this is much better.

But still, their Independent breakdowns are nuts. Obama/Romney are tied at 27% (!!!) among Indies, with the rest voting for someone else or undecided. Probably hijacked by Gary Johnson and Ron Paul people, since its an Internet poll.

I've been saying 1-3 points overall, but I don't we'll get it until Monday to Wednesday.

[J. J.]

The 'bots seem to be capturing something; Romney's up by 4.

I doubt it will last.

[Lief 🗽]

Nate Silver: Romney's Convention Bounce Appears Middling So Far

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Eraserhead]

The 'bots seem to be capturing something; Romney's up by 4.

I doubt it will last.

By "'bots" do you mean "only Rasmussen"?

[Tender Branson]

The 'bots seem to be capturing something; Romney's up by 4.

I doubt it will last.

By "'bots" do you mean "only Rasmussen"?

Ro(mney)bot = Rasmussen