.

[M]

Actual data from poll here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC%20News-Marist_Poll_Florida.pdf

Which makes clear what is implied in the blog post, which is that this is a poll of registered voters.
Actual voter registration numbers in Florida as of April 2012:

D 41
R 36
Minor 3
Other 21

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/nvra/affiliation.asp

Interesting, so based on actual 2008 turnout, AND state party registration, the sample is still a little over DEM.

Actual 2008 turnout is, of course, irrelevant to a poll of registered voters.

A poll of registered voters is, of course, irrelevant to life on Earth.

[M]

Bawlexus, not everything is wrong if the party sample doesn't match the 2008 one. Stop reading on party ID, please, it's becoming annoying. Are you umengus or what??

 

Not everything is wrong, but the poll is considerably less accurate.

In fact, most likely the actual electorate will be less +D than 2008 in most states, and the most accurate pollsters will correctly predict this. However, more +D than 2008, a blowout Democratic year, is a highly unlikely scenario. Without accounting for this unaccountable methodology, the polls employing it become actively misleading.

[M]

Bawlexus, not everything is wrong if the party sample doesn't match the 2008 one. Stop reading on party ID, please, it's becoming annoying. Are you umengus or what??

 

JulioMadrid, this is a poll forum where people discuss polling. I do not imply that party samples disqualify any polls, just that they are somehing worth considering. Just pointing out the data. Don't really care whether I annoy you or not, and stop telling me what to do. Please just ignore my posts (as I'll kindly do yours).

OK, you can point out the data, give your analysis or whatever you want to. But saying that a poll is accurate or not based on party ID all the time around (specially with PPP) IS annoying.
Read some umengus posts, then think about them. Don't you think he's a hack, or that his posts are irritating? Well, I'm sorry to write this, but you're more or less the same.

But, of course, you decide what you post. I have nothing against that. But people here aren't dumb. They (we) know when a poll is trash.

How do you know when a poll is "trash" or "not accurate"? When it doesn't provide the results that you anticipate? Or when the methodology is flawed?

You have to break down the numbers to get at the methodology. That's what the pros do, as you know if you read sites like RCP or Politico. The Vorlon did this for the forum in the 2004 and 2008 cycles and he was one of the most respected members for doing it.

Now, I acknowledge ajb's point that these may be accurate samples of registered voters. That is not, however, a figure that historically correlates in any significant way to the vote on election day. Any weighted likely voter poll, especially this far out, involves some guesswork and extrapolation; some will be off by several points. However, what polls like this are attempting to measure is based on an electorate +D of an election in which Obama won by more than 7 points!

To give a more concrete example of the problem, earlier today on a different thread, user cope1989 asked: "So can someone please explain to me why this election will look like 2004 when all of the polls look like 2008?"

Well, bawlexus91 is attempting to do just that. The reason is that with the major exceptions of Rasmussen and Gallup, these polls are not yet even trying to approximate the actual vote of these states! Largely because the young and lower income voters consistently have lower turnout, the RV number has ALWAYS in modern times been +D of election day. To even get a hint at what these polls mean, you have to weight them yourself.

What bawlexus is applying is political science. He is not the member dragging down the level of discourse on this subforum.

[M]

Bawlexus, not everything is wrong if the party sample doesn't match the 2008 one. Stop reading on party ID, please, it's becoming annoying. Are you umengus or what??

 

JulioMadrid, this is a poll forum where people discuss polling. I do not imply that party samples disqualify any polls, just that they are somehing worth considering. Just pointing out the data. Don't really care whether I annoy you or not, and stop telling me what to do. Please just ignore my posts (as I'll kindly do yours).

OK, you can point out the data, give your analysis or whatever you want to. But saying that a poll is accurate or not based on party ID all the time around (specially with PPP) IS annoying.
Read some umengus posts, then think about them. Don't you think he's a hack, or that his posts are irritating? Well, I'm sorry to write this, but you're more or less the same.

But, of course, you decide what you post. I have nothing against that. But people here aren't dumb. They (we) know when a poll is trash.

How do you know when a poll is "trash" or "not accurate"? When it doesn't provide the results that you anticipate? Or when the methodology is flawed?

You have to break down the numbers to get at the methodology. That's what the pros do, as you know if you read sites like RCP or Politico. The Vorlon did this for the forum in the 2004 and 2008 cycles and he was one of the most respected members for doing it.

Now, I acknowledge ajb's point that these may be accurate samples of registered voters. That is not, however, a figure that historically correlates in any significant way to the vote on election day. Any weighted likely voter poll, especially this far out, involves some guesswork and extrapolation; some will be off by several points. However, what polls like this are attempting to measure is based on an electorate +D of an election in which Obama won by more than 7 points!

To give a more concrete example of the problem, earlier today, user cope1989 asked on a different thread: "So can someone please explain to me why this election will look like 2004 when all of the polls look like 2008?"

Well, bawlexus91 is attempting to do just that. The reason is that with the major exceptions of Rasmussen and Gallup, these polls are not yet even trying to approximate the actual vote of these states! Largely because the young and lower income voters consistently have lower turnout, the RV number has ALWAYS in modern times been +D of election day. To even get a hint at what these polls mean, you have to weight them yourself.

What bawlexus is applying is political science. He is not the member dragging down the level of discourse on this subforum.

Wow. I thank you very seriously for that. Defending me better than I'm able myself.

No problem. Keep up the good work.