Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2017, 09:50:15 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
| | | |-+  PPP: Obama up 5 points in both Wisconsin and Iowa
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: PPP: Obama up 5 points in both Wisconsin and Iowa  (Read 2039 times)
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24382


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:02:36 am »
Ignore

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-5-in-wisconsin-and-iowa.html

Wisconsin 51-46
Iowa 50-45
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35608
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2012, 08:06:40 am »
Ignore

Damn, krazen didn't post these polls.  I wonder what their model is.  So many models, so little time.
Logged
Holmes
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10430
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2012, 08:15:22 am »
Ignore

Great news.
Logged

You kip if you want to...
change08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9009
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2012, 08:19:43 am »
Ignore

So without Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio, what's Mitt's path to 270?

Even this gets Obama to 271:
Logged

Gass3268
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13408
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2012, 08:21:39 am »
Ignore

Glorious News!
Logged

Endorsements
New Jersey Governor: Phil Murphy
Virginia Governor: Ralph Northam
Maryland Governor: Ben Jealous
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28579


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2012, 08:21:41 am »
Ignore

So without Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio, what's Mitt's path to 270?

Even this gets Obama to 271:


Clearly, there is no such path. He needs one of them.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1521
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -5.91

P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2012, 08:26:06 am »
Ignore

Great news!
Logged

Call it what it is - a cult


Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. (according to Cult Education Institute)
https://culteducation.com/warningsigns.html

Don't blame me, I voted Hillary (even though she sucks - she was better than an ally of Putin, Le Pen, Farage, and the Alt Right aka Fascists)
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9828
Antarctica


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2012, 08:34:56 am »
Ignore

So without Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio, what's Mitt's path to 270?

Even this gets Obama to 271:


Pennsylvania, Michigan, and/or Minnesota, of course! Those are swing states too, just ask Cliffy.
Logged

HokeyDood
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10572
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2012, 08:40:33 am »
Ignore

So without Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio, what's Mitt's path to 270?

Even this gets Obama to 271:


Clearly, there is no such path. He needs one of them.

Mittens needs a huge national shift that this point that would be reflected in state polls across the country.  

This much is true, he's going to have to do it without Ohio.  The lead is remarkably steady at 3-4 pts, probably up to 5 when the Obama ground game is
Logged

Help Intervention beloved poster Little Big Trumpista so he stops boofing drugs.  Click here!  http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=14196 
This is life or death. 



Registering for Atlas After Dark is a can of corn!
http://atlasafterdark.freeforums.net/
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3237
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2012, 09:02:35 am »

New Poll: Iowa President by Public Policy Polling on 2012-10-30

Summary: D: 50%, R: 45%, I: 0%, U: 4%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

Logged
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3237
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2012, 09:03:17 am »

New Poll: Wisconsin President by Public Policy Polling on 2012-10-30

Summary: D: 51%, R: 46%, I: 0%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

Logged
Ljube
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4305
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2012, 10:11:35 am »
Ignore

There goes my last reasonable hope for a Romney victory.
Even if PPP is off by a couple of points, they can't be off by 5.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 10:14:54 am by Ljube »Logged
Vern
vern1988
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 820
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2012, 10:30:49 am »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22345
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2012, 10:42:33 am »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?
Logged
DL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1940
Canada
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2012, 10:54:13 am »
Ignore

These are the first polls done AFTER hurricane Sandy on a day when the news was all about Obama as commander in chief etc... and there are already signs of a bounce for Obama - his lead in Iowa just went from 2% to 5% in a week!
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4787
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2012, 10:55:06 am »
Ignore

Not bad at all. I think we're in "hold the line" mode right now, and if things can just hold up as they are and turnout turns out, we should be good. I can't see that this massive collection of midwest polls is across-the-board wrong.
Logged

PM:
Economic: -5.03
Social: -8.35

pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16138
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2012, 11:05:49 am »
Ignore

The wiggle room is gone.

Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Vern
vern1988
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 820
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2012, 11:30:01 am »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?

Polling is just a small random sample of a larger group of people. Sometimes the smaller sample match the larger group and sometimes it doesn't.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22345
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2012, 11:33:22 am »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?

Polling is just a small random sample of a larger group of people. Sometimes the smaller sample match the larger group and sometimes it doesn't.

Yeah that's not how statistics work. Nice try though. (Why do you think people pay lot of money to do polling?)
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14156
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2012, 11:41:00 am »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Yeah, why not ask some clairvoyant instead. It's cheaper too.
Logged

Bob Findley: "You're a real dyed-in-the-wool son-of-a-bitch. Anyone ever told you that?"
Steve Everett: "Just close friends and family,"

Clint Eastwood's "True Crime", 1999.
Worried Italian Progressive
italian-boy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1516
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2012, 11:52:28 am »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?

Polling is just a small random sample of a larger group of people. Sometimes the smaller sample match the larger group and sometimes it doesn't.
Let me guess: never even went near to a Statistics 101 course right?
Logged
Vern
vern1988
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 820
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2012, 12:26:34 pm »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?

Polling is just a small random sample of a larger group of people. Sometimes the smaller sample match the larger group and sometimes it doesn't.
Let me guess: never even went near to a Statistics 101 course right?

No, like I said, I'm not very smart when it comes to this stuff, but to me it just seems unreliable to put a lot of stock in polls.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2677


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2012, 12:44:00 pm »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?


Polling is just a small random sample of a larger group of people. Sometimes the smaller sample match the larger group and sometimes it doesn't.
Let me guess: never even went near to a Statistics 101 course right?

No, like I said, I'm not very smart when it comes to this stuff, but to me it just seems unreliable to put a lot of stock in polls.

It's true that sometimes the smaller sample matches the larger one and sometimes it doesn't.  But statistics gives us a way of quantifying how often, and how closely, the sample is likely to match the larger population (assuming the population sample is truly random).  For example, suppose a poll says that A is favored over B 53%-47%, with a margin of error of 3% (with a 95% confidence interval, which is standard.)  This means that 95% of the time, the larger population is within plus-or-minus the margin of error of the values measured in the samples: that is, A is between 50% and 56% (53% +/1 3%) and B is between 44% and 50%.  The other 5% of the time, the true values are outside that range.  

This means that even with carefully constructed polls, 1 out of 20 is likely to be a true outlier.  Some people latch onto this as indicating that polls are inaccurate.  This is true -- but we have a good idea of just how accurate or inaccurate they really are!  The counterpoint is that 19 of the 20 (carefully constructed) polls are within the MoE.  And when you have multiple polls that indicate close to the same result, the confidence goes way up.  If you have a single poll that shows A up 53-47, it could be an outlier, and even if it's not the true result could be anywhere within the MoE.  But if you have a dozen polls that all cluster near the same result, the confidence that they truly represent the larger population is MUCH higher.

Edit: changed "population" to "sample" (...is truly random)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 12:50:16 pm by GeorgiaModerate »Logged

The Moderate Mantra: Invest conservatively.  Drink liberally.
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15643
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2012, 04:20:26 pm »
Ignore

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?


Polling is just a small random sample of a larger group of people. Sometimes the smaller sample match the larger group and sometimes it doesn't.
Let me guess: never even went near to a Statistics 101 course right?

No, like I said, I'm not very smart when it comes to this stuff, but to me it just seems unreliable to put a lot of stock in polls.

It's true that sometimes the smaller sample matches the larger one and sometimes it doesn't.  But statistics gives us a way of quantifying how often, and how closely, the sample is likely to match the larger population (assuming the population sample is truly random).  For example, suppose a poll says that A is favored over B 53%-47%, with a margin of error of 3% (with a 95% confidence interval, which is standard.)  This means that 95% of the time, the larger population is within plus-or-minus the margin of error of the values measured in the samples: that is, A is between 50% and 56% (53% +/1 3%) and B is between 44% and 50%.  The other 5% of the time, the true values are outside that range.  

This means that even with carefully constructed polls, 1 out of 20 is likely to be a true outlier.  Some people latch onto this as indicating that polls are inaccurate.  This is true -- but we have a good idea of just how accurate or inaccurate they really are!  The counterpoint is that 19 of the 20 (carefully constructed) polls are within the MoE.  And when you have multiple polls that indicate close to the same result, the confidence goes way up.  If you have a single poll that shows A up 53-47, it could be an outlier, and even if it's not the true result could be anywhere within the MoE.  But if you have a dozen polls that all cluster near the same result, the confidence that they truly represent the larger population is MUCH higher.

Edit: changed "population" to "sample" (...is truly random)

You, sir, are speaking with an alarming degree of coherence and rationality, based on familiarity with statistics. Furthermore, your post is devoid of partisanship, invective or hyperbole.

In other words, you'll never make it on this Forum.


(Wink Seriously, welcome and post more.)
Logged

Seriously?
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2988
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2012, 05:45:08 pm »
Ignore

Damn, krazen didn't post these polls.  I wonder what their model is.  So many models, so little time.
Obama is not making TWO trips to Wisconsin a week before the election if his internals are showing a 5 or 8 lead in the state. Advantage Obama perhaps, but I am not buying this huge lead narrative.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines