PPP: Obama up 5 points in both Wisconsin and Iowa
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:54:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  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
Author Topic: PPP: Obama up 5 points in both Wisconsin and Iowa  (Read 3089 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 31, 2012, 08:02:36 AM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2012, 08:06:40 AM »

Damn, krazen didn't post these polls.  I wonder what their model is.  So many models, so little time.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2012, 08:15:22 AM »

Great news.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2012, 08:19:43 AM »

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

Even this gets Obama to 271:
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2012, 08:21:39 AM »

Glorious News!
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2012, 08:21:41 AM »

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
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,136
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2012, 08:26:06 AM »

Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2012, 08:34:56 AM »

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
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2012, 08:40:33 AM »

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
ElectionAtlas
Atlas Proginator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,628
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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
ElectionAtlas
Atlas Proginator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,628
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« 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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,999
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2012, 10:11:35 AM »
« Edited: October 31, 2012, 10:14:54 AM by Ljube »

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.
Logged
Vern
vern1988
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,166
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.30, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2012, 10:30:49 AM »

People put way too much stock in polls..
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2012, 10:42:33 AM »

People put way too much stock in polls..

Well what do you think polls are? Random numbers?
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2012, 10:54:13 AM »

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: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2012, 10:55:06 AM »

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
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2012, 11:05:49 AM »

The wiggle room is gone.

Logged
Vern
vern1988
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,166
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.30, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2012, 11:30:01 AM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2012, 11:33:22 AM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2012, 11:41:00 AM »

People put way too much stock in polls..

Yeah, why not ask some clairvoyant instead. It's cheaper too.
Logged
SPQR
italian-boy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,705
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2012, 11:52:28 AM »

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,166
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.30, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2012, 12:26:34 PM »

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
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2012, 12:44:00 PM »
« Edited: October 31, 2012, 12:50:16 PM by GeorgiaModerate »

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)
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2012, 04:20:26 PM »

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?
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2012, 05:45:08 PM »

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  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 14 queries.