Non-Gallup/Rasmussen tracking polls thread

[minionofmidas]

Maybe links to all the other, unstickied, tracker threads in this stickied thread? That way it'd make sense.

[minionofmidas]

wow this is almost as awesome as that time Obama won the California primary by 14 points... oh wait...

That's the Zogby election day surge (also saw it in New Hampshire 2008 Dem primary and Florida 2000 (from Gore +10 to Gore +1, lol))  This is something different.

Various garbage from the same awful source.

This guy should be selling his body to the night somewhere.

Night is a far more discerning buyer than the American punditocracy (or the German punditocracy for that matter). Not a chance.

[minionofmidas]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

[minionofmidas]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. If the traditional model is just a check on whether people voted the past two elections, while the expanded model is based on questions about people's enthusiasm etc. Lots of Bush voters are going to stay home rather than go all the way over. As I've been saying for two years...

[minionofmidas]

It's now been over a week that the so-called "Expanded" model picks up less likely voters than the "Traditional" model.

You mean "fewer"? Or?

Yes, fewer.  Poor word choice.

Well that makes perfect sense. If the traditional model is just a check on whether people voted the past two elections, while the expanded model is based on questions about people's enthusiasm etc. Lots of Bush voters are going to stay home rather than go all the way over. As I've been saying for two years...

The traditional model is 13 questions that involves not just a check on whether people vote in past elections, but involves questions about who your representative is, basic political questions, and some other things that I forget.  Vorlon posted the list once, but I forget.

I remember the last time it appeared enthusiasm was going to determine an election.  So, we'll see whether you're right or not.

No, I'm talking about *lack* of it.

Could you give me that list though... and perhaps the expanded one too... that would be cool.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/2008%20New%20Hampshire%20Polling%20Methodology.pdf

This?

I'd be surprised if Gallup actually quizzes people.  That seems like it might provoke frustrated/embarrassed hang-ups.

You'll need a tougher likely voter screen for a primary - fewer people are actually going to vote, but whether or not they'll tell you so straightaway is a different matter.

[minionofmidas]

Uh, what do you think I'm talking about? 

mypalfish 2004. ie, the "Democratic Mass Signup of Minorities and Young Voters will lead to Unprecedented Turnout - this looks like a landslide folks!" set. Which is *an aspect* of what I'm seeing, but not the whole story, and not something I'm taking at face value either.
Otherwise, what election were you referring to?
Of course it helps that, over where I am from, elections where "enthusiasm levels" are not an important factor are rare and in between.

[minionofmidas]

In what elections has "lack of enthusiasm" looked like a factor in the polls?

Where? In Germany, I could probably just send you a list of post-reunification state elections, strike a few, and add the last three federal elections.

In America... that's what I was asking you (although 1996 obviously comes to mind):

I remember the last time it appeared enthusiasm was going to determine an election.  So, we'll see whether you're right or not.

No, I'm talking about *lack* of it.

Uh, what do you think I'm talking about? 

what election did you have in mind, exactly?