I’ll agree to that if you will.
Since it’s not my position, I have no idea why I would agree to it.
Something is bugging me, and I hope its a stupid question. Noticing two disparate facts, one, the upsurge in pro-Romney polling numbers, and the numbers of people voting early, who clearly favor Obama. (For cite, google “early voting Obama”, take you pick of your preferred media slant…)
Seems to me that if someone wanted to “cook the books”, the easiest way would be simply to ask “Who are you planning on voting for?” and then ignoring those people who have already voted. Since so many people who have voted early favor Obama, this would automatically give a result that seemed to show a huge surge for Romney. Which would be true in a “sorta kinda” way.
I don’t have any facts on this, don’t know where to look to find them. Anybody?
I think the polls count those who have already voted, so a small portion of the polling is more like an exit poll.
You “think”? Well, I think too, but I was hoping for something a bit more substantive.
I would hope that pollsters don’t hang up on people who already voted. Hard to get more accurate than counting a vote that’s already cast. Although even there, people lie. I bet if you polled Americans about the 1996 election, 65% would claim to have voted for Clinton.
Assuming, of course, that the goal of the pollster is accurate information. But what if it weren’t? Not unheard of, no? Suppose the goal of the polling is to present an encouraging bit of news to disheartened Romnistas? They could say with complete sincerity that they were polling “likely voters”, yes? Because it isn’t likely that someone who has voted is going to vote, yes?
Be pretty easy to do, no? “Who are you planning on voting for?” “I’ve already voted.” “Thank you, good night.”
Mind, I am not saying this is so, I have no real facts on the matter. Just that it would be damned easy to do it.
From an outside observer, it just doesn’t comport with current trends. Here we have an electorate that is really disappointed with the economy and the polls are still showing that the party split would mimic and even surpass the enthusiasm levels of Democrats in 2008? If you’re not baffled by that then you’re extremely biased. Whether by design or otherwise, I really think that a lot of the pollsters are oversampling Democrats. And those excoriating Rasmussen should know that it was among the most accurate in 2010 - so much more accurate than Nate Silver. If there’s anyone biased, it’s Nate.
And polling firms needn’t be accurate now. They only need to be accurate when the election day is near. If the polls converge to Rasmussen’s numbers near the end, that should tell you that these pollsters were really manipulating the data. Else, they could simply bite the bullet.
Cite, please.
In 2010, Nate Silver predicted that the GOP would gain 44 seats; Rasmussen predicted 55. Final tally: 63.
Cite, please.
Note to Anduril: your post does not count as a cite. In case you were confused on that point.
Easy to find the claim is wrong. Nate’s model stated
Rasmussen going into the election meanwhile
So that time they both said the same thing as their botom line number and given that Nate allowed a one in three chance of being over 60 I’d give him the more accurate nod.
I hate when people make shit up.
At least thanks to Anduril we now know that the phase “so much more than” means 55-44=11. 
Thanks to DSeid, for the cite.
Anduril, you were incorrect. Try again?
Of course he would correct his predictions as the poll date neared, otherwise, he would look foolish. You can get away with being biased a month prior to the elections because all that matters is that you get near the mark in the end. A month prior, he had it at 44 not at 55.
:smack:
What was Rasmussen’s prediction on the same date?
Even much earlier than September, Rasmussen polls had it at 55 with a high end of 62.