Dan McLaughlin this Obama is toast. He offers what appears to be a very thorough and well-thought-out reasoning for this position, with lots of supporting evidence and pretty pictures for those that don’t like to read. It seems pretty solid to me, but I’m wondering what counter-arguments the other side has:
http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/26/why-i-think-obama-is-toast/
That article is hugely unpersuasive. It talks about voting numbers going down, but never actually shows us anything, or explains how they know they went down. That seems to be a red herring. Instead, the data that concerns them is percentage based, and the problem is that Romney does better the larger the population.
Plus it just reads like a conspiracy nutter’s rag.
There’s actually a scientific study that demonstrates that this is the exact opposite of the truth. Implicitly Democratic independents and self-declared Republicans showed the most bias, then self-declared Democrats, and implicitly Republican independents show almost no bias.
I’ve never had even one Statistics class. I like Nate Silver’s work because he has a track record, and I can trust that it’s fairly close to reliable without fully understanding every step of his process. When it comes to things like this, I have to wait until enough people weigh in, then judge the various arguments. Who seems logical, who lays out reasoning I can follow, who rants and raves and doesn’t present any real evidence?
It DOES smell of conspiracy nutter, but I don’t have the education in that area to confirm or refute, and I haven’t seen enough people working to tear it down or support it. Until then, it remains an unknown to me: not enough info there for me to believe it, but nothing disproving it. The very lack of this speaks poorly of it, but still it’s there, and it’s better to see it discussed and dismissed/confirmed rather than overlooked.
I try to avoid giving myself too much credit and/or applying “common sense” to things I am not educated about, as I have seen where Dunning-Kruger avenue leads. So, I look for more info, and hopefully, for someone knowledgeable to weigh in and break it down into small words 
, in a manner that logically builds to it’s conclusion.
Thanks for responding.
To summarize, ol’ Dan’s trying to find reasons to ignore the state polls. Historically, this is a bad way to predict elections. He focuses heavily on Voter ID, which changes frequently and is not a demographic, and both the pollsters and the analysts like Nate Silver say that this is a bad thing to focus on.
Every election is different, and there are always surprises in the polls or things that just look weird to someone, and every election the losing side tries to find reasons to “demonstrate” that the polls are actually wrong and their guy is ahead. In this election, the polls are showing Obama has a lead in most of the swing states (and enough for 270 EVs), and this is just (IMO) an example of that poll-denial by the side that’s losing that we see in every single election.
How’s the fact that you people can’t stop repeating this slim and laughable factoid as evidence for why we need to be quaking in our boots?
Get another act, please. I’ve been watching this one for the past few days, and it stopped being entertaining a while ago.
One might argue that anyone “undecided” or “independent” in this election is too confused to matter. Voters are split roughly 49-49, so the most important factors in the election result will be Turnout, Turnout and Turnout.
Gallup’s results are hugely different when they factor in “likelihood to vote.” Do other pollsters try to consider vote likelihood? Yes, Gallup’s likelihood-based result (50-46 in favor of Romney) may be exaggerated, but Romney doesn’t need a full 4% to win the election.
I do have a vague impression that GOP voters are excited and enraged, while Dems are demoralized and apathetic compared with 2008. Like all sensible Americans, I will breathe a huge sigh of relief if Obama wins, but I view Tuesday next with grave trepidation.
I think many Dopers in this thread would reverse their positions if the partisan sense were reversed! I’m INTP (rather than INTJ like so many Dopers) on the Myers-Briggs scale, so I don’t think this applies to me. 
Very possibly, but then we’d be wrong 
This time, the polls (as a whole) are on our side. It’s generally been a bad idea to say that the polls are wrong.
That particular article is terrible, written by someone who didn’t understand the stats (it’s not votes going down in the graphs, it’s percentage). But as far as I can see, Choquette and Johnson’s analysis is correct. I don’t know enough about (and don’t know where to find out), which precincts are electronic and which are paper, and whether there is some arguable difference in demographics that explains why the larger an *electronic *precinct is, the more it trends toward Romney, and the larger a *paper *precinct is, there’s no trend at all.
And the correlation is incredibly consistent. A statistician’s dream.
Romney’s desperate gambit to change his auto bailout position tells you everything you need to know about the current state of the election.
Merged duplicate threads.
Romney has been staying anywhere from 0.5 to 1.0 points ahead of Obama on the RCP national poll average. That’s much worse than Obama probably thought it would be by now. McLaughlin’s point really boils down to the idea that Obama needs the same turnout that he got 4 years ago to make up the difference. Seems reasonable. If he gets that turnout, he wins easy. If not, he loses a close one. The only thing that would really surprise me would be a Romney landslide. He’ll need Ohio for that and I don’t think he’ll get it.
Two points- RCP does not include several polls, and the state polls show Obama with a small but comfortable (and consistent) lead in the electoral college.
So, I assume OMG you are putting a lot of money on Romney over at Intrade, given you can get him at 38.
as Dan has written another column reiterating why he thinks Obama is toast:
http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/31/on-polling-models-skewed-unskewed/
I again predict Dan is going to be horribly wrong for the second Presidential election in a row. If I’m correct, I’d love to have OMG finally say something like “I should be careful who I listen to”.
Rasmussen has the race as a tie this morning and more polls are showing either ties or O+1. Gallup hasn’t released a new poll in a few days due to Sandy but it’ll be interesting to see if the trend continues. The real bad news for Romney is that national polls are pulling towards agreeing with the Obama-friendly swing state polling rather than the swing states pulling towards the previous Romney-friendly national polls. The discordance between the national and state numbers is being resolved in Obama’s favor.
The fact that Romney and Ryan are scrambling to make appearances in Pennsylvania tells you everything you need to know. They’re seeing that Ohio is not an option and are shifting attention here in a last ditch gamble.
You know you’re doing solid analysis when you’re supporting unskewed polls.
Yep. My best guess is that they’re hoping that residual storm damage will reduce Philadelphia turnout sufficiently to bring Pennsylvania into reach.
Unfortunately for them, Philly didn’t really get hit terribly hard. Oh, Mitt, I’m afraid the Democratic turnout machine will be quite operational when your friends arrive…