Thursday, October 18, 2012

D35 R35 I29




Just For Fun

Let’s take some of the national opinion polls – where I can find the internals - from this past two weeks (excluding the two major daily trackers) and apply the 2010 exit poll party split to their internals, so that their samples represent the party percentages which actually turned out in 2010. That was Dem 35, Rep 35 and Ind 29..

I reckon that will give a pretty good indication of what actually might happen in November.  After all, even the Obamabots don’t believe they’ll get anywhere near the same turnout as they did in 2008 and, by all accounts, this year the Republicans are on fire, just as they were in 2010.. If one assumed the Dems will vote Obama and the Republicans will vote Romney, then Independents appear to be swinging hard toward Guvernor Romney.

The polls in question are:-

ABC/WaPo                 D35, R26, I33              Obama 49       Romney 46       Obama   by 3
Independents breaking for Romney by 19 to 14
Adjusted                      D35, R35, I29             Obama 47       Romney 53        Romney by 6

Monmouth                  D35, R32, I33              Romney 47     Obama 46         Romney by 1
Independents breaking for Romney by 19 to 14
Adjusted                      D35, R35, I29             Romney 52       Obama 49        Romney by 3

Fox                              D37, R30, I32              Romney 46     Obama 45         Romney by 1
Independents breaking for Romney by 20 to 12
Adjusted                      D35, R35, I29             Romney  53      Obama 46         Romney by 7

So what can one make of it all?

  • Do the people at Fox News REALLY think the turnout in a couple of weeks will include over twenty percent more Democrats than Republicans?  I thought the Socialists hated Fox.  Is Fox trying to scare Republicans into actually getting out to vote?

  •  Do the people at ABC and WaPo SERIOUSLY expect readers to believe thirty five percent more Democrats than Republicans will vote this time round?  Maybe they are trying to ‘maintain the rage’ (as Whitlam used to say) amongst the dispirited Democrats who can smell the looming stench of defeat.


Whatever the ins and outs of it, it’s just one more reason for me to think the result in November will be a landslide.

Wes is welcome to comment but he’s on probation.  A hint of abuse and he’s off to join his other leftie troll mates on a desert island with no internet connection.

19 comments:

Wes said...

Mate, you manipulating some internals in an attempt come to a result you find exciting conjures up some horrible imagery. I might just leave you to your wee fantasies. You know nothing about polling methodology and your maths is dodgy, so it's impossible to take you seriously.

mark said...

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Wes, no reason given for such a discrepancy between actual voting patterns and those suggested by pollsters?. I mean, you're such an expert I'm surprised you don't have an explanation.

Perhaps you could do some maths yourself and let the world in on your innermost secrets before you finally fuck off.

Ackers said...

It's so comforting to think that this is your prediction Adolf!

It gives me some comfort that Obama might just scrape through.

Wes said...

The actual voting patterns your refer to, Adolf, are from a mid-term, not presidential election, when turnout was far lower and dominated by the tea potty. That's why no sane pollster (or insane one for that matter) is dumb enough to use it. Clear enough for you? And you struggle with the maths and don't understand concepts like rounding. It's why you get so excited by tiny shifts in polling numbers.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Wes and Ackers, so what do you reckon the voter turn out will be in November?

Wes, what makes you think the Tea Party will not be out in force in November?

The game is over old chap and you've lost.

Anonymous said...

I think they're a slight misunderstanding in how sampling works. Party affiliation in the samples are self-professed. In exit polls, their numbers are skewed because people are more identified with what they just voted than ever before and less likely to call themselves independent.

Gallup and Rassmussen have done write-ups on this. There are always more self-identified Democrats than they're Republicans. Even during Republican Presidency. More liberal people identify themselves as Democrats than conservatives calling themselves Republicans. The switch side of this is that independent are more heavily made up of centre-right voters who will lean Republican.

What we have also seen in the opinion polling is that with the GOP's drift to the right, centre-left voters are more prone to identify themselves as Democrats because they could never vote Republican.

Therefore, a correct sample is a sample which has around 3-8% more Democrats in than Republicans. Then what you see are an independent block that will more heavily lean towards Romney.

For an Obama win, he doesn't need to independents. He needs to makes sure his base vote and that he doesn't lose independents by a landslide. At the moment, he's is being dragged down the hill. It's close. Really close.

Wes said...

Ha pwned again, Adolf. So clueless it's cute.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

You're gone Wes. Hope yo can swim.

Anon, excellent comment but,I'm sorry, anonymous comments are not accepted here. In this case, an exception due to quality.

"What we have also seen in the opinion polling is that with the GOP's drift to the right, centre-left voters are more prone to identify themselves as Democrats because they could never vote Republican. "

Here, I think your example is refuted by the experience in the 2010 mid terms in which the 'drift to the right' by the GOP was in fact a torrent with a near record turnout, if I recall.

I accept you explanation in principle but I doubt very much an adjustment of anything like 8% is reasonable.

You may be interested to see Gallop today has Romney at 52 and Obama at 45. These are figures which the late commenter Wes would find risible.

Edward the Confessor said...

See this is why you have no credibility. Your previous post said that Gallup had been got to by Obama and was now putting out deliberately rigged polls. Today your siting them proudly because they're producing an outlier poll that favours Romney. They wouldn't be doing that if they were rigged in Obama's favour now would they?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Edward

For a start, I don't blog to gain credibiity among socialists.

Secondly, does it not seep though that dense mass of bone surrounding your small brain that Gallop's figures, had they not been got at, might have been much much more devastating for your black arsed JackAss?

Edward the Confessor said...

But it's an outlier in favour of Romney. No other poll is anything like as biased, and you're suggesting it's biased in favour of Obama? It really is just you against the world isn't it little guy?

And it's Gallup. Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

Obama's gone. He's a tired, defeated man/child who knows the jig's up.

As the old saying goes, 'you can fool some of the people.....'

Mrs Danvers

Edward the Confessor said...

What remarkably insightful analysis, Danvers. Here's some more of an equivalent quality:

Romney's a doodiheaded loser.

Chris said...

I think the response rate to any of these polls is about 5%. That means for 100 people phoned, 5 take part.

The entire sample, therefore, would be skewed. It is unrepresentative. However, it is fun to see the Leftoids squirm.

Edward the Confessor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adolf Fiinkensein said...

There's another troll dispatched to a desert island where it belongs.

You'd think they would learn to read the local blog rules but no, they never do. Not even when warned.

Judge Holden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Another troll who doesn't know when he's worn out his welcome.