Those are not old registration levels and other distortions,they are recent voter identification polls jem
lets check them out... we have done this before... provide the links. when we did this last time.. some of the "polls" said they got their data from voter registration and other sources.. but lets see if it still true. Lets see what they have for 2012. what you will see is that when the include the leans... R and D are just about even. R is even in the lead in some polls.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/01/trend-in-party-identification-1939-2012/ http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification-adults
http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewedpolls-2012-9 Making the rounds lately is a new site, UnskewedPolls.com. The website is seeking to mitigate republican fears that Romney is slightly behind Obama by tweaking the partisan tilt rightward, rejecting polled data, and weighting them in favor of their candidate based on an extremely favorable formula from a Republican-leaning firm. Now, you can believe it if you want, but you're deluding yourself and you deserve to know why. Here is why UnskewedPolls may paint a charming picture for a conservative, but isn't statistically right. The argument they make is that polls are oversampling Democrats, and that this is causing a more significant lean in the polls for Obama in the presidential election. Last week, we looked at why the idea that polls deliberately oversample democrats is wrong, and why there are a bunch of legitimate reasons why polls will say they talked to more Democrats than Republicans. The easiest solution to this is that (a) there are more registered Democrats than Republicans after a six year blitz of voter registration and (b) that many Romney voters identify as independents, not Republicans. But that's not even what makes UnskewedPolls misleading. Here is where the weighting system is off: from what we can ascertain of their statistical method, they don't really have one. They just assign a certain weight to a poll to equalize the sample out to Rasmussen Reports' cozy idea of the 35.4% Republican, 34% Democratic, 30.5% Independent split, a number disputed by nearly every other polling firm in the entire country. Polls which dispute Rasmussen's spread of Party Identification have been conducted by the following credible organizations, many as recently as last week: The Associated Press/GfK (D 31%, R 22%, I 29%) Pew Research (D 35%, R 24%, I 36%) CBS / The New York Times (D 35%, R 22%, I 36%) ABC / The Washington Post (D 34% R 24% I 34%) The Washington Post (D 32%, R 25%, I 37%) Bloomberg (D 32%, R 27%, I 39%) The National Journal (D 33% R 26%, I 26%) Why is this? Well, as the polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight's founder Nate Silver argues: Rasmussen Polls "were biased and wrong" in 2010. Their information was inaccurate, and there's reason to believe that since their polls are such significant outliers this time around that they are still statistically biased and in accurate from a mathematical perspective. There's nothing wrong with believing in a wrong poll, honestly, but you're deluding yourself if you buy into it. Essentially, UnskewedPolls are really just skewing individual polls to fit a preferred reality, when what they should be doing is looking at an aggregation of polls weighted for their quantifiable historical biases and correcting for them to give an appropriate picture. Then again, this all comes down to what you want in a poll. If you want a political talking point, some thing to spin to favor a preferred candidate, that's your own business, enjoy UnskewedPolls.com and enjoy life in a self selected vortex of spin. But if you want to use a poll to gain insight on a race or to learn more about the public perception of an issue, just understand this: the methodology, the mentality, and the mathematics of UnskewedPolls.com leads to some incorrect conclusions. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewedpolls-2012-9#ixzz2865m14KJ
when you click on bloomberg it says something about huff po pollster... its says absolutely nothing about the randomness of the sample or registered voter or likely voter.... so basically this means nothing. Democrat 27% Republican 22% independent 46%
but this is baloney... "Essentially, UnskewedPolls are really just skewing individual polls to fit a preferred reality, when what they should be doing is looking at an aggregation of polls weighted for their quantifiable historical biases and correcting for them to give an appropriate picture." the above logic would be correct.. if polls kept their samples consistent throughout the election... but we just saw... these major polls randomly adjust their sample size... so there is no consistent approach to systematically adjust for quantifiable biases.... other than first set the baseline of the expected turnout... Then adjust each poll to that expected turnout... Then see how much a particular poll varies from the aggregate.
I have not seen a link to these polls party ID polls... if we are to take the idea seriously that d is really plus nine when the most recent election is 35 D / 35 R / 30 I.... I would at least like to see how they are polls are developing their data.. The 2012 polls I have reviewed... had party ID... with leaners within a few points of each other.
7 hours ago ⢠By MICHAEL BARONE(1) Comments Related Stories http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion...cle_8a82a557-e3f6-56cb-b63b-edcc87b8f37a.html As a recovering pollster (I worked for Democratic pollster Peter Hart from 1974 to 1981), let me weigh in on the controversy over whether the polls are accurate. Many conservatives are claiming that multiple polls have overly Democratic samples, and some charge that media pollsters are trying to discourage Republican voters. First, some points about the limits of polls. Random sample polling is an imprecise instrument. There's an error margin of 3 or 4 percent, and polling theory tells us that 1 out of 20 polls is wrong, with results outside the margin of error. Sometimes it's easy to spot such an outlier; sometimes not. In addition, it's getting much harder for pollsters to get people to respond to interviews. The Pew Research Center reports that it's getting only 9 percent of the people it contacts to respond to its questions. That's compared to 36 percent in 1997. Interestingly, response rates are much higher in new democracies. Americans, particularly in target states, may be getting poll fatigue. When a phone rings in New Hampshire, it might well be a pollster calling. Are those 9 percent representative of the larger population? As that percentage declines, it seems increasingly possible that the sample is unrepresentative of the much larger voting public. One thing a poll can't tell us is the opinion of people who refuse to be polled. Then there is the problem of cellphone-only households. In the 1930s and 1940s, pollsters conducted interviews in person because half of households had either no phone or (your grandparents can explain this) a party-line phone. By the 1970s, phone ownership was well nigh universal, and pollsters mostly phased out in-person interviewing. Phone interviews are much cheaper and quicker. But today the percentage of households without landline phones is increasing. Under federal law, cellphone numbers have to be hand-dialed rather than dialed by computer, as landline numbers are now, even when live interviewers ask the questions. Cellphone-only individuals tend to be younger and more Democratic than landline owners. Most pollsters are conducting a set number of interviews with cellphone-only households. But they can only guess at what percentage of the electorate they'll constitute. Oversample them, and you'll get overly Democratic results. That, many conservatives are arguing, is what pollsters have been getting in polls this month. They point out that Mitt Romney is running ahead among Independents in many polls, but trails overall. This can only happen if Democrats have a big lead in party identification, as they did in 2008. In the exit poll then, 39 percent of voters identified themselves as Democrats and 32 percent as Republicans. In contrast, exit polls showed an even break on party identification in 2004 and 2010. But many September polls and some earlier polls showed Democrats with an even bigger party identification lead than four years before. That seems implausible. Party identification does change over time, as exit polls indicate. But it usually shifts gradually rather than suddenly, as current polls suggest. There is evidence that since the Charlotte convention Democrats have become more motivated to vote and have narrowed the advantage in enthusiasm Republicans have had since 2010. In that case, more Democrats may be passing through screening questions and being polled. I don't believe that any of the media pollsters have been tilting their results in order to demoralize Republicans, though I do look with suspicion on the work of some partisan pollsters. But I do have my doubts about whether samples with more Democratic party identification than in 2008 are accurate representations of the actual electorate. Many states with party registration have shown big drops in registered Democrats since then. Pollster Scott Rasmussen, who weights his robocall results by party identification, adjusted monthly, has shown a much closer race than most pollsters who leave party identification numbers unweighted. So has the Susquehanna poll in Pennsylvania. It may be that we're seeing the phenomenon we've seen for years in exit polls, which have consistently skewed Democratic (and toward Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries). Part of that is interviewer error: Exit poll pioneer Warren Mitofsky found that the biggest discrepancies between exit polls and actual results were in precincts where the interviewers were female graduate students. But he also found that Democrats were simply more willing to fill out the exit poll. That raises the question: Are we seeing the same thing in this month's polls?
one more thing jem is wrong about. he claimed women would go for romney because of the birth control thing: Poll: Boost From Women Helps Push Obama To 4-Point Lead President Barack Obama earns the support of nearly 60 percent of women nationwide while holding a 4-point lead overall, according to a poll from Quinnipiac University released Tuesday. Although the president has consistently outpaced Romney among women, few polls have shown him hitting the lofty level of support with the key voting bloc that he reached in Tuesdayâs poll from Quinnipiac. Women widely prefer Obama to Romney in the poll, 56 percent to 38 percent. Itâs a continuation of a storyline that has spanned much of the general election campaign. Romney, along with many of his fellow Republicans, has been unable to gain traction with the female electorate. Obama and the Democrats, on the other hand, have been quick to highlight GOP policies on contraception in an effort to mobilize women voters http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/poll-obama-massive-gender-gap.php
So far nothing much has changed... so in a way you are correct, I was wrong. I did expect the Catholic Church to get a little bit more political on this... In the next few days... I think I will start a thread on this. But, the Sup Court has started down the path of reviewing Obamacare again... did you catch that? And this time it is about institutions.