While it was reasonably clear that Obama was leading in the state, his win in Florida is now official, capping off a 332 to 206 landslide electoral victory. Even on the day of election, Republican pundits were calling people like Nate Silver idiots for suggesting that Obama was the favorite in Florida and Virginia. According to these pundits, the lamestream media polls were biased against Romney. Many people on this board were making the same arguments. For those who bought into this narrative, I’m curious what you make of these results.
I thought from the Primary that Romney could not not beat Obama, back then we were being inundated by the mantra “Romney is the only one who can beat Obama” in every thread even though the “Left Wing Republican” experiment always fails.
I did think that the polling was oversampling democrats, turns out they were dead on. I tend to trust Rasmussen more than the others so when his numbers were on par with Gallop right through the cycle it seemed legitimate but I admit that I had my doubts.
I also thought that Obama had screwed up so severely in the last couple of months that Romney might be the exception and win anyway but I never supported him.
In years past I have seen the polling prior to the last few weeks seem biased for democrats and then come in line right at the end to preserve credibility, when polling organizations are judged it is always their last polls so they can play games during the campaigns to help their chosen entity.
This year it seems like they played it straight all the way through.
Most of the arguments on this board were for popular opinion polls and how they were biased.
The popular vote was 51% to 48%. That being said, the people over at Unskewed results make assumptions to confirm their own political biases, like that voter turnout will be equal and so forth in order to combat an imagined conspiracy in polling data. There’s no math behind it. Nate Silver, on the other hand, almost to a fault explains his reasoning and calculations.
America get’s the government it deserves.
I was hoping to hear more from the people who were enthusiastically supporting these theories (such as the people who thought that the “unskewed poll” guys were correct). I’m curious because I’ve never seen anything quite like this in an election before, though I do think that it mirrors a certain epistemological tendency within partisan politics to create one’s own reality. Among Republicans, I think this goes on with the climate change debate (indeed, many of the same people who were insisting that their interpretations of the polling data were correct also believe in a massive world-wide lamestream media conspiracy on climate change). Among Democrats, I see it on issues having to do with the safety of nuclear power (I’ve seen entire forums of Democrats who are completely impervious to basic facts about this issue).
But he said he probably won’t go back to “unskewing” polls next time. He actually thinks conservative-leaning pollsters like Scott Rasmussen have a lot more explaining to do.
“He has lost a lot of credibility, as far as I’m concerned,” Chambers said. “He did a lot of surveys. A lot of those surveys were wrong.”
I think that it confirms that math and facts have “liberal” bias.
Democrats do this also (e.g. the Kerry “win”), but nothing remotely resembling this. The reason this is interesting is because of how wildly far off the Republican predictions were.
Just look at this disaster:
The UNSKEWED Projection of the 2012 Presidential Race
The QStarNews projection of the 2012 presidential race sees Mitt Romney being elected the next president of the United States with 52.22 percent of the popular vote and 342 electoral votes to President Obama’s 47.31 percent and 196 electoral votes.
Here was their electoral map prediction; it’s just comically wrong:
Rasmussen never had Romney winning, I don’t know what he would have to “explain”.
He had Romney up in the popular vote after the first debate but so did everyone else.
Nah RET, Rasmussen’s polling was way off. As Silver wrote it up: “Several polling firms got notably poor results, on the other hand. For the second consecutive election. . .Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney’s performance by about four percentage points, on average.”
I had been paying a lot of attention to this leading up to the election, as it was clear that someone (either the “traditionalists” like Silver, or the “unskewed” guys) was going to be way off in their analysis. This was actually a lot more interesting to me than the actual election.
According to the raw data of Rasmussen’s polling results, Romney was the favorite to win Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado, with Wisconsin and Ohio projected as dead-heat (49% to 49% tossups). None of this turned out to be accurate (e.g. Obama actually won Wisconsin by nearly 7 percentage points).
It was a terrible, almost disastrous result for Rasmussen. Especially since his rival Silver correctly predicted all 50 states, and with extremely accurate predictions of the spreads in each state.
To elaborate on one example, just two weeks off election day, Rasmussen was pushing a poll showing Romney closing in on Wisconsin (Rasmussen’s last poll had WI as a dead heat, 49% to 49%), and musing that Wisconsin “could be the next Ohio” that would put Romney over the top. Obama won WI by almost 7 percentage points. By any measure, this is an extremely embarrassing result for Rasmussen.
that’s what I make of it!
Given that massive fraud did take place, I doubt anything will be done about it.
Why would you instantly and uncritically accept wild claims about “massive” voter fraud merely from a blog post on a less-than-credible website?
Right there in the title it says cards are not votes. If the ballots are two pages long, that counts as two cards and one vote. Actual turnout was 71%, which is half of cards, meeting our hypothesis.
.71 voter turnout/total voters * 2 cards/voter turnout = 1.42 cards/total voters
You post on here a lot. You are surprised by this?
All the conventional polling outfits had Romney leading two weeks before the election and they all had Obama catching up after Hurricane Sandy.
Silver has clearly had a more superior model for interpreting the mood of voters than anyone else over the last few National elections, time will tell if his internals hold up. I just don’t see any reason to single out Rasmussen when I followed his electoral map every day and I did not see one map (even after the first debate) that had Romney winning.
He had Romney ahead a few times in the popular vote like Gallup but the electoral map on Rasmussen’s site always had Obama leading.
Rasmussen is a well known Liberal by the way, always has been.