Thanks for the headline Neil. How dd you know I QA having a bad day?

I am not even going to bother reading all the disclaimers in the text. I am just going to bask in the headline. Hey, it beats drinking.

Neil, I haven’t had a chance to read your post yet, but I have missed your info. Do you know if Rasmussen has changed how he samples D/R/I? The last I heard, he was using a D +3 sample.

I’d have to look them up.

I suggest you read JUST the last line then

Neil..I am now thoroughly confused. This past weekend, the head of Gallup was on FOX NEWS Sunday with Chris Wallace. When asked about polls, specifically all the attention paid to the “sampling” done in recent polls, the D/R/I ration, whether this election mirrors 2008, or 2010, he replied that Gallup does NOT, nor has it ever, asked those whom it polls about their party affiliation. They consider it irrelevant. Wallace seemed as astonished as I was at that response, but did not ask any follow-ups. The Gallup guy did say that at the end of the poll, they do ask the question, but it doesn’t factor into their results. So why do they ask it? And here we are saying, nay, rejoicing, that Gallup’s data on this is meaningful, and it’s a good thing. ( sorry for the Martha Stewart impersonation.)

I’m ecstatic that the only poll that actually counts comes in a few more days, but if you could provide some guidance, some insight, it’d be appreciated.

Hearing the commentary second hand I can only speculate. but it sounds like what Gallup was really saying ther is that they don’t post weight by Party ID.

To the point that Neil made in the post, the Tea Party happened. If you look at the way Democrats got overrun in 2010 – the last national election – the real world results were too optimistic, too… but that’s what happened.

Think of this like a market correction after a bubble or mania. The crash is epic, not normal 10 to 20%. Obama has been a mania in that it was irrational exuberance that got him elected, not ‘fundamentals’.

So when his bubble got pierced on October 3rd, the preference cascade began for Romney and I believe a frustrated nation will vent their anger towards him in a way that will astonish you.

Andrea Tantaros just mentioned this post, and you by name, on The Five. Congratulations.

Neil, FWIW, you also got linked in at RCP (afternoon edition).

Just curious, but have you checked this out?
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

When all is said and done and Romney wins 320 EC votes can we dare to hope that Nate Silvers pathetic misapplications of statistical modeling will finally tossed in the trash bin where it belongs? The only other people Silver I’ve seen paid to do a job they’re more frequently wrong at than right are local weather forecasters.

Also, this is way, way optomistic…

269-290 is a far more believable vote-range, all things considered…

If Romney does NOT get Ohio, 269 is our only hope (and that involves winning CO, NV, IA, and NH – since WI, MI, and MN are out of reach (WI due to massive fraud))….

The thing to recognize here is the change in hard party ID numbers. If the
Gallup survey is accurate, it basically invalidates all of the polling data
based on the 2008 numbers, and it means all of the national polls, and to an
unknown extant at this point, state polls are building in 3-5 points for Obama
that simply don’t exist.

This would explain the recent Romney surge in Gallup’s 7-day tracking poll, and the
fact that this jump was slow to materialize elsewhere (although it has, just to
a muted extent) in the other national polls, as well as the President’s approval
numbers running higher than his support in the general election would seem to
substantiate.

Rasmussen and others assemble polling results using turnout models based on the
2008 exit polling party ID results. Gallop does not use a turnout model (they
do, but its part of their LV screening, not in putting together final results). So if Ramussen publishes a poll of 1500 likely voters, about 600 of those voters are self-described democrats, and 450 each are either self-described republicans or independents. (just going off the top of my head after reading their most recent poll)

Again, Gallup says they do not ask voters to state party affiliation when conducting general election polls, but they changed their methodology prior to the 2008 election
cycle in response to accusations they were under-sampling minorities. They basically split their 7-day, 3000 LV tracking poll, or more accurately started a second 1500 LV tracking to mirror the existing one. That mirror poll disproportionately targets minority respondents until they reach certain thresholds, at which point they randomly sample respondents as needed to reach the 1500 total. It clearly favors democrats, who rely more heavily on minority voters.

That’s why the Gallup surge for Romney in early October was so puzzling. One would have expected a shift towards Romney to first materialize in the Rasmussen poll, long accused of using voter screens to cherry-pick republican voters, an accusation I would add that rings hollow, given the fact that Rasmussen, almost without exception,
produces the most accurate final election polling data.

Heh

a) I moved in April

b) I moved where the job was

c) Virginia’s weather gets cold enough, thank you very much

Also thanks everyone for the feedback and letting me know where the links and mentions were. Thanks very much! It was fun yesterday evening, hearing and seeing all this on the way home.

Try reading less Nate Silver/New York Times partisan hackery and you’ll feel better.

Heh, it was the opposite of wanderlust. If I could have I’d have stayed in California my whole life. But I reached a point, or rather the state electorate and government reached a point, where I had no future there.

I didn’t leave California, California left me. So I went someplace decent where I could get a job, and I expect to stay a while.

Neil,

I transferred from VA due to spendig about 25 hours a WEEK in a car, my POV and my govvie. I was ready for a stroke or heart attack.

Be careful.

I simply want to see Romney CRUSH Obama in a Reaganesque sort of way.

Oh look, another Obama worshipper making his first comment to dismiss this as inconvenient.

You can tell the banned idiot didn’t even read my post, where I repeatedly disclaimed a blowout.