What polling company was most accurate?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
PPP (D) NAILED IT



Rasmussen and Gallup were ranked like 25th most accurate.
 
One cause for concern is that Romney received significantly fewer votes than McCain in '08 - and Obama barely surpassed McCain's vote total. Obama lost 9 million votes from '08, and Romney lost 2 million votes from '08.

Basically, turnout in this election sucked hairy balls. Gallup and Rasmussen were both obviously expecting a higher turnout. Now I know Democrats don't like Ras, but Gallup is historically accurate and well-respected. So what happened? Were "likely voters" for Romney lying? Why would they?
 
The votes are still being counted...so we don't know what the final count is yet. Daily Kos matched PPP...they both did great jobs.
 
Voltaire said:
One cause for concern is that Romney received significantly fewer votes than McCain in '08 - and Obama barely surpassed McCain's vote total. Obama lost 9 million votes from '08, and Romney lost 2 million votes from '08.

Basically, turnout in this election sucked hairy balls. Gallup and Rasmussen were both obviously expecting a higher turnout. Now I know Democrats don't like Ras, but Gallup is historically accurate and well-respected. So what happened? Were "likely voters" for Romney lying? Why would they?
Click to expand...

I dont think they were lying, I belive they were 1) oversampled and 2) unenthuastic about the etch-a-sketch canidate.
 
One of my fave things about this election was watching righties spin the various polls. First, when Obama had a good lead, all of the polls were suspect, and used the wrong methodologies. Then, after the 1st debate, it was ALL about the polls, and Romney "trending", and the big Romney momentum.

Then, when most polls swung back to Obama again, we went back to "wrong methodology" and "oversampling Democrats." At the end, we had Peggy Noonan predicting a Romney victory because she thought Obama looked "wan," and she saw more Romney signs where she lived.
 
Thing1 said:
One of my fave things about this election was watching righties spin the various polls. First, when Obama had a good lead, all of the polls were suspect, and used the wrong methodologies. Then, after the 1st debate, it was ALL about the polls, and Romney "trending", and the big Romney momentum.

Then, when most polls swung back to Obama again, we went back to "wrong methodology" and "oversampling Democrats." At the end, we had Peggy Noonan predicting a Romney victory because she thought Obama looked "wan," and she saw more Romney signs where she lived.
Click to expand...

I USED to have some respect for Peggy Noonan
 
Jarod said:
I dont think they were lying, I belive they were 1) oversampled and 2) unenthuastic about the etch-a-sketch canidate.
Click to expand...

It makes me wonder if someone else could have done better. I can't help but wonder if Rubio, even with only a couple years in the Senate, could have prevailed. But I do believe Romney was the candidate for this time around. He had the set of skills this country needed.
 
Voltaire said:
It makes me wonder if someone else could have done better. I can't help but wonder if Rubio, even with only a couple years in the Senate, could have prevailed. But I do believe Romney was the candidate for this time around. He had the set of skills this country needed.
Click to expand...

I dont belive Rubio would have done any better, he has some history and he has too sharp an edge.
 
Dungheap said:
PPP does the polling for Kos.
Click to expand...

They have a good article on the polling today...if there is interest.

The 2012 polling hall of shame

Few things annoy me more in political analysis than the cherry-picking of favorable polls. That's why, with few exceptions, I dealt mostly in polling aggregates. But there's no doubt that my own assessment of the race was colored by which pollsters were saying what.
I obviously trust PPP. SUSA is good for the toplines, less good at crosstabs. Marist, CBS/NYT and ABC/WaPo are pretty solid. The internet pollsters—YouGov and Ipsos—were a curious (and ultimately successful) experiment. Pew is the gold standard, even when it's off. TIPP was a disaster in 2008, but it appeared more stable this time around. Some states have local pollsters so good they trump everything else, like Field in California and Selzer in Iowa. A few others were mildly interesting.

But there was a class of pollster that was so patently bad, they made me assume the whatever their results said, the opposite was actually true. So follow me below for a tour of this year's polling suck.


Continued here...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1158522/-The-2012-polling-hall-of-shame?showAll=yes
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top