More big swings in electoral-vote.com

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - More big swings in electoral-vote.com

Posted: 9/24/2004 9:59:31 AM EDT

Looks like Bush took a big jump again...

www.electoral-vote.com

This sure is confusing trying to predict what will happen. I don't think we'll know for sure until November.

Posted: 9/24/2004 10:23:35 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
This sure is confusing trying to predict what will happen. I don't think we'll know for sure until November.

Sorry man, couldn't pass that up!

Posted: 9/24/2004 11:07:00 AM EDT

[#2]

Oregon is Red?!! Sweet! I never thought I'd see the day.

Posted: 9/24/2004 11:51:26 AM EDT

[#3]

There is a little button there to click for the final projection. It is based on the regression analysis of all the various state polls in all the states... While not fool-proof, its pretty tenable.

Posted: 9/24/2004 11:59:53 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
There is a little button there to click for the final projection. It is based on the regression analysis of all the various state polls in all the states... While not fool-proof, its pretty tenable.

And it has Bush 336, Kerry 192 as the final prediction. Still far too early to put much stock in this, but it does look nice.

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:01:09 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Oregon is Red?!! Sweet! I never thought I'd see the day.

WooHoo!

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:05:06 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
There is a little button there to click for the final projection. It is based on the regression analysis of all the various state polls in all the states... While not fool-proof, its pretty tenable.

Yeah, I saw that, but I'm still not totally convinced of the lead that Bush has over Kerry. I guess I"m just not sure how accurate these polls really are. I know that historically some of them are very accurate, but I think things are a little different in today's world.

We'll see I guess...

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:17:04 PM EDT

[#7]

Checking in from a BLUE state, dammit!!!!

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:19:21 PM EDT

[#8]

"Weak Bush", "Strong Bush"...hehehehe

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:36:53 PM EDT

[#9]

Its not how accurate any one poll is... the strength of that website is it uses many different polls that are updated continuously. If you click on say Florida you will see the results of all the polls conducted there over time. A computer is than used to conduct a regression analysis that projects out the final outcome based upon months of data from several sources. Its not fool-proof, but as somebody who does polling for campaigns, I can tell you that it is sound science. Now there is a lot of time for something amazing to happen that will throw everything off... but honestly, what else could they possibly throw at Bush that wouldn't smack of last minute desperation? Hell, they've already resorted to document fabrication and using the mainstream media as their tool.

Let me ask you this, even if something amazingly damaging came to light... how seriously would it be taken after this... Boy that cried wolf... boy that cried wolf...

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:48:44 PM EDT

[#10]

Lousy sticking Las Vegas (East Kalifornia).

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:55:06 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Its not how accurate any one poll is... the strength of that website is it uses many different polls that are updated continuously. If you click on say Florida you will see the results of all the polls conducted there over time. A computer is than used to conduct a regression analysis that projects out the final outcome based upon months of data from several sources. Its not fool-proof, but as somebody who does polling for campaigns, I can tell you that it is sound science. Now there is a lot of time for something amazing to happen that will throw everything off... but honestly, what else could they possibly throw at Bush that wouldn't smack of last minute desperation? Hell, they've already resorted to document fabrication and using the mainstream media as their tool.

Let me ask you this, even if something amazingly damaging came to light... how seriously would it be taken after this... Boy that cried wolf... boy that cried wolf...

Well, I see your point. I guess I just don't want to be too optimistic and then be let down if GWB loses.

The other thing I wonder about is I saw how a lot of the polls, such as Gallup, might only call 1000 different people to get their results for a state. Since 1000 is obviously only a small portion of the total number of people who will be voting, what's the process they use in determining who they are going to call in order to get an accurate sample of the whole state?

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:57:36 PM EDT

[#12]

Maryland is the only statistical tie. And I learned something.... D.C gets 3 electoral votes, same as Wyoming. That's despite having no Senators or voting Representatives.

Posted: 9/24/2004 12:58:08 PM EDT

[#13]

One more thing...just out of curiosity, and of course for entertainment purposes only, what are the DUers saying about this website? What kinds of rational (or lacktherof) are they using to discredit it?

Post links please.

Posted: 9/24/2004 1:02:17 PM EDT

[#14]

Actually they call far more than a 1,000 people. A good poll will spit out a list of names and numbers that are supposed to draw from various areas of the country proportionally to actual population distributions. A series of questions are asked, including those which are considered screening questions to identify likely political leaning, age, sex, occupation and likelihood of voting. This is done to ensure that the model does not have a disproportionate number of any particular demographic. The combination of random sampling coupled with "quotas" to ensure that the sample is representative of many defining characteristics results in a pool that can have a margin of error of +-3-4% depending upon sample size.

The problem comes when proper screening is not conducted, or questions are asked or ordered in such a way that it introduces a bias... something Zogby is notorious for, as is the American Research Group.

Posted: 9/24/2004 1:04:04 PM EDT

[#15]

Goddamnit, we need PA to be solid Bush

- BG

Posted: 9/24/2004 1:10:01 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Actually they call far more than a 1,000 people. A good poll will spit out a list of names and numbers that are supposed to draw from various areas of the country proportionally to actual population distributions. A series of questions are asked, including those which are considered screening questions to identify likely political leaning, age, sex, occupation and likelihood of voting. This is done to ensure that the model does not have a disproportionate number of any particular demographic. The combination of random sampling coupled with "quotas" to ensure that the sample is representative of many defining characteristics results in a pool that can have a margin of error of +-3-4% depending upon sample size.

The problem comes when proper screening is not conducted, or questions are asked or ordered in such a way that it introduces a bias... something Zogby is notorious for, as is the American Research Group.

Thanks for the information.

Posted: 9/24/2004 1:12:09 PM EDT

[#17]

That 'Master of the Obvious' pic almost made me whizz myself.

Posted: 9/24/2004 1:18:31 PM EDT

[#18]

The guy that runs that site is pro skery, hope his map is right. Here's some of his b.s.

I am a Kerry supporter. I am open about that. Despite my political preference, I have bent over backwards to be scrupulously honest about all the numbers, and have carefully designed the main page to be strictly nonpartisan. Only the third row of menu items below the map contains material that could be considered pro-Kerry (e.g., jokes about George Bush). If you are a Kerry supporter, an independent, a moderate Republican who is fed up with the President's fiscal and other policies or even a conservative Republican who feels betrayed and who has a sense of humor, you will probably enjoy them. If you want an election site that has a pro-Bush bias from beginning to end, including all over the main page, try www.electionprojection.com.

Posted: 9/24/2004 1:25:58 PM EDT

[#19]

Didnt Reagan take EVERY state but minnesota against mondale?

Now that is an asskicking!

Posted: 9/24/2004 2:13:19 PM EDT

[#20]

AZ has Bush by only one point? BULLSHIT!

Posted: 9/24/2004 2:20:21 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Lousy sticking Las Vegas (West kalifornia).

All your casinos belong to us.

CW

Posted: 9/24/2004 2:49:15 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
AZ has Bush by only one point? BULLSHIT!

Yeah, especially after that crack smoking Teresa Heinz-Kerry b^&%$ spouted off "Oh well, who cares?" What a crack head.

The moan who wants to run the country for four years can't even get that b&!$# to keep her trap shut for 60 days.

Roll on George W.

Now, if we could just get California, New York and Illinois turned around.

Posted: 9/24/2004 2:55:11 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
"Weak Bush", "Strong Bush"...hehehehe

I like Bush!

BigDozer66

Posted: 9/24/2004 2:56:05 PM EDT

[#24]

BigDozer66

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:01:21 PM EDT

[#25]

This sure is confusing trying to predict what will happen. I don't think we'll know for sure until November.

Probably going to be another close one. Might not know until December.

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:11:30 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"Weak Bush", "Strong Bush"...hehehehe

I like Bush!

BigDozer66

yeah, but smell isn't everything...

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:14:25 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Maryland is the only statistical tie. And I learned something.... D.C gets 3 electoral votes, same as Wyoming. That's despite having no Senators or voting Representatives.

That's 3 free Kerry EC votes, from a city that if left to its own devices, would devolve into mayham, murder, and starvation.

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:18:43 PM EDT

[#28]

Here is another site devoted to the Electoral College. It isn't updated as frequently, but the numbers are close to Electoral-vote.com.

It is President Elect.org
The site also provides a break down on the election results all the way back to 1789. Very good stuff.

They are currently giving it to Bush with 305 to Kerry's 233.

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:20:19 PM EDT

[#29]

If the election is close it will be the clusterfck of the century due to electronic voting madness. I read something like 30% of the electorate will be using machines (with no paper trail). Not even a recount will be possible.

I don't think the electoral-vote.com final prediction is very useful. It just follows a linear trend line for each state.

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:20:22 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
The problem comes when proper screening is not conducted, or questions are asked or ordered in such a way that it introduces a bias... something Zogby is notorious for, as is the American Research Group.

I had heard that Zogby had been very accurate (way back when, listening to Rush). I also heard he was a Repub, but from what I've read lately he's been saying polls are skewed towards Repubs . . . something I doubt, productive people are less likely to get caught in a phone conversation at home, and are more likely to vote . . .

Posted: 9/24/2004 3:29:05 PM EDT

[#31]

Man, we need to get the political forum moved back into the General forum so I can post info on polling... Ive discussed Zogby's shortcomings in several threads. Basically, in NYS... where I am a republican political consultant... we used to use Zogby extensively. He then compromised his standards to the point where the umbrella body that provides ethical guidance for polling has questioned his practices and failure to disclose who is contracting his polls when he releases results. He also whored himself out to Golisano in the Governor's race, declaring Golisano would come in second... Holisano was a vERY distant third. Zogby said the recall vote would fail in Cali... it passed... he said Davis would win, Arnold won... and it keeps on going. Not to mention his brother is a well known Arab anti-Bush journalist.