| Obama | Romney |
| 99.4% probability of winning | 0.6% probability of winning |
| Mean of 321 electoral votes | Mean of 217 electoral votes |
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by 326 electoral votes to 212, and with a 99.9% probability of winning in an election held then.
Since then, twelve new state head-to-head polls have been released:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CA | SurveyUSA | 27-May | 29-May | 1575 | 2.5 | 57.4 | 35.6 | O+21.8 |
| CA | Field Poll | 21-May | 29-May | 710 | 3.8 | 48 | 32 | O+16 |
| CO | Marist | 22-May | 24-May | 1030 | 3.0 | 44 | 42 | O+2 |
| FL | PPP | 31-May | 03-Jun | 642 | 3.9 | 50 | 46 | O+4 |
| IA | Marist | 22-May | 24-May | 1106 | 3.0 | 41 | 41 | tie |
| MA | WNEU | 29-May | 31-May | 504 | 4.4 | 56 | 34 | O+22 |
| MA | U NH | 25-May | 31-May | 651 | 3.8 | 46 | 34 | O+12 |
| NV | Marist | 22-May | 24-May | 1040 | 3.0 | 46 | 44 | O+2 |
| NM | PNA | 16-May | 21-May | 502 | 4.4 | 48 | 35 | O+13 |
| NY | Quinnipiac | 22-May | 28-May | 1504 | 2.5 | 56 | 31 | O+25 |
| OH | Rasmussen | 29-May | 29-May | 500 | 4.5 | 44 | 46 | R+2 |
| VA | Rasmussen | 03-Jun | 03-Jun | 500 | 4.5 | 47 | 47 | tie |
I don’t think we need to really comment on California (+21.8% and +16% for Obama), Massachusetts (+22% and +12% for Obama), and New York (+25% for Obama).
The new Florida poll puts Obama over Romney by a +4%. Even so, the aggregate of the four current Florida polls gives Romney a tiny edge (49.7% Obama to 50.3% Romney).
Ohio offers Romney a +2% edge over Obama, the first lead Romney has held since February:
The Southwest smiles upon Obama with New Mexico giving him a +13% lead, Colorado giving Obama a +2% edge, and Nevada going +2% for Obama. Do you doubt that Nevada belongs in Obama’s column? Take a look at this:
That’s quite a streak for Obama!
Finally, we find ties in both Iowa and Virginia:
After 100,000 simulated elections that incorporate the new polls, Obama wins 99,442 times and Romney wins 558 times (including the 102 ties). Obama receives (on average) 321 (-5) to Romney’s 217 (+5) electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would have as 99.4% (-0.5%) probability of beating Romney.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 316 electoral votes with a 2.35% probability
- 317 electoral votes with a 2.14% probability
- 322 electoral votes with a 2.09% probability
- 306 electoral votes with a 2.05% probability
- 307 electoral votes with a 2.05% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 1.88% probability
- 313 electoral votes with a 1.87% probability
- 323 electoral votes with a 1.85% probability
- 321 electoral votes with a 1.77% probability
- 336 electoral votes with a 1.76% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 99.4%, Romney wins 0.6%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 320.8 (21.3)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 217.2 (21.3)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 320 (281, 362)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 218 (176, 257)
Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Obama | 126 | |||
| Strong Obama | 117 | 243 | ||
| Leans Obama | 63 | 63 | 306 | |
| Weak Obama | 16 | 16 | 16 | 322 |
| Weak Romney | 30 | 30 | 30 | 216 |
| Leans Romney | 30 | 30 | 186 | |
| Strong Romney | 74 | 156 | ||
| Safe Romney | 82 |
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
| 0 | 0 | EC | # | Total | % | % | Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 4 | Votes | polls | Votes | Obama | Romney | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 1* | 754 | 37.8 | 62.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 1 | 465 | 46.2 | 53.8 | 12.8 | 87.2 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 679 | 36.8 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 4 | 3761 | 59.9 | 40.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 2 | 1438 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 79.1 | 20.9 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 1460 | 58.9 | 41.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 4 | 3592 | 49.7 | 50.3 | 40.5 | 59.5 | ||
| GA | 16 | 2 | 952 | 43.7 | 56.3 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 517 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 1* | 546 | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 1* | 447 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 6.6 | 93.4 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 906 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.3 | 49.7 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 7.2 | 92.8 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 7.0 | 93.0 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1* | 552 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 92.2 | 7.8 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1* | 488 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1* | 421 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 85.8 | 14.2 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1 | 792 | 62.4 | 37.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 4 | 1988 | 61.2 | 38.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 2 | 1060 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 99.5 | 0.5 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1 | 467 | 58.0 | 42.0 | 99.3 | 0.7 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1 | 536 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 56.5 | 43.5 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 428 | 46.3 | 53.7 | 13.6 | 86.4 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1 | 460 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 1.2 | 98.8 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 389 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 10.3 | 89.7 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 252 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 45.6 | 54.4 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 284 | 35.9 | 64.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 1 | 936 | 51.1 | 48.9 | 67.4 | 32.6 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 1093 | 56.4 | 43.6 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 1392 | 55.7 | 44.3 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 417 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 98.9 | 1.1 | ||
| NY | 29 | 2 | 2028 | 63.1 | 36.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 4 | 2125 | 48.8 | 51.2 | 22.8 | 77.2 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 480 | 41.3 | 58.8 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| OH | 18 | 2 | 1387 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 79.6 | 20.4 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1 | 448 | 30.4 | 69.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 1327 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 84.1 | 15.9 | ||
| PA | 20 | 2 | 1058 | 54.0 | 46.0 | 96.3 | 3.7 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 1833 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 84.5 | 15.5 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 442 | 44.3 | 55.7 | 4.7 | 95.3 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1 | 654 | 46.0 | 54.0 | 7.8 | 92.2 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1 | 460 | 38.9 | 61.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 688 | 33.0 | 67.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1 | 528 | 67.8 | 32.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 2 | 1417 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 79.0 | 21.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 2 | 936 | 56.9 | 43.1 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 373 | 40.8 | 59.2 | 0.6 | 99.4 | ||
| WI | 10 | 6 | 3282 | 52.5 | 47.5 | 98.0 | 2.0 | ||
| WY | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
Wow! One of these days, Rmoney might get all the way up to a 1% chance of winning! He’s already blown through 0.5%! He’s starting to look like the interest rate on a bank CD.
In case you missed it in the previous thread, DEMOCRATS WON CONTROL OF THE WISCONSIN STATE SENATE last night!!!!!!!
Nope. But they don’t meet again until 2013. Isn’t that called a pyrrhic victory Roger DUMB Wabbit?
Darryl,
I think the slobbering libtard press gives Obummer a 3-5 point advantage over Romney. There are many Americans who don’t pay attention to the issues and only depend on the tv news for their political information and they get a one sided story. All this Bain Capital crap over vulture capitalism died out with the Vestar news out of Colorado and Clinton claiming Romney’s time at Bain was sterling. No one on the nightly news channels covered those stories. NO ONE! So we’ll see as the advertising season heats up how Obummer does when the truth hits the airwaves.
Oops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Don’t worry, Dems. We won’t let you forget.
Roger Rabbit @1-
In your comment, you assume Darryl’s methodology accurately predicts. His underlying assumptions, especially the one of including ALL polls, including clearcut outlier polls, could easily skew the results to Obama. The devil is always in the details and the underlying assumptions. That’s why we have elections.
So if you really believe Darryl, you have absolutely nothing to worry about, right?? It’s interesting to look at other left-wing Blogs like this. Several are spouting the same “we got it in the bank” mantra using similiar assumptions. I would think you would be better served if Darryl did 2 predictions..this one and one that removes outlier polls. I also think you would be better served if you created a sense of urgency. This post creates a sense of complacency.
The polls and exit polls done by some of the MSM and other Democrat groups were clearly way off the mark. Why? What were the underlying assumptions? Likely weighted too heavily Democrat in the Sample.
It would also be interesting..although arbitrary, if Darryl were to re-run his numbers assuming it is 1-2 or 3 points more in favor of Romney than this example. IF Darryl’s methodology and the underlying polls are off by 3 points..or even if Romney gains 3 points or some combination of the 2..how close would the election be then??
I know Darryl won’t do it, but I would think with all the data in hand, he could easily do it if he desired. For some reason the Left/Daily Kos wants it’s flock to believe everything is great. They want them to feel good and confident. Not sure that serves “the cause” well in the long-run.
RE 2….
Sucks to be ignorant, eh?
Yes, liberals might want to be less liberal with their “predictions”
I’ve read several articles written about the exit polling problems last night. White Male Voters don’t go running up to or even talk with deranged leftists with clipboards while government employees jump at the chance to tell fellow idiots how much they hated Walker. It was obviously a skewed sample in some, way shape or form..but that explanation makes the most sense.
A pyhhric victory is one in which the victor loses MORE than he won, not one in which the loser doesn’t gain all of his goals, but nonetheless makes gains.
I would say that the Republicans won a pyrrhic victory, not the other way around.
@ 11
The pyrrhic victory was the re-capture of the state senate seat by the Dems last night, twit. He was rubbing it in.
Maybe start with using the word ‘traitor’ correctly before moving on to bigger ones, whaddya say?
re 12: How are Wisconsin Republicans better off now than they were at the beginning of the recall?
All you did was to narrow the ‘pyrrhic victory’ definition to apply ONLY to the senate race the Republicans LOST.
I’m saying that, overall, Republicans lost ground in this battle. The pyrrhic victory is yours! Enjoy it while you can.
@13
How are Wisconsin Republicans better off now than they were at the beginning of the recall?
Well, lessee:
1. They don’t have to worry about another recall.
2. Redistricting may end up swinging two state senate seats their way.
3. The $4M the unions spent supporting Kathleen Falk is $4M the unions no longer have.
4. The WI GOP now has a virtual tie between Romney and Obama in the general, all of those Walker local offices now become Romney offices, and the GOP electorate is totally enthused because they won a second time, in less than two years, with a wider margin than they had the first time. They have a donor list, they have a very good understanding of their turnout capabilities (Walker received 125,000 votes more this time than he did in 2010), and they know that unions will be hard-pressed to repeat what they just did, because their dues-paying membership is plummeting.
5. Unions made their governor a rock star and now WI has an awful lot of political pull that can be used beneficially, the same way having a powerful congressional representative can benefit a state. He can ask for help in return for his support of something or someone.
GOP only lost ground if the money they spent isn’t available to be spent again. Do you really think the GOP will run short of funds this year?
Me neither.
It just occurred to me that we aren’t talking presidential politics and this probably shouldn’t continue in this thread.
Bob–
Just to show how important it is to look closely at all the underlying assumptions BEFORE studying any data, consider the latest example of Obama cookin’ the books for politics–
So what else is Obama lying and misleading about, hmmmmmmm???
And Bob is right, these Government Employee Unions have gutted themselves in the eyes of voters, members and financially. How is that a victory? How is that not a Republican victory..much more than pyrrhic. It’s measurable and devastating.
You’re feeling your oats because Walker managed to not be recalled. He is, you know, about to be federally indicted.
I’ve looked for the actual numbers in this recall, but I haven’t found them yet. A look at how close these races actually were may tell a different story than the one that you are promoting at this point.
@ 18
I’m still waiting for Karl Rove to be frog-marched out of the White House. I hear that happens before Walker gets indicted.
‘Actual numbers’? You’re kidding. Where are you looking? It won’t be in ‘Where the Wild Things Are.’
Usual suspects, you have nothing to worry about as far as the presidential election in November goes: Obama will win.
The recall election in WI last night really was a wake-up call to public employee unions. The people in the private sector are a little tired of hearing how “badly” public employees are “suffering,” particularly when many private sector employees live paycheck to paycheck. (Yes, I realize that hedge fund managers are doing well and make tons of money, but that doesn’t change the fact that many people in the private sector are tired of suffering when, in their minds, the public sector employees are doing better.)
re 20: It seems kind of stupid to suppose that dragging the public service employees down to your level will somehow make your position better.
That sort of reasoning smacks of Soviet-style egalitarianism. If you want to improve your lot, unionize.
re 19: ‘Actual numbers’? You’re kidding. Where are you looking? It won’t be in ‘Where the Wild Things Are.’
If you’ve found the actual numbers, why not include a link?
I’m still waiting for Karl Rove to be frog-marched out of the White House. I hear that happens before Walker gets indicted.
Yeah, like Tom Delay and Bob Ney.
I just find it odd not one HA libtard will address the slobbering press advantage Obummer gets. I guess it’s A-OK for their Obummer to get a 3-5 point advantage!
Will Obummer spend another $740 Million against Romney like he did against McCain this year?
If more of this gets out the polls will definitely flip… Seems to Puddy, this comes direct from da whitey house!
@17 When are you going to apply for one of those high-paying government jobs with cushy pensions where you don’t have to do anything?
Funny how people who criticize public employees won’t take those jobs themselves.
It smacks of $400,000-a-year bankers and developers criticizing $10-an-hour janitors, $15-an-hour truck drivers, and $40,000-a-year teachers for wanting a 2% COLA and a $25k-a-year pension.
@24 It’s not your money, so it’s none of your damned business.
@20 “when, in their minds, the public sector employees are doing better”
Better than who? Teenagers working for McDonalds? High school dropouts unloading trucks?
Nearly all government jobs require college degrees, and many require advanced degrees, so the average educational attainment of public workers is significantly higher than the general population, so you would expect government workers to do better on average than private-sector hourly workers. But they’re nowhere close to the compensation that private-sector business owners, managers, professionals, and key employees get.
Comparing a state health lab microbiologist or a Child Protective Services social worker to a roofer or food service worker is absurd. The former, btw, are not six-figure jobs — not even close.
What’s more, we have a free and open employment market in this country; there are no guilds, but there are lots of laws protecting applicants from many forms of discrimination. If government jobs are so great, there’s absolutely nothing stopping you or anyone else from applying for them.
I spent my entire career in public service. None of my colleagues live in million-dollar mansions or drive expensive sports cars. They scrape like everyone else in the middle rungs of the economic ladder. And, as we’ve seen in this recession, they’re as vulnerable to workforce reductions and layoffs as everyone else — if not more so.
Where do you get this stupid idea that public sector workers have it made? Lying wingnut propaganda? That’s where it comes from, or at least, certainly not from any objective evaluation of facts.
I once knew a girl who became a teacher and now lives in a mansion and rides in a Porsche. She did it by marrying a banker.
The Jobs Picture
These are official data and therefore subject to revision.
New Jobs
January – 275,000
February – 259,000
March – 143,000
April – 77,000
May – 69,000
U6 Unemployment Rate
January – 15.1%
February – 14.9%
March – 14.5%
April – 14.5%
May – 14.8%
At least the trends are positive — more people are being hired than laid off, and the broadest measure of unemployment has been generally trending downward — which is a reversal of the trends under the previous (GOP) administration.
In the context of an election season, the question is whether putting the GOP back in power would accelerate hiring and lower the unemployment rate. Where is there evidence of that?
The economy is awash in idle capital — that’s what money isn’t earning anything — what’s absent is consumer demand. Making more capital by lowering taxes on the rich and corporations won’t generate more jobs. Why would businesses — already flush with cash — hire if people aren’t buying from them? Why make more widgets when you can’t sell the ones you have?
We’re in a deleveraging recession. If you want to speed up the recovery by getting consumers to spend more, you have to write off more of their debt. In particular, student loan debt is likely to hold back marriages, household formations, and homebuying for years to come; jobless graduates with large debts to pay simply can’t afford to start families. In other sectors of the economy, it’s a matter of waiting for consumers to pay down their debts so they can start spending again.
I fail to see what Obama, Romney, or anyone else can do to return the economy to status quo ante overnight, or even in a four- or eight-year term. This debt affliction is like a cold that has to run its course. You simply have to wait the damn thing out.
A return to the laissez-faire, anti-regulatory, policies that threw the floodgates open to profligate borrowing will hurt, not help, the economy in the long run. It was those kinds of policies that got us here in the first place. That’s why Republican philosophy is wrong for our country and bad for our long-term prosperity. America prospered under the regulated lending and banking systems of the 1950s. I’m not saying we should go back to exactly that, but I don’t see how anything Romney espouses does anything but set the stage for another bubble.
I do disagree with the Federal Reserve policy of printing money to keep interest rates artificially low. I think it’s prolonging the deleveraging process and is fraught with moral hazard — it rewards borrowers and encourages new borrowing at the expense of prudent savers and investors. Rational debtors will pay off low-interest debts as slowly as possible. These policies are like a cold pill that doesn’t cure the cold but just moves it from your nose into your chest and causes it to last longer, in order to get some temporary mild relief from the cold symptoms. It’s not worth it.
correction @30 – couldn’t get this done before the edit function timed out.
“The economy is awash in idle capital — that’s why money isn’t earning anything — what’s absent is consumer demand. Making more capital available by lowering taxes on the rich and corporations won’t generate more jobs. Why would businesses — already flush with cash — hire if people aren’t buying from them? Why make more widgets when you can’t sell the ones you have?”
Roger,
Gotta question for you in the HyperTuesday thread.
The Economy sucks BIG TIME Roger, who are you trying to fool. How about Grandma and Grandpa who saved all their lives and their cash is now earning Zero to one % to mask the 6 Trillion Owebamma Pissed away. As of Yesterday, the stock market had earned Zero for the year. Yeh it bumped up a few points today, but it will plummet by year end do to this Big Spender
re 33: “The Economy sucks BIG TIME Roger, who are you trying to fool.”
We know. Republicans sank the economy. Who are you trying to fool?
4 Year later it’s your Damn economy my friend. 6 Trillion blown in 4 years is a P pot full of money
Smilin’ @ 6,
“In your comment, you assume Darryl’s methodology accurately predicts. His underlying assumptions, especially the one of including ALL polls, including clearcut outlier polls, could easily skew the results to Obama. The devil is always in the details and the underlying assumptions. That’s why we have elections.
Oh, man, are you one fucking fair weather friend! A couple of years ago you were sayin’ how much you liked my poll analyses! The only difference seems to be that your side was coming up with the advantage. What the fuck’s up with that?!?
“So if you really believe Darryl, you have absolutely nothing to worry about, right??”
Nope…that is your error. The analyses do not predict the election outcome. They only give the score NOW. Picking Obama as the winner of the election based on the score now is as treacherous as picking the football team with a 6-0 lead at end of the first quarter.
“It’s interesting to look at other left-wing Blogs like this.”
But this is the ONE blog you just can’t quit, huh? :-)
“Several are spouting the same “we got it in the bank” mantra using similiar assumptions.”
Sure…ignoring the fact that, I’ve not said Obama has it in the bag. Oh…and I’m not aware of another blog doing the same type of analysis this election season, hence the “similiar assumptions” part isn’t quite right either, is it? But other than that…yeah.
“I would think you would be better served if Darryl did 2 predictions..this one and one that removes outlier polls.”
Sheesh…leave it to a fucking wingding like you to suggest picking and choosing polls to include!
“I also think you would be better served if you created a sense of urgency. This post creates a sense of complacency.”
I’m indifferent to that shit altogether. The results are what they are. Here’s what you fail to realize. These poll analyses are not propaganda, any more that the scoreboard at a sporting event is propaganda. I know this is tough for you to accept, I mean, being that you have been a long time amateur propagandist at this blog (and an utter failure at it, IMHO).
“The polls and exit polls done by some of the MSM and other Democrat groups were clearly way off the mark.”
Not sure what you are getting at. I use no exit polls, and I exclude polls that are commissioned by candidates or party organs.
“Why? What were the underlying assumptions? Likely weighted too heavily Democrat in the Sample.”
Yet, somehow, in 2008, the final analysis on the morning of the electionhit the numbers almost perfectly…you know, despite, all that bad weighting by all those “Democratic pollsters”.
Smilin’
“It would also be interesting..although arbitrary, if Darryl were to re-run his numbers assuming it is 1-2 or 3 points more in favor of Romney than this example.”
That would most certainly be arbitrary, but it would only be “interesting” if I ran an analysis with an artificial bias in favor of each candidate. That you want it done with, say, a +2% advantage for Romney (without an equivalent analysis for Obama) shows how lost you are in your own partisanship.
“IF Darryl’s methodology and the underlying polls are off by 3 points..or even if Romney gains 3 points or some combination of the 2..how close would the election be then??”
Two things:
First, “my methodology” cannot be off in any particular direction, as it is directly driven by poll results, and is perfectly symmetrical (except that Romney is awarded all electoral college ties). In other words, if I switch all the D poll numbers into the R column and vice versa, the exact same results arise, but with the parties interchanged. So, what we would have to consider is that all polls are skewed in one direction or the other.
Second, I ask you to examine the error in what you have said: my analyses don’t show how the November election will turn out. It only shows what the “score” is now. Try to get that through your thick fucking wingnut skull, my rightie friend.
“I know Darryl won’t do it, but I would think with all the data in hand, he could easily do it if he desired.”
Of course I can do it…it’s trivial. But I am curious why you assume I won’t do it? Just the other day, our newist rightie amateur propagandist, Bob, asked for a analysis with a smaller “current poll” window. I was happy to oblige.
So…here is the analysis that you requested:
If each and every poll was skewed +2 for Romney (i.e Obama is stronger than the polls make it appear), Obama would be expected to win an election held now with 100% probability, with an expected electoral vote advantage of 348 to 190.
On the other hand, if each and every poll was skewed +2 for Obama (i.e Romney is stronger than the polls make it appear), Obama would be expected to win an election held now with a 91.4% probability to Romney’s 8.6% probability. Obama would have an expected electoral vote advantage of 295 to 243.
(BTW: I’ve added a few polls to the poll database since the analysis at the top of the page was posted, but the unskewed results are still similar to the top of the page).
Feel better now?
But…but…Darryl, these guys believe that your data and analysis cannot be correct. Obama should be lower in the polls, he can’t possibly be that popular, as a Kenyanislamosocialistblackguy. Can’t you come up with a neat-o graphic that makes them feel good about their beliefs?
Magical, er, faith-based, er, Republican thinking, in a nutshell.
Liberal Scientist @ 38,
We need a Smilin’ Scale: Any poll that raises Smilin’s cortisol more than 5% is considered “an outlier” and removed from the analysis.
Now THAT would be scientifical.
Darryl:
Will this poll:
https://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keyjun12_1.pdf
be included in your analysis next time it is updated? Respondents 50% D, 37% R, 10% I.
re 35: 4 Year later it’s your Damn economy my friend. 6 Trillion blown in 4 years is a P pot full of money
So, where are the jobs you and your ilk promised in 2010? Cutting taxes to produce jobs doesn’t cut it now and it never did.
Republican political theatre and political obstruction (in the senate, mostly)has severely crippled efforts to create jobs. Yours is the same simplistic right wing rant ‘n’ cant I’ve been hearing all my life.
You believe that government can’t do anything right; and, if people want proof, they can go ahead and vote for Republicans.
Bob @ 40,
Yes it will…picked it up yesterday.
“So, where are the jobs you and your ilk promised in 2010?“…
Is that what the voices in your head were telling you dorky dorkman?
“Cutting taxes to produce jobs doesn’t cut it now and it never did“…
So now you’re admitting that you’re delusional and you’re untethered from reality dorky dorkman?
“Republican political theatre and political obstruction (in the senate, mostly)has severely crippled efforts to create jobs,/i>”…
Really dorky dorkman? Can you explain how that works?
“You believe that government can’t do anything right; and, if people want proof, they can go ahead and vote for Republicans</i."…
You mean like back in the days when Republicans were in charge and cost of gasoline was half of what it is now and the unemployment is have of what it is now and how there weren't nearly as many people on food stamps as it is now…
You're right dorky dorkman, total epc fail…
ROFLMAO!
I do appreciate Darryl’s efforts…but can disagree with his methodology of including a handful of “outlier” polls that also have a very poor history of predicting results…so why trust them on even short-term snapshots (and I do understand Darryl that you are taking a snapshot, not predicting results).
For discussion sake, look at RealClearPolitics poll of Polls..
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-1171.html
Obama is right around 47% on BOTH Approval Rating and Vs. Romney. Don’t undecideds usually break against the incumbent? Being consistently 3 points or so below 50% ought to give Obama pause to be concerned.
40. Bob spews:
Good point Bob..
Why would Darryl include a poll that uses 50% Dems? Seems like there are several “outlier” polls like this that have zero credibility because of their underlying assumptions. If there are more OUTLIERS like this that favor R’s, of course the result of Darryl’s analysis will skew R. And vice versa if there are more OUTLIERS that would poll 50% R’s in Florida.
That’s why I disagree with Darryl’s underlying assumptions and methodology.
That’s why it is reasonable to either weed out the OUTLIERS or certainly present the Analysis with a +/- 3 points or so.
@ 45
I asked for two reasons:
1. Some polls he excludes. I hadn’t heard the name of this poll before so I wanted to know.
2. The skew to the Democrats in the poll is, bluntly, embarrassing to the polling entity. I would expect Darryl to mention something about the validity of a poll his methods require him to include, if the poll results are so badly skewed by selection bias (intended or otherwise).
Next time he revises this, it will likely be very different. Oh, and once Obama’s likelihood falls below 95%, it’s not a statistically significant result, anyway.