Maddog,

Not surprisingly, I agree with all your points. Obama has been trending better than Romney in the last 3 weeks and the last week. I think the 83% probabilistic scoring is very optimistic, but Silver is certainly willing to hang it out there based on all his filters, so even if top heavy it is indicating where he think the trends are driving this outcome. I agree that 60% for Obama makes the most sense to me. I think using historical turnout rates is the weakest part of any argument, either side, because the microtargeting and technology and pure money/manhours has shifted everything. I saw a poll today that 8O% of Obama voters are voting for him (instead of just voting against Romney), while 35% of the Romney voters are just revenge voting against Obama instead of strongly supporting Romney himself. How does something like that affect turnout precedence? Who can really model that well.

Finally, all this make me believe Silver use of current rolling poll averages is actually the most accurate way to gauge possible turnout, as long as his weights aren't wrong. He does mixed models here, including 2004 and 2008, so I think he might be assuming as well that the turnout rate will be somewhere between those two sets of numbers. No way to know for sure, though.

Jake

:lol: That's a poll I HAVE to see. Link?

It does skew Republican. Which is why polls like Rasmussen is more likely to be inaccurate, not more, in states like Nevada or Colorado with high hispanic numbers, or where college kids are likely to vote--both voting blocks trending toward Obama. Not sure about the Legalize Grass supporters, though, suspect they couldn't find their phones landline or cell to take a poll.

Rasmussen and SurveyUSA (which is all automated also) have been shown to be just as accurate as anyone else, and Rasmussen consistently rates very highly (post 2000 when they changed up) compared to others. All the attacks on him are pure partisanship. My main point is the ANY method of reaching voters is likely to skew some way or another, so the pollster better deal with it...

Try CNN. They should have it posted somewhere. It came up during a verbal discussion between a Republican pollster and a professor. I thought it was a key distinction. It may actually indicate that Republican voters are more strongly motivated to go to the polls than Democratic voters. Another polls I saw on the television indicated a 70%-70% split between the two parties in terms of being strongly motivated or not to vote. Gauging the marginally motivated to vote and how that works its way into the turnout numbers is about the ground game in those swing states.

Perhaps you're just being funny and lighthearted - but in all seriousness, I think it's hard to find too many single-issue, "grassroots" poltical activist groups that have been much more effective politically than these groups and their supporters.

Yes, Rasmussen has consistent rates compared to others, but they will be most skewed precisely in those states that have a high precentage of cell phone voters that he is not reaching. Let's get this straight right now, not all attacks on him are partisanship. Or, should we say all attacks on Silver or Politico or WSJ polling are partisan--is this how you are making your arguments these day? Yes all methods of reaching voters have bias in them, but you can ask why and where that bias might be coming from. Which is precisely why you are assessing Silver.

And, what the title of this thread? Hmm, there's a clue there just might be hint of partisianship in your postings. So, do we blow off what you have to say because you might prefer Romney. Give me a break.

Jake

Seriously dude, what's with the attitude? Lighten up. You seem to take every comment as a personal affront for some reason. I'm starting to think you are a completely humorless person.

Every liberal attacks Rasmussen, most without knowing a thing about him -- it is just dogma. Rasmussen = Fox = Republicans = right-leaning skewed. I guarantee 99% percent of those people don't know a single iota about his track record for accuracy. Isn't that obvious?

Yes, I was trying to be funny, seldom works. I live in a state with this on the ballot, so I know how effective their organizations politically, at least here. Seriously, I think they are a possible tipping factor in the Colorado race, precisely because of the number of storefronts selling grass on most streets in Denver. And, I don't think supporters will be casting their votes for Romney. What I don't know is how well they have been polled. And, in case you missed it, neither candidate in their stump speeches are bringing up legalizing weed as an economic solution.

I live in Denver, and voted both for Romney and for the legalizing weed measure.

Then, I suggest you lay off the weed before you post!


Jake

Never touch it. I'm high on life.

Look, when you make a statement that "all attacks are pure partisanship", you're making it personal. And, this is the perfect followup, by the way. "I'm starting to think you are a completely humorless person." and "I guarantee 99% percent of those people of those people don't know a single iota about his track record for accuracy. Isn't that obvious" Lighten up, dude. What's the matter here?, is making false conjectures with hokey guarantees (love the 99% direct marketing persuader) how it works here. Simple question: is Rasmussen more or less likely to miss polling cell phone voters who lean democratic in certain states, given his automated method, including where he gets his polling phone numbers? I think you do know the answer, but prefer to make it all about being partisan.

Always glad to laugh around the table over a couple of beers. But find the shake and bake answers less than light hearted. Jake

Jerry, its not a lie if you believe it.

Ok, I tried, but you're committed to some sort of hostility. Nevermind...