Voters See A More Divided Nation; GOPers More Enthusiastic to Vote

[toubab]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...vided_nation_gopers_more_enthusiastic_to_vote

"Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Voters strongly believe the United States is a more divided nation these days, and they think both sides are to blame. Most are also ready to do something about it at the ballot box in November.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Likely U.S. Voters say America is a more divided nation than it was four years ago. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just seven percent (7%) think the country is less divided now, while 21% rate the level of division as about the same.(To see survey question wording, click here.)

Among voters who see more division or about the same level of it, 35% believe President Obama is to blame. But 34% point the finger at Republicans in Congress instead. Twenty-three percent (23%) say they’re both to blame. Just five percent (5%) attribute the division to something else.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of all voters say they are more likely to vote this year than they have been in past elections. Only four percent (4%) say they are less likely to do so, while 38% rate their intention to vote as about the same as in past years.

Perhaps problematic for Democrats is that 65% of GOP voters and 55% of voters not affiliated with either major party are more likely to vote this year, compared to 53% of those in the president’s party. But that could change as the election gets nearer."

It's just one poll, but it makes sense, from an historical point of view.

 

[phrodeau]

It's the 2012 election all over again. Romney in a landslide.

 

[CandiCame]

Who does phone surveys? You're not allowed to use that in a scientific journal. I didn't know that was still a thing.

I mean good on them, I'm not disputing them or whatever, it's just weird. You're not allowed to use them most of the time.

 

[toubab]

It's the 2012 election all over again. Romney in a landslide.

If it's the 2012 election all over again, Democrats are in big, big trouble, because most polling was extremely accurate and extremely predictive of actual results in 2012. Ask Nate Silver.

 

[toubab]

Who does phone surveys? You're not allowed to use that in a scientific journal. I didn't know that was still a thing.

I mean good on them, I'm not disputing them or whatever, it's just weird. You're not allowed to use them most of the time.

What? Phone polling is considered state of the art. Perhaps you mean this type of phone polling, which does have its detractors.

 

[CandiCame]

What? Phone polling is considered state of the art. Perhaps you mean this type of phone polling, which does have its detractors.

No, I mean any type of phone polling. When you take statistical design and analysis classes, or any classes on statistics, you learn that you aren't allowed to use phone polls because

1: You aren't legally allowed to do them on cell phones in most states and most people who aren't extremely elderly or extremely rural don't have land-lines so it cuts down your sample

2: People are generally unwilling to take a phone survey, because they are elderly and/or rural and don't have leisure time for that shit, which cuts down your sample size

Most opinion polls are done at a polling center or on-line because even after the 15% margin of error of internet tomfollery, you still get a better sample. And they normally put the polling centers in different locations (usually shopping centers for different socioeconomic status) so you get a better sample. See, you have to have a sample that is representative of your public. Elderly people and people in an area so rural they have no cell signal can't be generalized, but it is easier (tho not perfect) to generalize from the two media above combined, because significantly more people have internet service than have landline service, and even if they don't, they generally are going to buy food.

It's the same reason that scientists are no longer allowed to use samples made up entirely of undergraduate students wanting extra credit.

 

[toubab]

No, I mean any type of phone polling. When you take statistical design and analysis classes, or any classes on statistics, you learn that you aren't allowed to use phone polls because

1: You aren't legally allowed to do them on cell phones in most states and most people who aren't extremely elderly or extremely rural don't have land-lines so it cuts down your sample

2: People are generally unwilling to take a phone survey, because they are elderly and/or rural and don't have leisure time for that shit, which cuts down your sample size

Most opinion polls are done at a polling center or on-line because even after the 15% margin of error of internet tomfollery, you still get a better sample. And they normally put the polling centers in different locations (usually shopping centers for different socioeconomic status) so you get a better sample. See, you have to have a sample that is representative of your public. Elderly people and people in an area so rural they have no cell signal can't be generalized, but it is easier (tho not perfect) to generalize from the two media above combined, because significantly more people have internet service than have landline service, and even if they don't, they generally are going to buy food.

It's the same reason that scientists are no longer allowed to use samples made up entirely of undergraduate students wanting extra credit.

I don't know how you got the idea that phone polling isn't allowed. It's not only allowed, it's the most common form of political polling, and is considered extremely reliable, in the aggregate. Rasmussen does automated polling, which is considered less reliable than human operator polling, but it is still included in most averages.

 

[CandiCame]

I don't know how you got the idea that phone polling isn't allowed. It's not only allowed, it's the most common form of political polling, and is considered extremely reliable, in the aggregate. Rasmussen does automated polling, which is considered less reliable than human operator polling, but it is still included in most averages.

I got the idea from college? And also life experience? I've /done/ political polling every year since I was a freshman in high school. It's always been done at poll points the way I mentioned above. Phone polls aren't admissible for publication in, say, sociology or government publications. I'm not sure why you think they are? And even if they were they'd be super unreliable. If you're doing it for a client- like say my cousin who ran for magistrate a few months ago, they'd be completely meaningless, so you COULD do them, but there'd be no point whatsoever, so why would you waste the time or energy? The last time I remember actually doing phone polling was in the 00s when I was still in high school handing out fucking balloons at black gold. And that was only because it was hot as fuck and nobody wanted to do the polling point booths, so they let us take shifts and do phone polls. They knew they were useless but it gave the teenagers something to do that wasn't fucking sucking helium out of the balloon machines. And we knew it was busy work, and complained about it loudly. And that was almost a decade ago.

Because seriously, it was hot as fuck. And the phone polls were useless even then.

 

[CandiCame]

Also, apparently a 10-second google search will turn up those same results and problems I explained.

I did learn, however that phone polls are often used by conservative groups for what they call "straw polls", which are used to drum up awareness. Apparently a lot of elderly folk tend to vote conservative so when you do a type of poll that uses the elderly as your primary source, like a phone poll, it can't be generalized, but it gives a decent idea of what the elderly think. And if that's your primary constitutes, it can be beneficial to you. But that still doesn't allow you to publish in a peer reviewed publication.

 

[Liar]

The GOP almost always has the enthusiasm advantage, don't they?

 

[Que]

The GOP almost always has the enthusiasm advantage, don't they?

In Midterms, for sure.

A chunk of the Democrats, probably 5-8% only show up for the Presidential Elections. They like Homecoming and voting for the Prom King and Queen.

 

[CandiCame]

BTW, this year we can do our polling via smartphones, because literally all we're doing at the poll booths is the internet poll on our phones.

There's an app for that.

 

[CandiCame]

In Midterms, for sure.

A chunk of the Democrats, probably 5-8% only show up for the Presidential Elections. They like Homecoming and voting for the Prom King and Queen.

We get a pretty good turnout for all parties for local elections here but we have some aggressive ass campaigners. I mentioned in a different thread how the conservative turnout for primaries was a tad bigger for senate, but Grimes still wound up with nearly double McCain's vote. But the 'tad' wound up being less than 1% I think? I can't remember off the top of my head because it wasn't a race I gave a shit about (I called that one months ago) but it's kinda relivent to your comment. But not that much, Because it's just locally.

 

[Liar]

If it's the 2012 election all over again, Democrats are in big, big trouble, because most polling was extremely accurate and extremely predictive of actual results in 2012. Ask Nate Silver.

No, most polling wasn't extremely accurate. Aggregates of polls combined with historical and other analysis, as done by Silver and other, was.

That said, the Dems are in trouble, based on three things:

1. Midterms when their guy is the president. Not to mention his approval ratings are lackluster.
2. More seats to lose in the Senate.
3. The same House map that let the GOP keep it in 2012 despite getting fever votes.

As simple as that. But also not news to anyone.

 

[toubab]

No, I mean any type of phone polling. When you take statistical design and analysis classes, or any classes on statistics, you learn that you aren't allowed to use phone polls because

1: You aren't legally allowed to do them on cell phones in most states and most people who aren't extremely elderly or extremely rural don't have land-lines so it cuts down your sample

2: People are generally unwilling to take a phone survey, because they are elderly and/or rural and don't have leisure time for that shit, which cuts down your sample size

Most opinion polls are done at a polling center or on-line because even after the 15% margin of error of internet tomfollery, you still get a better sample. And they normally put the polling centers in different locations (usually shopping centers for different socioeconomic status) so you get a better sample. See, you have to have a sample that is representative of your public. Elderly people and people in an area so rural they have no cell signal can't be generalized, but it is easier (tho not perfect) to generalize from the two media above combined, because significantly more people have internet service than have landline service, and even if they don't, they generally are going to buy food.

It's the same reason that scientists are no longer allowed to use samples made up entirely of undergraduate students wanting extra credit.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Almost all political polling in the US is done by telephone. Millions of dollars are spent on it, and it's considered invaluable.

 

[toubab]

Also, apparently a 10-second google search will turn up those same results and problems I explained.

I did learn, however that phone polls are often used by conservative groups for what they call "straw polls", which are used to drum up awareness. Apparently a lot of elderly folk tend to vote conservative so when you do a type of poll that uses the elderly as your primary source, like a phone poll, it can't be generalized, but it gives a decent idea of what the elderly think. And if that's your primary constitutes, it can be beneficial to you. But that still doesn't allow you to publish in a peer reviewed publication.

Bullshit. I've given you the facts, and it has nothing to do with conservatives or straw polls. Everybody uses telephone polling, including Democrats and liberals. Internet polling is considered trash, for the most part.

 

[toubab]

The GOP almost always has the enthusiasm advantage, don't they?

No. They certainly didn't in 2008, or even in 2012. They did in 2010, and it appears they will this year. Depends on who sits in the White House, and whether it's a midterm election or not.

 

[toubab]

BTW, this year we can do our polling via smartphones, because literally all we're doing at the poll booths is the internet poll on our phones.

There's an app for that.

I don't know why you keep talking about poll booths. I've told you how political polling is usually done in the US.

 

[toubab]

No, most polling wasn't extremely accurate. Aggregates of polls combined with historical and other analysis, as done by Silver and other, was.

That said, the Dems are in trouble, based on three things:

1. Midterms when their guy is the president. Not to mention his approval ratings are lackluster.
2. More seats to lose in the Senate.
3. The same House map that let the GOP keep it in 2012 despite getting fever votes.

As simple as that. But also not news to anyone.

Almost every polling company in the US had Obama winning the election. Nate Silver relied primarily on those polls to predict, although he would object to that word, the winner in fifty out of fifty states.

It does seem to be news to some people here that the Democrats are going to take a bad beating in November.

 

[Liar]

No. They certainly didn't in 2008, or even in 2012. They did in 2010, and it appears they will this year. Depends on who sits in the White House, and whether it's a midterm election or not.

Iirc, they lead in 'likely voters' leading up to 2012 too. Maybe I only remember an outlier.

 

[toubab]

Iirc, they lead in 'likely voters' leading up to 2012 too. Maybe I only remember an outlier.

There were only two reputable ones that I remember having Romney leading by a small margin, and they both crashed to nearly nothing after Sandy hit, so it was clear that Obama had big momentum right before the election. The vast majority had Obama ahead all the way, in likely voters and every other category.

 

[CandiCame]

I don't know why you keep talking about poll booths. I've told you how political polling is usually done in the US.

Alrighty. Have fun in your fantasy land of... useless information? That tells you nothing.

 

[Liar]

Almost every polling company in the US had Obama winning the election. Nate Silver relied primarily on those polls to predict, although he would object to that word, the winner in fifty out of fifty states.

It does seem to be news to some people here that the Democrats are going to take a bad beating in November.

That's the Presidential election. It was pretty obvious to everyone but Karl Rove and Dick Morris that Obama was the clear favorite.

I'm talking about Congress. Which is what is at stake this year.

If you define losing the senate in a year where that less mathematically likely than even the last two elections, and not regaining the house, which is also mathematically unlikely, 'a bad beating' instead of an ordinary but predictable loss, then sure.

I define 'a bad beating' as something more fierce. Finally losing a Senate majority that they should have lost in 2010 if they didn't have a 20 seat margin to work with, and in 2012 if the Republicans didn't stupidly board the rape train, is not a bad beating. It's common inertia.

 

[toubab]

Alrighty. Have fun in your fantasy land of... useless information? That tells you nothing.

You're the one talking nonsense. Check this out:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

 

[toubab]

That's the Presidential election. It was pretty obvious to everyone but Karl Rove and Dick Morris that Obama was the clear favorite.

I'm talking about Congress. Which is what is at stake this year.

If you define losing the senate in a year where that less mathematically likely than even the last two elections, and not regaining the house, which is also mathematically unlikely, 'a bad beating' instead of an ordinary but predictable loss, then sure.

I define 'a bad beating' as something more fierce. Finally losing a Senate majority that they should have lost in 2010 if they didn't have a 20 seat margin to work with, and in 2012 if the Republicans didn't stupidly board the rape train, is not a bad beating. It's common inertia.

If the Republicans take control of the Senate, that will be a bad beating for the Democrats. A very, very bad beating.