drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:4) What the hell are you arguing?

you should probably lie down

you've been going on & on about undecideds. Various of us have more or less gently suggested, with references, that the evidence for your theory about how undecideds behave is ... inconclusive. You've continued to barrel on, apparently undeterred.

Your own behavior has demonstrated momentum of a sort, which probably says something about something

phdave and Bucky both suggested a major difference between Silver's model and the current polls is undecideds are accounted in Silver's model (i.e. it's a projection of what the actual election outcome will be), while they are obviously not allocated to either candidate in the polling averages. This difference is a possible explanation for why Silver's model is giving a different result. I think the real differences between Silver's model and the polling averages are 1) he seems to build out from state polls in addition to using the national polls, 2) his model includes an economic fundamentals component (which is dwindling as a percentage of the model as the election approaches), 3) the weights and partisan adjustments he applies to certain pollsters. I do not think the idea that Silver is projecting the actual election result compared to the polling averages (now cast and November 6th) holds much merit for explaining the differences because the evidence that does exist (as Nate has written) is challengers tend to do better compared to what they're polling than incumbents do. This evidence is not an iron clad rule, and due to the extremely small sample sizes, it's not conclusive. BUT it's certainly something that would argue against the allocation of more undecideds toward the incumbent rather than the challenger.

Are you following?

{sigh} The hurrier you go, the behinder you get

CalvinBall wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Do they call cell phones

Some do.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Polls that include cell phones probably sway more towards Obama.

CalvinBall wrote:ann coulter is insane. her using "retard" is only a problem bc the liberal victims made it so.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1923459403001/

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I think it's generally agreed upon in political science that if the poll uses cell phones then it is more accurate than an identical poll with just landlines.

Polls that include cell phones probably sway more towards Obama.

Cue the douche who thinks I'm just stealing from Silver.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:4) What the hell are you arguing?

you should probably lie down

you've been going on & on about undecideds. Various of us have more or less gently suggested, with references, that the evidence for your theory about how undecideds behave is ... inconclusive. You've continued to barrel on, apparently undeterred.

Your own behavior has demonstrated momentum of a sort, which probably says something about something

phdave and Bucky both suggested a major difference between Silver's model and the current polls is undecideds are accounted in Silver's model (i.e. it's a projection of what the actual election outcome will be), while they are obviously not allocated to either candidate in the polling averages. This difference is a possible explanation for why Silver's model is giving a different result. I think the real differences between Silver's model and the polling averages are 1) he seems to build out from state polls in addition to using the national polls, 2) his model includes an economic fundamentals component (which is dwindling as a percentage of the model as the election approaches), 3) the weights and partisan adjustments he applies to certain pollsters. I do not think the idea that Silver is projecting the actual election result compared to the polling averages (now cast and November 6th) holds much merit for explaining the differences because the evidence that does exist (as Nate has written) is challengers tend to do better compared to what they're polling than incumbents do. This evidence is not an iron clad rule, and due to the extremely small sample sizes, it's not conclusive. BUT it's certainly something that would argue against the allocation of more undecideds toward the incumbent rather than the challenger.

Are you following?

{sigh} The hurrier you go, the behinder you get

I'm so confused.

What is your point?

drsmooth wrote:jerz, i'm not trying to be flip. I don't have time today to unravel the tail-chasing you're engaging in in a way that's fair to you. The best I can say at the moment is that you seem to be insisting that if someone - anyone - says there is not much evidence that undecideds break for challengers, that must mean they're saying that undecideds break for incumbents. I'm pretty sure that you, most days, know that doesn't hold.

RICHMOND, Va.—President Barack Obama phoned Colin Powell Thursday to thank him for endorsing him for a second term, a White House official said.

Powell, the former secretary of state under Republican President George W. Bush, endorsed Obama in 2008 and told CBS in an interview Thursday morning that he still supports him.

"The president is very appreciative of the endorsement," White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer told reporters on a plane ride from Tampa, Fla., where Obama held a rally. "He called Colin Powell this morning before the event to thank him."

The president did not discuss a possible endorsement with Powell before Thursday's announcement and was unaware he would give it, Pfeiffer said.

"We did not have a heads-up that he was going to do this," he said. "The president spoke to Colin Powell recently and Colin Powell did not give us any indication what he was going to do."

Powell said he was impressed with Obama's record on the economy and criticized Republican challenger Mitt Romney for his positions on foreign policy.

Doll Is Mine wrote:

RICHMOND, Va.—President Barack Obama phoned Colin Powell Thursday to thank him for endorsing him for a second term, a White House official said.

Powell, the former secretary of state under Republican President George W. Bush, endorsed Obama in 2008 and told CBS in an interview Thursday morning that he still supports him.

"The president is very appreciative of the endorsement," White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer told reporters on a plane ride from Tampa, Fla., where Obama held a rally. "He called Colin Powell this morning before the event to thank him."

The president did not discuss a possible endorsement with Powell before Thursday's announcement and was unaware he would give it, Pfeiffer said.

"We did not have a heads-up that he was going to do this," he said. "The president spoke to Colin Powell recently and Colin Powell did not give us any indication what he was going to do."

Powell said he was impressed with Obama's record on the economy and criticized Republican challenger Mitt Romney for his positions on foreign policy.

That settles it.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm saying that the allocation of undecideds is a poor explanation for the difference between Silver's model and the polling averages.

jerseyhoya wrote:I must be missing where Nate explains why you'd expect undecideds to break toward the incumbent there.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think most of the best evidence still suggests challengers tend to do better than incumbents.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm arguing there is little evidence to suggest an incumbent should do better among undecided voters than a challenger; there is some evidence to suggest a challenger does better among undecided voters than an incumbent.

pacino wrote:Florida: Romney 50%, Obama 49% (Gravis)

Iowa:: Obama 49%, Romney 47% (Public Policy Polling)

Michigan: Obama 47%, Romney 47% (Foster McCollum)

Virginia: Obama 51%, Romney 46% (Public Policy Polling)

Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling)