FiveThirtyEight.com

[LightBulb]

Have you seen the latest polls at FiveThirtyEight.com?

This website uses statistics to weight the polls based on how accurate each poll has historically been, how recent it is, etc. Afterward, 10,000 voting scenarios considering these statistics are run.

Right now, it's predicting an electoral spread of 349.2 (Obama) to 188.8 (McCain).

What do you think of this, and do you have any favorite political sites to share?

[LightBulb]

My bad, didn't mean to repost this. Please delete at your convenience.

Hugs and kisses!
LB

[Kevin]

Realclearpolitics.com has a pretty accurate poll as well.

Drudgereport is good stuff if you don't mind the slant.

Digg.com to see what the crazies are saying.

[KSigkid]

I like fivethirtyeight.com a lot - as I've mentioned before on here, I'm a big fan of Nate Silver's baseball work, so I was happy to see him doing work on politics.

I also frequently check out the Rasmussen website.

[UGAalum94]

Although I don't know if McCain can win, I don't think he's going to lose by the margins showing.

I admit that I, of course, have no way of knowing what will happen in the future and how well pollsters are tracking in the present, but the couple of articles that I've read explaining that polls are trying to predict for changes in new registrations and likely voters make me think that there may be a lot bigger actual margin of error than is being accounted for when people report results.

I also think that people responding to polls may be less likely to admit to supporting McCain while there is so much negative coverage of McCain and Palin rallies and supporters. (This may or may not go beyond whatever Bradly/Wilder effect may exist.)

ETA: I was Wikipedia-ing Bradly Effect after I posted, and they mention the Shy Tory Factor and the Spiral of Silence to describe what I mean.)

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I also think that people responding to polls may be less likely to admit to supporting McCain while there is so much negative coverage of McCain and Palin rallies and supporters. (This may or may not go beyond whatever Bradly/Wilder effect may exist.)

Wouldn't those people just say they were "undecided," then?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Wouldn't those people just say they were "undecided," then?

Apparently not in the cases where they've tracked this stuff in the past, but I don't know really. I think the deal is they give the answer to the pollster that they think makes them look good.

The polls all may be dead-on for all I know, but the next time you are looking at a particular polls results, look for the breakdown of who participated in the sample and see if the breakdown looks right to you. Maybe it is with new registrants, but we probably won't know until election day.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Although I don't know if McCain can win, I don't think he's going to lose by the margins showing.

I admit that I, of course, have no way of knowing what will happen in the future and how well pollsters are tracking in the present, but the couple of articles that I've read explaining that polls are trying to predict for changes in new registrations and likely voters make me think that there may be a lot bigger actual margin of error than is being accounted for when people report results.

I also think that people responding to polls may be less likely to admit to supporting McCain while there is so much negative coverage of McCain and Palin rallies and supporters. (This may or may not go beyond whatever Bradly/Wilder effect may exist.)

ETA: I was Wikipedia-ing Bradly Effect after I posted, and they mention the Shy Tory Factor and the Spiral of Silence to describe what I mean.)

All of this does occur, as does simple regression to the mean and backlash to the frontrunner - Silver's models use varying ways to account for this, mostly based on historical comparison, and it's still a 90%+ shot for an Obama victory.

Additionally, we can't account for racism, and that will certainly play a role in the actual lever-pull moment for some portion of the population, but unless there is something incredible that happens, you're looking at a massive edge for Obama and all of the momentum going his direction. That conclusion certainly passes the smell test for me, even accounting for psychological effects of polling and similar.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

All of this does occur, as does simple regression to the mean and backlash to the frontrunner - Silver's models use varying ways to account for this, mostly based on historical comparison, and it's still a 90%+ shot for an Obama victory.

Additionally, we can't account for racism, and that will certainly play a role in the actual lever-pull moment for some portion of the population, but unless there is something incredible that happens, you're looking at a massive edge for Obama and all of the momentum going his direction. That conclusion certainly passes the smell test for me, even accounting for psychological effects of polling and similar.

Yeah, I don't know that McCain can win although I'm still hoping, but as I said, I don't think the 14 point lead from last week will match up with reality.

It was the size of the lead that seemed so far off. It's apparently narrowing this week.

And maybe it's because I'm supporting McCain but I don't think the reluctance to own up to supporting him is even predominately a reflection of racism on the part of McCain voters.

I think many people who plan to vote for McCain aren't talking about it because it's not worth feeling like you have to defend yourself to a bunch of people whose political opinions you may not value.

Even though race is clearly involved in the Bradley effect, I'm not sure that the reason that people vote the way they do (in elections where its affect has been assumed) is particularly attributable to racism by the voters who vote against the black candidate. It may have more to do with the fear of having your motivation judged to be racist when you are asked in advance if you support the black candidate. It's far easier and I think pretty common to in a lot of, even non-political, instances to offer public approval for figures who you might be judged to be a racist if you publicly disapprove of, even if you have specific and non-race based reasons for your disapproval.

There's absolutely no risk in showing approval and a big risk of seeming racist in disapproving.

[PhiGam]

There is no way that I live in a blue state... stupid south floridians.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

There is no way that I live in a blue state... stupid south floridians.

Oh, it's not just South Florida that makes Florida "barely Democratic," it looks like only the far west and the North-Central Area are committed GOP all the time...between Alachua County and Tampa, it's pretty purple. Around Tallahassee, it's more blue (because of the predominantly AA areas just west and north of Tally).

The same thing happens with NY State, to some extent. NYC and the southern tier (and maybe some of the areas around Buffalo) make it a blue state, while most of upstate NY is pretty conservative.

This is all a moo point for me, 'cause I sent in my ballot last week.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Oh, it's not just South Florida that makes Florida "barely Democratic," it looks like only the far west and the North-Central Area are committed GOP all the time...between Alachua County and Tampa, it's pretty purple. Around Tallahassee, it's more blue (because of the predominantly AA areas just west and north of Tally).

The same thing happens with NY State, to some extent. NYC and the southern tier (and maybe some of the areas around Buffalo) make it a blue state, while most of upstate NY is pretty conservative.

This is all a moo point for me, 'cause I sent in my ballot last week.

Ah, a "moo point;" a point only a cow would make.

It's crazy how there can be such a division within a state; NY state is especially stark, in my experience. Going from the city to upstate is like night and day.

[AGDee]

We have the same division in Michigan. You have Detroit and you have the rest of the state. It's primarily the county that Detroit is in that wins out because of it's higher population. And, when you think about people's life experience and how it shapes their political opinions, it makes a lot of sense.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

We have the same division in Michigan. You have Detroit and you have the rest of the state. It's primarily the county that Detroit is in that wins out because of it's higher population. And, when you think about people's life experience and how it shapes their political opinions, it makes a lot of sense.

Are you talking about a wealth-party affiliation correlation? That may be the case in Michigan, but I think, at times, people are too quick to make that connection.

As someone from a lower middle-class, Democrat background who is a registered Republican, I'm probably a bit more sensitive to that issue than I should be. But, I also think people tend to make too many assumptions when trying to draw those parallels.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Ah, a "moo point;" a point only a cow would make.

It's crazy how there can be such a division within a state; NY state is especially stark, in my experience. Going from the city to upstate is like night and day.

I think the FL divide is even more stark than the NY divide, but it's very similar--an agricultural north primarily made up of natives, with a more cosmopolitan south primarily made up of people who aren't from the area. Florida is funny too because of all of the out-of-state retirees, both military and civilian, who make up a good percentage of the senior citizens in the state.

I don't think it's a wealth-party affiliation in Florida, but it's weird and someone should write a book on it for sure.