Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
I'm going with this Nate Silver Analysis on Swing states (10/11/12)
Reasons to Prefer State Polls to National Polls
Our research suggests, however, that when the state polls and the national polls seem to tell a different story about the state of the campaign, the state polls sometimes (not always, by any means) get it right.
One case in point: national polls on the eve of the 2000 election were consistent with about a three-point lead for George W. Bush. But the collective evidence from state polling was suggestive of a nearly tied race. In fact, the conventional wisdom at that time was that Mr. Bush might win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College — exactly the opposite of the outcome that occurred.
The state polling generally told the more accurate story, however, describing a tossup race, rather than one favoring Mr. Bush.
Similarly, in 1996, most national polls showed Bill Clinton winning by double-digits, while battleground state polls seemed to suggest that he would win by a smaller amount. Mr. Clinton’s actual margin of victory was eight and a half percentage points, more in line with the state polling.
Our research suggests, however, that when the state polls and the national polls seem to tell a different story about the state of the campaign, the state polls sometimes (not always, by any means) get it right.
One case in point: national polls on the eve of the 2000 election were consistent with about a three-point lead for George W. Bush. But the collective evidence from state polling was suggestive of a nearly tied race. In fact, the conventional wisdom at that time was that Mr. Bush might win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College — exactly the opposite of the outcome that occurred.
The state polling generally told the more accurate story, however, describing a tossup race, rather than one favoring Mr. Bush.
Similarly, in 1996, most national polls showed Bill Clinton winning by double-digits, while battleground state polls seemed to suggest that he would win by a smaller amount. Mr. Clinton’s actual margin of victory was eight and a half percentage points, more in line with the state polling.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/oct-10-is-romney-leading-right-now/
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
They stole the election for George Bush.
Jeb Bush had state troopers searching people's cars and causing long line-ups in certain areas etc.
And yes, the 'Butterfly Ballot' was designed so that unfortunately in one Jewish area where it was used, several hundred Jewish voters who meant to vote for Gore checked off Bush by mistake. It was designed to confuse people because the name of the person you wanted to vote for was not directly across the line from the name - it was diagonally apportioned.
