- We will not know which polling firm had the best turnout model until after the election.
- Based on previous history, having a good turnout model in previous election cycles does not necessarily mean that you will have a good turnout model in this one.
- A poll is not accurate simply because it agrees with you; in fact, a poll is often not accurate even when it agrees with the end result.
- Every criticism about the assumptions made in a particular turnout model will itself be based on assumptions.
And everybody in the business will agree to the above, with the private caveat Except for my favorite polling firm, of course.
Moe Lane
PS: What? No, there’s been no new polling, particularly. But this has to be brought up sometime.
Perhaps not, but it seems absurd that the media can base polls on turnout models that EXCEED Democrat turnout in 2008, when HopenChange was at its peek and Obama was an enigma everyone wanted to enshrine.
I mean, I’m not expecting the Tea Party to be as motivated as they were in 2010 either. But I do think a model pretty close to flat is looking right, and yet I don’t see polls with anything near that. Even from so called Republican pollsters like Rasmussen.
Shawn – “Romney landslide” doesn’t sell papers, and doesn’t support the “close”(enough to steal) model. (waves at Sen Smalley D-MN)
On my site, I broke down last week’s CNN poll using various partisan models. With an actual 2008 partisan breakdown, Romney was within the margin of error. With a 2004 model, Romney is *ahead* by slightly more than the margin of error. Using Rasmussen’s current partisan breakdown, Romney leads by 8…in a poll that CNN reported Obama leading by 6.
Frankly, I have a hard time believing that Romney would lose by 6 points in any election where he wins independents by 14 (as he does in the CNN poll sample).
BTW, acat, you can feel free to slap (Acting) Senator Fraudken instead of just waving at him. I would, as he pretends to represent me.