Polls Oversampling Democrats?

Some of the polls are continuing to use the expected voter numbers from 2008, where voter participation for many traditional Dem groups like African-Americans were at record level, example? Normally black voters are 11% of the electorate in a presidential race, but in 2008 they were 14% of voters.

Do you honestly expect Dems are still going to be supporting Obama in record numbers after years of disappointing the liberal base, especially in foreign affairs?

In your dreams... But hey, if Bay Buchanan, that screeching harpy, said it, it must be true!

It's obviously a desperate and sad morning for you... Don't worry.. It gets better... I remember how I felt when the morons in America re-elected the Idiot Son the second time.

So you expect Obama to get just as many Dem voters as last time? And as many Republican and Independent?

Rasmussen is supposed to be the most accurate compared to final results. And most of the others consistently over estimated the strength of Democrats, whatever that is worth.

I found it interesting that the poll data are "adjusted" for likely voters by age and race, based on the percentages from recent elections. Its not usually raw data.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkrogue/2 ... 2008-2004/

"The Rasmussen Reports Daily President Tracking Polls show that Mitt Romney and President Obama are each receiving 46% of the support of voters around the nation. Five percent (5%) are undecided, and three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate.

And the candidates are both tied at 48% when “leaners” are included. "

FredHayek wrote: So you expect Obama to get just as many Dem voters as last time? And as many Republican and Independent?

I don't know if he will or not... I DO expect him to beat Money-Boo-Boo like a red-headed step-child... And that's good enough for me.

I frankly don't care about Rasmussen... They lean right, they've always leaned right, and they are not relevant to me.

So do you think that weighing the polls according to the participation seen in 2008 produces an accurate poll? Young voter participation doubled in 2008 over 2004 levels. Do you expect that to be the case in 2012 as well?

Forget about who it is that first noted that all of the major polls are weighted according to 2008 participation levels for a moment, because it is frankly irrelevant to the premise that the polls done according to such weighting standards are an inaccurate measure of the current political landscape.

It is, after all, not in question that the current polls are being weighted using participation data from 2008, is it? I haven't seen a single rebuttal that contradicts that allegation. I haven't seen a single rebuttal to the claim that when the same weights used in 2004 are applied to the polls, the results of the polls are drastically changed.

Do you think that participation levels seen in 2008 are outliers or the new normal? That they are significantly different from the participation rates seen over the last 30 to 40 years is a demonstrable reality, not some figment of someone's imagination. Participation rates in 2004 were much closer to historical averages than 2008, which was without precedent by anyone's accounting. Is weighting today's polls using data gleaned from an unprecedented election statistically sound? I'm not a statistician by trade, so I have no ability to answer that question accurately, but I think it a fair one to be asking.

Over sampling leaves the public with a feeling that the race is over and folks should just not bother to vote.....least that is what people tell me in conversations.....for what it is worth.
Democrats believe they are psychologically affecting the vote.

But we all know that teabaggers are supposed to be smarter than Democrats, and therefore immune from psychological games....Don't we?

The "unbiased" press and the Liberal Dems nationwide want you to believe that the race is over. No need to even go to the polls. It's in the bag.

You should have seen the front page of the LA Times this morning. You would have thought Mr. Obama had already won the election. But no, the press isn't in the bag for Mr. Obama at all....

This strategy may backfire on them. We will see when they take the only poll that counts on 6 Nov.

Democracy4Sale wrote: But we all know that teabaggers are supposed to be smarter than Democrats, and therefore immune from psychological games....Don't we?

The hardcore will still vote for Mitt no matter what, but it might inspire the Romney leaners to stay home.

Of course, a "decided" election can be a double edged sword. Some Dems might decide to stay home since Obama has already won, right. LJ doesn't even need to mail in her ballot.