Meet the republican white knight. The man who will single-handedly put Mitt in the White House. http://unskewedpolls.com/ UnSkewed Polls -- erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics: Romney +7.4 nationally
HuffPo's take on "Unskewed Polls" Perhaps you've heard of "Unskewed Polls," the new conservative invention that holds that Romney is actually out to a significant lead, everywhere based on space algebra? Well, one thing you need to recognize is that this effort is not really about helping Romney get elected. If you're in a close election, you don't tell your base that you secretly have the election in the bag! Fear is always a better motivator than complacency -- recall that when the Obama campaign was concerned about their cash reserves, they sent out the worrisome warning, "We will be outspent." And lo, the Obama campaign made up significant ground. So you should look at "Unskewed Polls" as less of a strategic effort to get Romney elected, and more of a long-game effort to mount a war against pollsters once the election is over. (They will magically have a case, no matter which way the election turns out: if Obama wins, pollsters are in the tank; if Romney wins, pollsters are terrible and wrong about everything.)
I think discrediting pollsters, while ridiculous, would be kind of cool. I'd love to see two campaigns duke it out with no knowledge of who's winning, by how much, what states are in play, etc. They'd actually have to pick a strategy, run a national campaign instead of micro-targeting messages and adjusting based on poll results.
All he does is change the party ID weighting of polls to what Rasmussen samples every month, which is R +4 or something. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends But the makeup of the country is not necessarily the make up of the electorate. I believe Rasmussen predicts a D+2 or D+3 makeup of actual voters. This is between 2004 (D/R even) and 2008 (D +7) , which sounds about right. But no one really knows. There is no evidence anywhere of Obama surpassing his 2008 support levels (voter registration, crowd size, fundraising), and pollsters using higher D samples than 2008 have no basis for doing so. Either they will look stupid on election day or they will suddenly find evidence of the race "tightening" as we get closer to the election and they have to salvage their credibility.
Or, like 2004 when Democrats complained about pollster bias in undersampling them, the pollsters will be proven right and this guy will be a footnote that everyone forgets about. The most amusing thing is that his latest "unskewed" poll shows Obama winning. I wonder what will happen to his convenient "credibility" amongst the right if more and more show that.
Of course there is; voter enthusiasm It stands to reason more people will identify themselves with the perceived winner. More people identify themselves as democrat because a democrat is winning. TPM explains it better than I can. “Unskewed,” however, after applying Rasmussen’s numbers on party ID, Romney leads Obama 52-45 in the poll. It’s like magic. But Chambers insists he isn’t “changing” or “making up” data. “The only thing I’m doing is weighting.” But that’s exactly what most pollsters don’t do. “We don’t have any preconceived notions about the party breakdown of a poll before we conduct it. The only things we make any adjustments for are gender, race, and age,” Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling’s Tom Jensen told TPM in an email. “It makes sense that as support for Obama increases, more people also identify themselves as Democrats. I know conservatives want to think it’s more Democrats in the poll causing Obama to do better, but it’s actually Obama doing better causing more Democrats in the poll.” “The reality is that (Republicans are) losing, they can’t accept it, and they’re going to find some reason to dismiss every poll that makes them unhappy no matter what its composition is,” Jensen added. “This isn’t really about Party ID, it’s about hardcore denial.”
I missed this part. Out of curiosity, did you just make it up? The Obama campaign has more donors this time around than last. As of the last report, his overall fundraising was comparable to 2008, and ahead when looking at small donors (breadth of voters). Racial demographics have also have shifted in the Democrats' favor, so if the 2008 election were to be recreated with today's population, Obama would win by a larger amount.
but not relative to GOP fundraising That's fair. Actually the racial demographics hurt Obama, because white turnout was way down in 2008. http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/26/the-reality-of-2012-voter-turnout-the-white-voter/
And upon seeing his new haircut -- and his true self -- for the first time, Louie Anderson could no longer find anything funny at all.
I wonder if, come November 7, this guy will unskew the actual election result to match the party ID of Rasmussen Polls and tell us that Romney should have won.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xIFJLMyUwrg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Obama Campaign Nearing 10 Million Donations according to an email from campaign manager Jim Messina. "Tomorrow, we could hit 10 million grassroots donations in 2012 alone," he said. "It would be a historic milestone in grassroots politics, and a huge win for our way of building a campaign." According to Messina, the campaign had 9,725,074 donations as of Saturday night.
