There are eight current national polls that list separate sets of results for likely and registered voters. (In this case, for reasons that will be apparent momentarily, I am deliberately double-counting the two Gallup likely voter models). On average, Barack Obama leads by 9.8 points in the registered voter versions of these polls, but by 7.0 points in the likely voter versions -- nearly a 3-point difference:
Note, however, that the likely voter models appear to segregate themselves into two clusters. In one cluster, there is a rather large, 4-6 point difference between registered and likely voter results. In the other cluster, there is essentially no difference.
The first cluster coincides with Gallup's so-called "traditional" likely voter model, which considers both a voter's stated intention and his past voting behavior. The second cluster coincides with their "expanded" likely voter model, which considers solely the voter's stated intentions. Note the philosophical difference between the two: in the "traditional" model, a voter can tell you that he's registered, tell you that he's certain to vote, tell you that he's very engaged by the election, tell you that he knows where his polling place is, etc., and still be excluded from the model if he hasn't voted in the past. The pollster, in other words, is making a determination as to how the voter will behave. In the "expanded" model, the pollster lets the voter speak for himself.
Frankly, I find polls showing a 4-6 point gap between likely and registered voters to be utterly ridiculous. Why?
1. Among people who have already voted, Democrats lead overwhelmingly. Zogby pegs Barack Obama's advantage at 27 points among people who have already voted. The New York Times details how Democrats are overperforming, sometimes dramatically, in states where early voting is underway. (By the way, the New York Times' data on Florida is wrong, as it includes absentee ballot requests as well as early voters. According to an Open Left diarist, Democrats have a 24-point advantage among those who have actually voted early in Florida).
Pollsters ought to make certain that they're asking people whether they've already voted. Moreover, they ought to be putting these early voters through their likely voter models as a sanity check. That is, they should be testing to see whether a substantial number of people who have actually voted would in fact have been excluded by their likely voter screens. If the answer to this question is yes, they ought to be asking themselves whether their likely voter models have any basis in reality.
2. Enthusiasm is much higher among Democrats than among Republicans. The latest Diageo/Hotline numbers show that 72 percent of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting for their candidate, as opposed to 55 percent of Republicans.
3. Most likely voter models are unlikely to distinguish newly registered voters from what I would call lapsed registered voters. If someone is registered, and has been registered for a long while, but has not cast a ballot since they pulled the lever for Ross Perot in 1992, there is good reason to be skeptical about their intentions. On the other hand, voters who are newly registered have quite literally demonstrated their interest in the 2008 campaign; they are in fact quite likely to vote. Barack Obama's advantages are principally from among the newly-registered voter group.
4. There is an enormous discrepancy in the strength of the Republican and Democratic turnout operations. In past elections, such as 2004, this advantage favored the Republicans; in this one, it favors the Democrats. Barack Obama has somewhere between a 2:1 and a 4:1 advantage in field offices in most battleground states. He is relying almost exclusively on volunteers (the exception are a couple of cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, where Obama will most likely pay 'street money' to canvassers on Election Day). McCain, meanwhile, has already had to hire paid canvassers in Florida, and perhaps he will also in several other states.
5. Turnout among 'unlikely' voter blocks was substantially up during the Democratic primaries. Youth voters (18-29 year olds) increased their share of the Democratic electorate by 52 percent. Latino voters increased their share by 42 percent. Black voters increased their share by 8 percent.
I would like to issue a challenge to those pollsters like Franklin & Marshall and GfK which in spite of all the facts above, are showing a substantial shift toward the Republicans when they apply their likely voter models. E-mail me -- my contact information is at the top of the page -- and tell me why you think what you're doing is good science.
10.22.2008
Some Likely Voter Models are Suspect
by Nate Silver @ 2:52 PM...see also demographics, likely voters, methodology, pollsters, turnout models
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

311 comments
@ newsfromoh
An expert, McCain... I beg to differ although he is an experience politician.
He's neither an experience tactician
or an expert strategist.
I suspect that if he was either/or one of those the polls would reflect that in a more favorable projection for McCain/Palin.
But thank you for correcting me in interchanging strategy for tactic.
Here's more good news for Democrats:
Gregoire leads Rossi 51-39
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/152135.asp?from=blog_last3
This was expected to be a close race.
I have problems with using the 2004 numbers to extrapolate LV vs. RV, since the dynamics have changed so much, but I also don't see how you can use registration data from new registrants in 2008 to say that x% of the new registrants in 2008 are LV when only y% of registrants in 2004 voted. I think the reason a lot of the pollsters use the 2004 numbers is that their methodology can't justify using the 2008 data, for which there is no control group to validate assumptions. Many of these voters have never voted, and the primary season this year was different from any other, so no one has a good feel for how the primary results would reflect voting behavior in the general election. Also, until the market crash, the race was pretty close, so there wasn't really any motivation for questioning the 2004 weightings. The statistical universe hasn't changed as much as the political environment, and an October surprise (though unlikely) could still conceivably change it back.
There may be a way out. Although the turnouts for the congressional elections in 2002 and 2006 are lower than for the presidential elections, the trend line for RV vs. LV and Republican vs. Democrat between 2002 and 2006 is at least pointing in the right direction for the trends between 2004 and 2008. So I suggest taking the % delta between 2002 and 2006 in LV, Pubs and Dems and applying that delta to the 2004 data to obtain the statistical population weightings for the 2008 race. 2002 was probably the Republican peak over the past 8 years, so this skew may actually favor the Democrats too much.
On the other hand, I'm thinking black voter turnout could still flip GA and LA, so we'll call it fair.
Christopher said...
If you adjust for a 2-point CNN lead I think you get a good picture
Nevada: Obama 50, McCain 47
North Carolina: Obama 50, McCain 48
Ohio: Obama 49, McCain 47
Virginia: Obama 53, McCain 45
West Virginia: McCain 54, Obama 43
That seams a little bit more on target.
---------------
Where does this "2-point CNN lead" idea come from?
Is it normal for democrats to outnumber repubblicans in early voting ?
If there is a reason for heavy democrat aerly voting, what is the reason for weak repubblican ev ?
If repubblicans are following their usual ev patterns and democrat prevalence is confirmed, will this happen on election day as well ?
Is heavy EV screwing all polling estimates (including Nate's model) ?
The MSM needs something daniel for election night to keep things interesting even if it's phony stuff.
"Joel, are you Australian? I don't hear whinge much state-side."
Nope, but I lived out there a little while. Just love the term.
Obama at 50+ in ohio, nevada, NC, and at 54 in VA with a 10 point chasm there. I really wonder what the irrational hubbub is really all about in PA.
A close match race sells papers or ad space.
Where does this "2-point CNN lead" idea come from?
CNN has a Democratic lean. Just like Mason-Dixon, SurveyUSA have a republican lean.
Keep in mind, although we would want perfection from Nate, it's only a model based upon scientific and statistical rules.
FiveThirtyEight is only as good as the data supplied, the formulas that manipulate the data and the interpretation of that results.
Definitely not an exact science.
Because 538 uses the numbers including third party candidates. This is what you will be seeing with the polling update later today.
Nevada O-49, M-43
North Carolina O-51, M-46
Ohio O-49, M-44
Virginia O-51, M-44
West Virginia O-41, M-53
Details here
It gets even more interesting when you look at the CNN polls with RV instead of LV:
Nevada: 54-41 (difference of seven points)
North Carolina: 51-46 (difference of one point)
Ohio: 51-45 (difference of two points)
Virginia: 54-42 (difference of two points)
West Virginia: 44-51 (difference of two points)
there's no way that today's mason-dixon poll of fl is correct. . .it shows central fl at 39-53 (obama-mccain). imho, as a central florida resident, there is no way this is what is really going on. somehow their central fl sample is really biased.
"Where does this "2-point CNN lead" idea come from?"
Their polls have been about 2 points better for Obama than the average.
Mason-Dixon's republican lean is a sight to behold, indeed. From all the polls they've released in the last month, I can honestly say they always have Obama's lead around 4-5 points less than the consensus.
South Dakota - Argus Leader Media/KELO-TV
Obama - 41
McCain - 48
Details Here
Nate, there's another element to the Gallup LV model (I suspect to both their traditional and their expanded versions) that you don't touch on.
I don't know whether other pollsters also share this element.
Namely, Gallup constrains their predictions by imposing (assuming) an overall turnout rate on the data. For example, if they stipulate a priori that the overall turnout in the population is, say, 60%, then they then use some sort of iterative fitting procedure that generates 60% turnout from their respondent pool. See Mark Blumenthal's description of this here.
Mark Blumenthal also discussed Gallup's approach here.
As you well recall from the primary election season, most pollsters do not report their turnout assumptions. At the same time, polls tend to overestimate the likely turnout (not only for pre-election polls; post-election polls seriously overestimate the actual turnout that occurred during the preceding election).
Gallup, however, at least in their traditional LV pre-election estimates, tried to deflate the expected turnout from what the respondents as a whole reported. But this tended to favor even more those who were established rather than new voters.
The question remains, however, whether even now -- in its "expanded" LV model, Gallup continues to use a turnout assumption or constraint. If so, it could still be indirectly privileging some likely voters over others.
Mac is spending hundreds of thousands on ads in IN (did you say IN?). That's hundreds of thousands he won't have to spend in PA, OH & FL. Obama should flood IN, KY, GA & WV with ads over the next two weeks. Mac can't keep up with him, and Obama will pick off one of those states if he does that.
South Dakota - Argus Leader Media/KELO-TV
Obama - 41
McCain - 48
o_O
Actually, it's not that shocking. Nate's snapshot has McCain up only +9.2 in SD.
I guess this is why he is a professor of Poli Sci at an ag school in South Dakota..."Nationally, Aguilar said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama won by 20 percent or lost by 8 percent. This one is just so wild, it makes it difficult to predict what’s going to happen.”
Oh please.
Holy crap...anyone seeing this McCain interview with Wolf Blitzer?
He looks like the most cranky, irate old windbag ever.
He must know he's losing and has stopped caring.
guys go to PPP they are asking if we want a poll next week of Montana or WA
That South Dakota was performed by Mason-Dixon!
The Atlantic: Palin 'personal shopper' behind McCain robocalls
What is PPP's website?
These pollsters with BS LV models are partisan hacks that want Repubs to vote by highlighting the close election narrative.
Unfortunately, it is going to drive up the Dems to vote in massive numbers (thinking the race is close) and then embarrass these partisan pollsters and RCP, because they will be completely off the mark. LOL
shawn said...
What is PPP's website?
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
McCain knows the dire straights his campaign is in. He and his surrogates look at the same polls we look at.
They do internal polling, but not nearly on the scale and scope that Nate has compiled here.
The map is shrinking for the Repubs.
PPP poll here
Vote on poll of Washington or Montana.
"These pollsters with BS LV models are partisan hacks that want Repubs to vote by highlighting the close election narrative."
No, they aren't. They are simply using time-tested methods, lacking any better way of doing it.
My question now is: when they call VA for Obama on election night, is it all over or do we need to wait OH/FL and then possibly Colorado?
Though if they call NC for BHO, then it really is all over.
FiveThirtyEight weights mason-dixon about a .93.
That should be lowered.
"when they call VA for Obama on election night, is it all over or do we need to wait OH/FL and then possibly Colorado?"
Once they call VA, he needs either CO or PA.
New post up!
An article worth reading
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27323854/
Now I have two things to say about all of this,
First, if the McCain campaign does play the Jeremiah Wright card, its aimed at the African American audience. Mccain and his people want to get a rise out of you. He wants anger. They want it to be a 'them and us' election. So if you are an African American reading this (And lord only knows I hope Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or even Jeremiah Wright himself are) then this is your chance to be Jackie Robinson. Remember that Branch Rickey told Robinson that he couldn't react to the taunts and violence he suffered for the first few years of his Dodger career. Your job is to not react. To hold back, at least for a couple of weeks.
The second thought I have, is Palin works as a shield against most attacks you can hurl at Obama. Wright isn't my VP candidate, and here is video of Palin telling parts of America that they aren't 'real America'.
Remember, folks, that this is an electoral college election and not a national popular vote election. These national polls have little value and only as a general indicator of the direction of the vote.
Battleground State Analysis
Nate, I assume, rates the pollsters based on their performance during the primaries. It's likely entirely different during the election itself. Expect that list to change A LOT in one of Nate's post-election posts.
I'm paraphrasing some of this, so humor me...
Obama key point: "We are going to give a tax break to 95% of Americans."
McCain and his surrogates have stated dozens of times in response to this: "If that's technically true, that 95% of ALL Americans are getting a tax break from Obama, then Obama is stating that he's going to be giving money to many people who do not pay taxes in the first place... since the bottom 40% or so of Americans do not have sufficient income to pay taxes."
I've heard ONE time and ONE time only an Obama surrogate say in response to this McCain camp argument something like the following: "No, Obama is referring to 95% of the people who pay taxes, NOT 95% of all people... he will not be giving money to people who currently do not pay taxes."
I don't understand why, that if this is true - that Obama is actually not giving money to anyone who doesn't currently pay taxes - why isn't the Obama camp putting out ads, statements, etc everywhere clarifying this. Why is the Obama camp letting the McCain camp continuously attack Obama using the line that current taxpayers are going to be paying money directly to the bottom 40% of the of the population that do not currently pay taxes?
Anyone have any information to clarify this stuff?
@inkstain
Does the turnout at the primary act a a past tried and true predictor of LV turnout on election day?
Why are the more right leaning models showing heavy Repub numbers and the left leaning showing more heavy Dem LV numbers?
Seems partisan to me at face value.
Regardless of the rational for the pollsters, it doesn't matter in the end. It will crank up Dem numbers in the end to show a close election, since D enthusiasm is greater.
This is starting to get to me. I almost had a heart attack when they showed the fake one point lead, but then have Obama with 344 projected EV. I was confused. Thanks for the great analysis. I am getting tired of the one day yes one day no, it's close, it isn't. I can't wait until we finally KNOW!
Man, you are so rich once your projections prove right and your book is a bestseller =)
~Yari
"Why are the more right leaning models showing heavy Repub numbers and the left leaning showing more heavy Dem LV numbers?"
Isn't that just a tautology?
Just my 2 cents, but I think it's a little lazy to just toss data which effectively says there's ZERO chance of some subgroup participating - it would seem more reasonable to weight all the data based on the likelihood of participation. I think this may reduce some of the spread in the RV vs LV models and maybe make the LV models more accurate.
Servius said...
Fraud is much easier with early voting which is why the Dim Dems and ACORN bunch pushed for it.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? It seems to me that the longer the election officials have to look at the voter's ballot before they have to count it, the more time they would have to spot any fraud. So it seems a lot more likely that it would be a lot harder to get away with vote fraud in early voting, when the election officials have plenty of time, than it would be in the rush of election day.
The other thing you have to remember is that voter fraud is far, far rarer than the right wing likes to claim. In fact, the Bush administration fired a whole bunch of state attorneys-general that they had previously appointed, because these attorneys-general were unable to find any voter fraud to prosecute, despite looking hard for it.
Or are you using "fraud" as a code-word for "poor and colored people actually getting to vote"? If so, I agree with you -- it's a lot harder for the Republicans to carry out voter intimidation and "convenient shortages of voting machines" or to set up police checkpoints blocking routes to polling places in poor neighborhoods with early voting going on.
In short, vote early, once and once only.
Miss Virginia looks a lot like Yasmine Bleeth.
Once they call VA, he needs either CO or PA.
Considering that there are just not many paths where McCain can win the electoral college vote without winning PA, I'd watch for the results from that. New Hampshire also interests me, not so much because I think it'll go to McCain, but because it has quite clearly been in his corner for a long time.
Your post spurred me to look at the FM/Argyle study. They report interviewing 1,365 registered voters. I guess their likely voters are a subsample of their registered voters? Ain't that dirty pool?
I can't say for sure, but I get the feeling that RCP's news/editorial section has been skewing even more conservative over the past 48 hrs.
Somewhat tautological. I agree, but on face value, the biggest differences seem to be those polls favoring the Repub. (If only you could plot partisan lean on the pollster, against the model chosen). I think there is a correlation.
I guess we will have to wait and see who is surprised in the end. I still believe polling and the discussion of polls (esp. cherry-picking) is a maneuver to build a story for a candidate. We should either all talk about LV or RV.
Obama has great RV numbers, which means to me that the LV numbers should improve for him if enthusiasm is on his side, which it is. McCain wants a low voter turnout overall to win.
Also I am not behind the idea that only pure noise explains all poll data. Just my opinion.
Ted -
Because no one believes it. He was very clear in the debates.
As a tactic for McCain, it is failing. Their point is mostly "He's lying." Which doesn't lend itself to correction by Obama. But also doesn't sell well for McCain.
Nobama's gonna lose. You guys are going to wake up on the 5th wondering what happened. Watch.
anthony said...
Nobama's gonna lose. You guys are going to wake up on the 5th wondering what happened. Watch.
wow
I mean:
I am not behind the idea that only pure noise explains all the differences in reported polling data.
So Gallup publishes two models of LV. Gee take a stand and get off the fence. They want Dems and Repubs to both be happy.
It is like picking all the horses in the field and saying you picked the winner. Gallup is pathetic in doing that. I guess they are split on it down partisan lines.
"Somewhat tautological. I agree, but on face value, the biggest differences seem to be those polls favoring the Repub."
That's cognitive dissonance working. The polls that favor your preferred results at the credible ones, the outliers are the ones you don't want.
Neither LV model has been tested, I see no reason to give either preferential weight.
"It is like picking all the horses in the field and saying you picked the winner. Gallup is pathetic in doing that. I guess they are split on it down partisan lines."
What Gallup is doing is being intellectually honest. We simply don't know which turnout model will be correct, and none has been tested in this environment.
I suspect that the Obama-friendly one is closer to the truth, but lacking proof, I see no reason to reject either.
@ink
What do you think about Gallup having two models? Seems they are confused and want to be right by "throwing the kitchen sink" at polling this year. Once again just my opinion.
Look at you geeks!!! Getting all worked up about simulations and win percentages and probabilities. What is this? Science class? This is a fucking election!!! People can change their minds and opinions on a whim! And they will.
From a Democratic perspective, I hope the polls are underestimating Obama. First, because that means his real position is stronger. Second, because it keeps the troops motivated.
Nate Silver: I know I'm late to the party, but I stumbled on Sam Wang's discussion of this site. Did you ever issue a reply (I'd love to read it if you did)? I thought his article was unworthy of his education.
I think they are being intellectually honest.
If voter turnout turns out to be more like the past, then one is correct. If it turns out to be as transformative as some suspect, another is correct.
We don't know which will be true.
"Obama should flood IN, KY, GA & WV with ads over the next two weeks. Mac can't keep up with him, and Obama will pick off one of those states if he does that."
Obama will flood IN and has hige GOTV already in place.
KY is a down ballot play to get McConnell out.
WV is relatively cheap(they say 5mil is going into WV) plus the bleed over from VA, OH, PA markets they already have been getting.
GA is the best place for a pure win of those 4 listed. GA has huge GOTV in place already and had huge voter registration gains. The GA numbers look really good IMHO. New registrations of AA 480,000 and 1.6 million AA registration total that turned out at 72% rate in 2004 push that turnout up by 8% to 80% plus new AA voters. Also gains in other Dem voter registration demographics in the state. Bush won GA by 548,000. The AA influx plus increase AA turnout can potentially mean nearly 400,000 votes making the state close. Barr aill also take a few 2-3% from McCain.
"Look at you geeks!!! Getting all worked up about simulations and win percentages and probabilities. What is this? Science class? This is a fucking election!!! People can change their minds and opinions on a whim! And they will."
Someone's mad the geeks make more money than he does...
@ink
Is a turnout really biphasic? One model is right and the other is wrong. There is likely a blending of the two.
AP:
Palin stops near Joe the Plumber's Ohio hometown
"Is a turnout really biphasic? One model is right and the other is wrong. There is likely a blending of the two."
Well, every model is going to be slightly wrong, because it's a model and not reality.
But yes, I think one of the two will turn out to be mostly correct. I doubt we'll split the difference.
I agree a model is a model and history will be the judge of the best model.
I also honestly feel that the pollsters are going to be shocked this year and their models are off more so than in years past.
I'm done with this. You're right.
natetg said...
"...tell me why you think what you're doing is good science."
I'm not sure that science is an appropriate word for polling, but let's gloss over that.
The fundamental tenet of science is repeatability, and not plausability, and, historically speaking, republican voters are more likely to vote.
Presidential polling has such a low response rate that, in practical terms, the only reason to give it much credence is that it's worked in the past. (Hey, let's poll people and see what kind of likely voter rate the non-respondents have.)
I hate to tell you this, but you seem to have a misunderstanding about what science actually is. "Repeatability" is not one of the requirements. Replication is a hallmark of experimental methods, certainly, and these are widely used in hard sciences (particularly those thought of as laboratory sciences).
However, experimental methods are very difficult to apply to some fields due to the object of study: Astronomers can't experiment with stars, paleontologists can't experiment with dinosaurs, and political scientists can't experiment with elections.
Instead, these fields of study tend to use quasiexperimental methods to try to figure the best possible explanation for the available data. This is what things like linear regression, logit, probit, etc. are for -- they try to tease out the existing relationships, and you can then compare the model's predictions with actual data to determine how accurate it is (checking for both Type I and Type II errors). As long as you keep your predictions closely tied to theory (as opposed to just following the numbers and getting a garbage-in-garbage-out model), you're on solid scientific ground.
So -- yes, polling is indeed science, and it is held to those standards. Nate is absolutely right to call them on it, because it seems that their models have departed from the solid theoretical grounding necessary to support their conclusions about which people are likely to vote.
STepper: In the monotheistic tradition, God gets only one vote. As Vince Lombardi (maybe) once said about football games, "They all count one."
AP:
Obama campaign charging media Election Night fees
Media organizations will have to pay up if they want a prime spot to cover Democrat Barack Obama's Election Night party in a downtown lakefront park.
Obama's campaign, awash in money after raising a record-shattering $150 million last month, is asking news organizations to pay anywhere from $410 to $1,870 depending on where they want to be and if they want telephone or Internet service in Grant Park.
While it is customary for news organizations to pay their way when covering a presidential campaign, including transportation, hotels and Internet services, some have questioned the Obama campaign's plan.
"It smells a lot like paying for access," said Al Tompkins, a former TV news director who teaches broadcast and online journalism at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla.
For $1,870, a news organization can buy space on a main riser that will be covered, plus phone and Internet service, while $410 will get them space on a separate riser for photographers without out phone or Internet access, but with electrical power. A seat in a heated press filing center will cost $935 and include power, cable TV, Internet and food.
"I also honestly feel that the pollsters are going to be shocked this year and their models are off more so than in years past."
That's my best guess, too. But I just don't want to poopoo those that disagree, I see their points as well.
"
Media organizations will have to pay up if they want a prime spot to cover Democrat Barack Obama's Election Night party in a downtown lakefront park.
Obama's campaign, awash in money after raising a record-shattering $150 million last month, is asking news organizations to pay anywhere from $410 to $1,870 depending on where they want to be and if they want telephone or Internet service in Grant Park.
While it is customary for news organizations to pay their way when covering a presidential campaign, including transportation, hotels and Internet services, some have questioned the Obama campaign's plan.
"It smells a lot like paying for access," said Al Tompkins, a former TV news director who teaches broadcast and online journalism at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla.
For $1,870, a news organization can buy space on a main riser that will be covered, plus phone and Internet service, while $410 will get them space on a separate riser for photographers without out phone or Internet access, but with electrical power. A seat in a heated press filing center will cost $935 and include power, cable TV, Internet and food.
"
Hmm, as the resident journalistic ethics curmudgeon, I'm not sure how I feel one way or the other on that one.
Newsweek(Howard Fineman):
Could Obama Get a Reverse 'Bradley Effect'?
Link
Jeff NYC Dem, Look it up! I'm not doing your homework for you.
Everybody knows Dems couldn't win much of anything without cheating.
Admire the chutzpa though. In 2000 you tried hard to steal Florida (suppress the military vote, recount select counties only, attempt to delay until after the deadline for registering the electoral votes) and then accused Bush of stealing the election. Brilliant!
anthony said...
"Look at you geeks!!! Getting all worked up about simulations and win percentages and probabilities. What is this? Science class? This is a fucking election!!! People can change their minds and opinions on a whim! And they will."
And, yet, in the past they have not. Hmmmmmm.
Actually CP, once they call Virginia for Obama, McCain needs Pennsylvania. Colorado is pretty worthless for McCain without Virginia as well.
@ anthony, Obama will loose. Interesting? Is that a hopeful gasp, a wishing on a star, a silent prayer in the middle of the night after being abruptly woken from a nightmare, a dream that never comes true (like flying).
What brought you to that conclusion especially here at fivethirtyeight.
gesundheit!
Nate, you gaylord, what's happened to Elon and Ciruli? I haven't heard a peep for ages out of them.
For voting-intention polls it seems to me that someone who has already voted can be treated the same as someone who intends to vote (and is considered certain to do so). Now or later, the vote is the same. The actual voters would merely be a component of the sample that remains constant.
I hate how Gallup is hedging their bets by giving out 3 numbers, their RV number, their LV I number, and their LVII number. Guess they're going to claim 'We were right wherever the results fall'.
My belief is that the results will be even better for Obama than the LVII model.
Nate,
Show some of that feistiness and grit when you are doing your on air interviews. It will make you much better on air analyst. Also have more conviction in your analysis. You tend to sound less sure of what the data suggests on air than you do commenting on your site. People want your opinion. Don't be afraid to give it to them. That's what you've done all this work for.
cms asked:
Why is it that exactly ZERO pollsters have Obama numbers INCREASING in the likely voter model, whereas every single one (except Pew) has McCain doing better.
The answer has to be in the filter which reduces registered voters to likely voters. E.g., if Obama has a strong lead among newly registered voters, then the likely voter filter of only those who have voted previously or that gives any weight to a previous vote will drop all or some of these, and thus reduce Obama's lead.
natetg,
The science here is heuristics, rather than Math. Repeatability is not an option because we do not have a history of infinite instances to learn from.
Leave alone infinite instances of a market collapse, combined with a black presidential candidate, and a lot of other scenarios that come together during this election cycle.
Servius,
In five years of elections, the DoJ prompted by Bush led a crackdown on Voter Fraud. Guess how many people were charged with voter fraud in five years in a country of 300 million people?
120. Of whom 86 got convicted.
Alright, we'll give you 120 in five years. So what, like 24 in a year? I'll agree Obama won by fraud if he wins the election by 30 votes. Fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=print This was the link for my source
Nate, you're the best, but what's with the generic "he"? Voters who go by "she" deserve a little recognition, no? Why not use "s/he" or alternating pronouns rather than leaving more than 50% of the population out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=print
Crappy blogger.
@ cloud9ine,
Funny about the voter fraud.
emily, cut him some slack..
People use a generic he all the time. Just like they use the word Man in 'Man invented Fire'.
I LOVE the state of Washington, it is my home state, but it is solid Obama...we need a poll of Montana.
Thank god for Nate Silver! I looked at the discrepency between the likely voter vs. actual responses for the AP poll this morning showing 1% difference and I have to say... its been driving me nuts trying to figure it out. Now I don't have to and that's why I say... thank god for Nate Silver
Nate - you said "On the other hand, voters who are newly registered have quite literally demonstrated their interest in the 2008 campaign; they are in fact quite likely to vote." But some sites, e.g. http://thehill.com/david-hill/newly--registered-non-voters-2008-09-30.html, assert that in 04, newly registered voters, notwithstanding the enthusiasm the registration showed, did not vote. Hopefully, you have a rejoinder to this.
This is interesting. Another option that wasn't discussed was the number of people who crossed over party lines just to vote against Hillary Clinton. It was more than a few people in my neck of the woods. And frankly in the general election, many of those will simply vote Republican. I don't know how that plays out down the line.
I actually go to Franklin & Marshall college, and I am annoyed on your behalf! I wish I knew who at this school actually conducted the poll so I could go have a chat with them. I have been saying all of this about polls completely misrepresenting voter turnout for weeks now. I will be gratified to see the numbers reflect this on election night, because that's what matters!
Hmmm... Not to plug Excel as a good statistical platform (it's not), but MCMC can be implemented in Excel, last I checked. So nothing this site does should be considered proprietary, or black-box, or anything inaccessible to the common Joe; Nate is a sophisticated and diligent practitioner of widely known principles, is all. (As if that's so little.) No need to invoke bias until the central model has been debunked, which I don't see happening.
Can you please use hyphens a bit more aggressively? A "likely voter model" is a voter model that is likely; a "likely-voter model" is a model to predict likely voters.
I love the site.
This will no doubt get buried here, but there is something pretty strange about the two Gallup likely voter models. The "traditional" model, which would appear to have a tighter screen (since it tests both current voting inclination and past voting behavior) actually has *more* voters than the "new" model. Why this is is entirely unclear (one could certainly come up with reasonable theories, but they are just that), but it definitely suggests that the difference between the two models is not as simple as Nate's summary appears to suggest.
This will no doubt get buried here, but there is something pretty strange about the two Gallup likely voter models. The "traditional" model, which would appear to have a tighter screen (since it tests both current voting inclination and past voting behavior) actually has *more* voters than the "new" model. Why this is is entirely unclear (one could certainly come up with reasonable theories, but they are just that), but it definitely suggests that the difference between the two models is not as simple as Nate's summary appears to suggest.
'tell me why you think what you're doing is good science.'
Please. Crooked pollsters are doing good [for them] politics, not good science.
It's like asking a rhetorical hack why he thinks his racist, fear-mongering, non-scientific political arguments are "logical". The question misses the point.
"Wouldn't the Dow's all-time low be, like, "1"?"
No.
The Dow's all-time low was 28.48 in the summer of 1896. So, 1 was pretty close.
"Wouldn't the Dow's all-time low be, like, "1"?"
No.
The Dow's all-time low was 28.48 in the summer of 1896. So, 1 was pretty close.
I was registering voters in Germantown, Philadelphia, a largely Black neighborhood, and couldn't find many unregistered voters -- everyone I talked to on a busy corner was not only registered, but excited and enthusiastic. I think Black turnout is going to blow people away.
I also just had work done by a Puerto Rican contractor who told me he and his whole family, and as much of his crew as he can convince, are newly registered and voting for Obama.
Have you even watched an election before? Registered voter versus likely voter model disparities are nothing new. Nor is the fact that register voters always skew democratic compared to both likely voter and actual election outcome. Nor is your explanation about how likely voters are determined accurate. You imply that voting history is the only relevant factor and can completely override the statements of the respondent. This is false; both are considered. Really, you people are celebrating this as intelligent analysis? Welcome to politics, you're obviously new here.
The AP sample is basically the 2004 snapshot problem Nate's talked about before. They gutted 18-29 year olds when going from a raw sample that was 47-38 Obama to a likely sample of 44-43. They went from 23 percent 18-29 year olds to 15 percent - lower than either the 2004 or 2006 elections (although not much lower than 2004) and with no clue about the trend of young voter turnout in this cycle.
ohmigosh!
lions n tigers n bears!
oh my!
nate you know young people cant and don't "count"
good work keep it up
nancymidget
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
牙醫,植牙,假牙|矯正|牙周病,牙醫診所、植牙,紋身,刺青,創業,批發,TATTOO,皮膚科,痘痘,雷射、脈衝光、除斑,洗包包|洗鞋子|清洗包包,中醫,腫瘤,腎臟病,僵直性脊椎炎,飛梭雷射,肉毒桿菌,玻尿酸,痘痘,脈衝光,醫美,毛孔粗大,醫學美容,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,網路行銷,關鍵字、自然排序,關鍵字行銷、seo,關鍵字廣告,網路行銷,seo,關鍵字行銷,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,自然排序,部落格行銷,網路行銷,網路爆紅。
キャッシング
網頁設計
クレジットカード 現金化
ダンボール
留学
水 通販
ウィークリーマンション
障害者
有料老人ホーム
看板 製作
レーザー脱毛
フランチャイズ
Post a Comment