PDA

View Full Version : Outsider's Question of KA Elections


bondmid003
10-29-2010, 9:02 PM
As a servicemember that votes absentee in FL I still wonder how we're going to do in all of the KA races. Could someone that votes in KA give those of us who don't vote here a run down on how things look for the current election? Thanks!

HK4113
10-29-2010, 9:06 PM
What state is KA?

Mstrty
10-29-2010, 9:08 PM
As a servicemember that votes absentee in FL I still wonder how we're going to do in all of the KA races. Could someone that votes in KA give those of us who don't vote here a run down on how things look for the current election? Thanks!


I just looked in my Thomas Guide Atlas. No KA. Dude are you an American? Either way Thank you for your service.

bondmid003
10-29-2010, 9:11 PM
I just looked in my Thomas Guide Atlas. No KA. Dude are you an American? Either way Thank you for your service.

My humorous way of saying CA, and yes i'm American i'll assume you were being humorous as well.

HK4113
10-29-2010, 9:12 PM
Every position is almost too close to call. We will all find out come the 2'd.

Mstrty
10-29-2010, 9:26 PM
My humorous way of saying CA, and yes i'm American i'll assume you were being humorous as well.

Yes I was also being humorous. :D. Thank you again for your debt to our nation.

bondmid003
10-29-2010, 9:36 PM
No sweat brother I'm just being bombarded by all these campaign ads so I wanted to see where we were at.

OleCuss
10-30-2010, 5:06 AM
I don't trust any of the polls this year. Rasmussen is likely the best, but they could be wildly off. . .

This is a weird year and you could end up where (due to turnout by Republicans and those who lean conservative), conservative candidates and issues blow out the polls. It would not surprise me in the slightest if people like Fiorina who are trailing in the polls by 4-5 points end up winning by a few points.

Polls of likely voters (especially) tend to choose the mix of people they are polling based in part on statistical models/predictions of voting behavior. So if they figure Democrat turnout will be heavy the polls tend to favor Democrat issues and candidates.

I'm not at all sure that this year the pollsters are getting it right. The impression I've got is that virtually everyone with conservative tendencies is going to go to the polls even if that means employing heavy weaponry. Not quite the same commitment on the liberal side.

But Prop 19 could be surprisingly influential. It might be that the youth turn out in surprising numbers to vote to toke - and how they would vote up-ticket might influence races in ways not expected.

Net effect is that I think conservative candidates and issues will do better than expected in the polling, but I could be very wrong. . .

CaliforniaLiberal
10-30-2010, 5:37 AM
After extensive research, beer drinking and dice rolling I've determined the outcome of several California races.

Ahem.


Jerry Brown is going to win. And Barbara Boxer too, for better or worse. Proposition 19 is going to pass. Kamela Harris is going to win Attorney General by a nose (God Help Us All). She is going to learn a lot about the SAF and CalGuns in years to come. Alan Gura will say hello.:gura:

Scott Jones will win for Sheriff in Sacramento County. (I voted for Cooper)

Sharron Angle is going to win the Senate seat in Nevada but Christine O'Donnel is going to lose in Delaware. She'll get a job with Fox News.

Sarah Palin will run for President in 2012 and pundits looking back on that election will declare that her candidacy was the only conceivable way that Obama could win his second term.

The US Debt will continue to grow. There will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes and famines. Celebrities will get arrested for drunk driving. The Arctic Ocean will melt. There will be more genetically modified pets.

OleCuss
10-30-2010, 5:56 AM
After extensive research, beer drinking and dice rolling I've determined the outcome of several California races.

Ahem.


Jerry Brown is going to win. And Barbara Boxer too, for better or worse. Proposition 19 is going to pass. Kamela Harris is going to win Attorney General by a nose (God Help Us All). She is going to learn a lot about the SAF and CalGuns in years to come. Alan Gura will say hello.:gura:

Scott Jones will win for Sheriff in Sacramento County. (I voted for Cooper)

Sharron Angle is going to win the Senate seat in Nevada but Christine O'Donnel is going to lose in Delaware. She'll get a job with Fox News.

Sarah Palin will run for President in 2012 and pundits looking back on that election will declare that her candidacy was the only conceivable way that Obama could win his second term.

The US Debt will continue to grow. There will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes and famines. Celebrities will get arrested for drunk driving. The Arctic Ocean will melt. There will be more genetically modified pets.

Arguably the best post in a week or two, or three!

hoffmang
10-30-2010, 8:43 AM
I'm with CL's predictions above with the exception that I still think Cooley can pull it out as it's a neck and neck race. Note that that was a tightening from a Cooley lead.

-Gene

bondmid003
10-30-2010, 10:25 AM
I seriously hope we can find someone better than Palin to challenge Obama

trashman
10-30-2010, 11:18 AM
The race the bums me out the most is the Fiorina/Boxer race ... I had hopes that Fiorina would be able to pull off an upset. Boxer has come out swinging/slinging hard in her last couple of ads and my guess is that they are effective and they resonate with that mushy middle 5% swing vote (i.e., middle-class suburban soccer moms).

--Neill

OleCuss
10-30-2010, 11:34 AM
Don't count Carly out. The polls are too inconsistent to be trusted.

Yesterday's Field poll has Boxer up by 8 points while Rasmussen's poll came out the same day with Boxer up by only 3 points.

The Field poll was apparently done over 12 days and thus may not accurately reflect the current opinion of the voters. Note also that the margin of error to which they admit was +- 3% - which means the race may be substantially closer than they are saying (or it could be a blowout).

Rasmussen admits a +- 4% margin of error and is actually calling it a toss-up. Heck, Fiorina might actually win if the vote were today.

As I understand it, Rasmussen has the better track record on predictions.

Still, it would not surprise me if the conservative voter turnout is underestimated. If they are underestimating the conservative turnout you could have Fiorina win by 3-4 percentage points and even Whitman could eke out a win.

Turnout is key - and I don't think anyone knows for sure what it will be.

Skidmark
10-30-2010, 3:18 PM
KA? Please...

Sgt Raven
10-30-2010, 3:56 PM
KA? Please...

Really, I could possibly see PRK, but not KA. :puke::hammer:

trashman
10-30-2010, 8:03 PM
Don't count Carly out. The polls are too inconsistent to be trusted.

[snip]

Turnout is key - and I don't think anyone knows for sure what it will be.

Valid point, certainly true...but I think that the chance of victory, in California, has much more to do with depressed Democratic turnout than increased Republican or conservative turnout.

--Neill

Sgt Raven
10-30-2010, 8:15 PM
Valid point, certainly true...but I think it the chance of victory, in California, hase much more to do with depressed Democratic turnout than increased Republican or conservative turnout.

--Neill

Well Bradley lost primarily because of prop 15 was on the ballot and he came out against it. ;)

Window_Seat
10-30-2010, 8:17 PM
I'm with CL's predictions above with the exception that I still think Cooley can pull it out as it's a neck and neck race. Note that that was a tightening from a Cooley lead.

-Gene

And then be afraid, very afraid... :(

Erik.

meg
10-30-2010, 8:23 PM
The Field poll was apparently done over 12 days and thus may not accurately reflect the current opinion of the voters. Note also that the margin of error to which they admit was +- 3% - which means the race may be substantially closer than they are saying (or it could be a blowout).

Rasmussen admits a +- 4% margin of error and is actually calling it a toss-up. Heck, Fiorina might actually win if the vote were today.



/Statistician_hat_on

The margin of error is affected by the sample size. Bigger sample size == smaller MOE. 3 or 4% as a MOE is pretty standard for election polling. That MOE can be gotten with a reasonable sized (read: not atrociously expensive) sample size, and yet is tight enough to call all but the closest races.

Believe it or not, it's actually problematic to shoot for *too* small a MOE: it's called oversampling and creates issues with the validity of the method of calculating said MOE. You always want some margin of error; allows for people to change their mind, previously undecideds to decide, people who intended to vote to wind up not voting and vice versa, etc...

/Statistician_hat_off

Oh hell, like the statistican hat is ever off.

trashman
10-30-2010, 8:34 PM
Well Bradley lost primarily because of prop 15 was on the ballot and he came out against it. ;)

That certainly is true (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15220_Page2.html), but I don't see anything on the ballot that Boxer has endorsed that makes me think she'll implode this weekend.

We'll see - I certainly hope Fiorina squeaks out a win - but we're in the final spin-cycle of this election: news outlets report that Boxer seems likely to win, which history has shown will dampen turnout for her opponent...

--Neill

OleCuss
10-30-2010, 9:58 PM
/Statistician_hat_on

The margin of error is affected by the sample size. Bigger sample size == smaller MOE. 3 or 4% as a MOE is pretty standard for election polling. That MOE can be gotten with a reasonable sized (read: not atrociously expensive) sample size, and yet is tight enough to call all but the closest races.

Believe it or not, it's actually problematic to shoot for *too* small a MOE: it's called oversampling and creates issues with the validity of the method of calculating said MOE. You always want some margin of error; allows for people to change their mind, previously undecideds to decide, people who intended to vote to wind up not voting and vice versa, etc...

/Statistician_hat_off

Oh hell, like the statistician hat is ever off.

Thank you.

But to complicate things further, when it comes to election polling it is even more complex than sample size (as I strongly suspect you already know).

As I understand it, they typically choose their sampling based on various factors.

So you can survey the population in general on a particular issue or race - and you won't likely get anything very predictive of the outcome of a race.

If you survey Registered Voters you'll get a better idea of how a race is going.

If you survey Likely Voters you may get results that are very indicative of where things are going - or you may not. To do it well you have to take a look at a number of factors in choosing your sample of voters - things like the percentages of Democrats and Republicans and likely turnout. One can further look at age and certain other demographic information (youngsters may have the vote, but they don't vote as much as the oldsters).

The upshot is that when it comes to political polling, even if you choose a sample size large enough to know with great certainty what the general population (or the Registered Voters) (or the Likely Voters) thinks about an issue or wants done - but if your statistical model predicting who is actually going to vote is incorrect or is not accurately reflected in the sample you actually surveyed - it's still garbage.

Net effect is that you can have competent pollsters using different statistical models and polling on the same race in about the same time frame and get significantly different results.

Then, to make it worse, there are some of us who just generally won't talk to pollsters. So is your sample off because conservatives are inclined not to talk to you (or is it liberals who don't talk to pollsters?)?

On average, it is my understanding that Rasmussen has typically been better at this than most and I am thus inclined to put more stock in what they are saying. But this year feels strange enough to me that it may be that no one will have it right.

Oh, if they are saying that there is a 20 point difference between the candidates or positions on a Proposition - the predicted winner is likely to win. But at this time, I consider anything with spread of less than 10 points to have a potential to go either way. My gut says that the conservative turnout is underestimated to where conservative issues are going to do about 3-4 points better at the ballot box than they've done in polling (but it could actually be the opposite - my gut does not have a solid record for statistical genius).

But one thing I think is clear is that any incumbent who has not clearly gotten to above 50% in the polling is in trouble. That means Boxer is in trouble and Brown may be as well (not incumbent but as a current public office holder and former governor I think he's in statistical trouble).

FWIW from a non-statistician.