Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Well, I thought things would slow down a little more around here than they have, since Election Day. But, Obama's preparations for taking office and the sinking economy, as well as the aftermath of the Proposition 8 vote in California, as well as down-to-the-wire Senate races in Alaska and Minnesota have dictated otherwise.

That being said, I'm feeling a little mischievous today, so I thought I'd bring this post from Markos over at DKos, "Research 2000 tracking poll accuracy," which has been on the top of the front page there for the past 45 mins. It looks to me like he's calling out our fearless leader, Jerome, front and center.

Now boys, take it out back during recess and let's have a good, old-fashioned playground brawl! LOL!

From one blog-owner to another...a few "rockets" on Veterans Day:

(Bold emphasis is my own...just call me "the instigator," LOL!)

The partisan hacks over at RealClearPolitics kept out the Research 2000 poll from their averages in order to try and paint the most positive light for their candidate, John McCain. Yet the poll performed quite admirably despite the many claims of bias not just from the Right, but from the Left as well (I'm looking at you, Jerome!):
                       R2K       Actual

Presidential vote:    51-46     52.6-46.1
Congressional vote:    D+9       D+8.38

--SNIP--

All in all, a great job of predicting turnout percentages by R2K, which allowed it to turn in one of the most accurate election night performances. I'm reminded of Jerome writing this:

"To believe the Research2000 prediction for 2008, you have to believe that latinos & blacks will vote in equal numbers to their populations as whites do, that Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 9% and Independents/Refused will be nearly 40% of the voting day population, and to assume that older people (60+) are going to be less of the voting population (even though the trend says they will be more)."

--SNIP--

Yup, R2K was pretty good. And Jerome wanted MORE 65+ respondents in the poll!

Ouch!

Tags: 2008 Presidential election results, Daily Kos, Jerome Armstrong, Markos Moulitsas, MyDD, polls, Research 2000 polls (all tags)

Comments

99 Comments

A little mischief isn't a bad thing! LOL! n/t

by bobswern 2008-11-11 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Was Jerome right about anything this elections cycle?

Serious question.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-11 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Absolutely.

Congratulations to Vice-President-Elect Tom Daschle!

by Jess81 2008-11-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
I thought

Obama might pick Daschle too.

by kos 2008-11-11 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought

No you didn't.  Based on what?

by Jess81 2008-11-11 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Yeah, and I'm still waiting for the live video feed of this:

I will eat a shoe if the 'you've all been bad' and 'come together' mantra about electability wins a Democratic nomination.

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:30:58 AM EST

by venician 2008-11-11 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

He's already tried to weasel out of this by making the claim a few weeks ago that "any Democrat" could win given the current political atmosphere.

by sorrodos 2008-11-11 10:07AM | 0 recs
Yeah, but the shoe comment was about the nominatio

by edparrot 2008-11-11 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Somebody should compile all of the outrageous anti-Obama statements Jerome made during the primaries. I am sure that besides this one there are some doozies he is sure to be embarrassed by now.

by wasder 2008-11-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Here you go...

Everything.

That wasn't too difficult.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-11-11 11:05PM | 0 recs
Slamming Obama
Here

Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified.
by gaf 2008-11-12 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Slamming Obama

Yeh. It's why my sister in law voted for Nader. Better to throw away a vote than to help another Clintonista get in the White House.

We are already seeing a lot of triangulation.

by MainStreet 2008-11-12 08:17AM | 0 recs
I love that quote n/t

by Koan 2008-11-11 05:28PM | 0 recs
Well, to be fair to Jerome...

...this is really just a side biz to him these days, according to his own comments about this type of thing. He doesn't run this place to turn a significant profit. I'd venture to guess that's not the case with Kos...who dumped a pantload of bucks (apparently, although I'm by no means certain of that) into his own, branded polling operation this cycle.

by bobswern 2008-11-11 08:32AM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by venician 2008-11-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

and the bitter troll kosnomore strikes again TRing up and down this thread. Are their any original Obama supporters with T.U. status left around here?

by venician 2008-11-11 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

Oddly enough, I do.  Even after Jerome told me to STFU.  Heh.

by fogiv 2008-11-11 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

That's a merit badge in my view, and no I am not referring to your TU status ;)

by KLRinLA 2008-11-11 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

I do, but I try not to be a jerk, and when I am, I try to apologize. I've been warned once by Jerome for a comment, and after that, I left a comment apologizing and explaining what I meant.

There's plenty of abrasive Obama supporters here that never ran into trouble.

by vcalzone 2008-11-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

There's plenty of abrasive Obama supporters here that never ran into trouble.

I'm proof of that...

...and the trolls fucking hate me for it.

by spacemanspiff 2008-11-11 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

I do, but I try to be reasonably non-confrontational.

by thezzyzx 2008-11-11 11:20AM | 0 recs
Surprisingly enough, I still do

Even though I've barely posted anything since the primaries.

by MILiberal 2008-11-11 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Surprisingly enough, I still do

You probably still have TU because you haven't posted much.  Obama supporters tend to be tolerated if they're quiet and don't defend him too vigorously.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 12:12PM | 0 recs
During the height of the primary wars

I was pretty loud and outspoken.

by MILiberal 2008-11-11 03:52PM | 0 recs
Me too x 2.

I still have them but I haven't posted that much in the last few months.  I've barely posted at all since the election.  I think my brain is in Wait and See mode, soaking up what everyone is saying but not necessarily forming an opinion.

I've also become obsessed with reading the craziness coming from the rightwing sites.  

by GFORD 2008-11-11 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

I've kept mine, but I like being fair.

by X Stryker 2008-11-11 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

yes, but I missed the  "Is this snark? serious question" incident. plus, I am awesome

by KLRinLA 2008-11-11 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

Mojo for the great memories.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, to be fair to Jerome...

Still got it.  Prudent application of force, and all that...

by Jay R 2008-11-11 07:17PM | 0 recs
To be fair, Jerome was basing his judgement

on historical turnouts. But then this election cycle, Democrats in general with minorities and young voters (notwithstanding Fox/Freeper BS) were much more involved and excited than conservative white folks. It was not a close election at all and Obama was breaking all sorts of barriers.

As far as Jerome vs Kos goes, I think both can defend themselves fine without my low info inputs :)

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair, Jerome was basing his judgement

He was basing his estimates on 2004, which had historic evangelical turnouts and much lower primary turnouts.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 08:50AM | 0 recs
Absolutely..now we can definitely argue that

his baseline model on 2004 turnout data was inaccurate especially the way the primaries went. He also used that Peter Feld model, where the Undecideds break 2:1 in favor of McCain. That also proved to be wrong. I also didn't think linear averaging of Poll data is good enough for meta-analysis.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair, Jerome was basing his judgement

Yep - and many people got that that was an absolutely absurd set of assumptions -- It could be seen as such from the enthusiasm, giving, and volunteer gaps.  

by politicsmatters 2008-11-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair, Jerome was basing his judgement

But basing your estimates on 2004 was sort of begging the question, as other people pointed out.

by Jess81 2008-11-11 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Kos "Slams" Jerome.
I didn't see it this way, Jerome and Markos are friends, that mention was a friendly tease.

In the beginning, R2K/Kos gave Obama disproportionate lead, but they came down at the last few days, when all others started going up on Obama's lead.

The biggest winner was RCP, Pollster.com and all those sites, there is no polling entity that can claim to be the most accurate.
Battleground claimed it in 2000, IBD/TIPP in 2004 (Drudge loved to point it out, when they gave Obama only 1%, but he caved when they too increased his lead) and now CNN & Ipsos.

by rolnitzky 2008-11-11 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Nate Silver got it this year, although he's not a polling firm.

by Jess81 2008-11-11 08:45AM | 0 recs
Nate does MetaAnalysis of Polls...

and not polling by himself like Kos did with R2K. I thought Sam Wang did a good job too...

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome

And Jerome touted a Republican statistician over Nate.

by RandyMI 2008-11-11 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

I agree about Nate Silver.  He is amazing and his mathematical shuffling boggles my mind.  I also think Kos was teasing Jerome.  They did, after all, write a book together.  Have you read, "Crashing the Gate"?

by calwoman 2008-11-11 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

I have.  I'm not sure if Jerome has.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

I wonder if Jerome was so busy with his own pursuits during this cycle that he failed absorb the truly superior Obama ground game.  Nate saw it first hand by travelling all over the country and visiting both Democratic and Republican field offices.

Many of us were part of it so we know that this election was won by caffeine and shoeleather.

by GFORD 2008-11-11 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Whether or not he paid attention to the Obama ground game (or one of the billion pieces written about it), the cycle Markos was the voice of CtG and Jerome sounded like one of its detractors.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 06:23PM | 0 recs
why's that?

because he didn't support obama during the primary?  

so now - hypothetically - had clinton won the nomination wouldn't it then be the reverse with all the vile filth that was posted on kos about clinton?

by canadian gal 2008-11-11 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: why's that?

The issue is not the vile filth posted by detractors of one candidate or the other but the really scathingly negative stuff written by the proprietor of the blog here.

by wasder 2008-11-12 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: why's that?

and again - the proprietor of the blog there did the same about the other candidate.  he just happenned to be on the side that prevailed.

by canadian gal 2008-11-12 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: why's that?

I think the scathing stuff during the primary when the two candidates were opponents is forgivable.  But after the primary, Jerome did nothing to rally the troops around the winner.  He continued the doom and gloom attitude almost until election day.

Had Clinton won, I would have expected kos to rally around her also.  It would serve no good purpose to drag primary baggage around all summer when we need to be united to beat the real enemy.

by GFORD 2008-11-12 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: why's that?

well i guess i can agree with that.  that said gford, the point i made earlier is quite valid - and worth thnking about for all those folk quick to rewrite history (not you of course ;)

by canadian gal 2008-11-12 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: why's that?

As described below by GFORD, it didn't stop after the primary.  After Clinton conceded, he only talked about how Obama couldn't win.  When Obama was up in the polls, he talked about how any Democrat would have won.  He mentioned that he didn't think Obama would govern well, months after the primary and months before the election.

The blogfather concern-trolled throughout the campaign.  He lauded Palin while castigating the Obama campaign.  It wasn't just that he was "Mr. Doom and Gloom", but that he didn't offer any suggestions for improvement.  He softened his tone later in the campaign, but the message was always either neutral or at least faintly negative towards Obama.  He just never let it go.

To top it all, he lets right-wing trolls run around here, writing any kind of divisive diary they want as long as they are critical of Obama.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-12 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

In the beginning, R2K/Kos gave Obama disproportionate lead, but they came down at the last few days, when all others started going up on Obama's lead.

Does that mean that, at the time Jerome raised questions about R2K, he was actually right, and it was R2K that was off?  And that only later R2K came in line with other pollsters?

by markjay 2008-11-11 08:51AM | 0 recs
But they didn't change their party breakdown

So Jerome's complaints about them - which had some merit on a high level IMO - when they had Obama +11 were no less valid when they had Obama +5 at the end.

Most of the other firms were not as transparent as R2K was at kos' request.  Wouldn't surprise me if a number of them fiddled with their demographic/party breakdown in the last 2-3 weeks before the election.

by edparrot 2008-11-11 01:30PM | 0 recs
Hey, you could write a book on all of Kos'

...incorrect forecasts and comments. He's notorious for speaking first and thinking later.

I'm just making trouble on a Tuesday afternoon...I know they're friends just giving each other a hard time...LOL!

by bobswern 2008-11-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
yeah we can start with the pixel and color

contrast of the infamous picture....

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah we can start with the pixel and color

Except that was actually darkened.  Just not for the reasons he thought.

by Jess81 2008-11-11 08:57AM | 0 recs
Did he ever admit that his reasons were wrong??

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Did he ever admit

I don't know, I haven't been on kos in a while.

In that thread though there were some video and graphics editors who were able to make the original point that Obama wasn't being OJ Simpson'd, and within a couple of days, that was the consensus opinion.

So I'll usually stand up for Daily Kos when people bring that up, because in that case, peer review and the whole community blogging system worked.

by Jess81 2008-11-11 09:30AM | 0 recs
I don't remember that exactly within a couple of

days Kossacks realized the actual situation. Nor do I remember Kos updating his FP item to that effect. But by then DKos was a swamp that I needed to move on from......

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 10:36AM | 0 recs
An old fashioned serious argument is good for

this afternoon...:)

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 08:56AM | 0 recs
Talk about ridonkulous.

a meta diary about one blogger calling out another blogger about believing a poll sample.

yep this is what is truly important in the world.  no wonder so many progressive websites jumped the shark this cycle.

by canadian gal 2008-11-11 08:49AM | 0 recs
Their i go causing trouble again....

...LOL!

CG, I've been writing so much about our f**ked-up economy and the failure of the current administration to manage anything, that I felt a little brevity was in order.

While, technically, this isn't snark, I view it as such...  

by bobswern 2008-11-11 08:55AM | 0 recs
Typo: "there I go;" and on related...

...matters, it was to the point over the past few weeks where issues-based blogs/diaries couldn't even make it through the clutter of the hundreds of diaries on matters so critical to our national well-being such as Sarah Palin's wardrobe...LOL!

by bobswern 2008-11-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
I think you mean "levity"

And I agree, we needed some.

by Cincinnatus 2008-11-11 10:45AM | 0 recs
Actually...I wrote all of three, or so....

...sentences...and the rest of the diary was comprised of quotes from Markos...so, there was brevity.

So, we're talkin' brief levity....but, yeah...brevity's a simple word that I tend to bastardize and "trip" over every now and then since I really meant that I'm pausing for a moment to drive a little humor into the (otherwise serious) mix.

by bobswern 2008-11-11 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about ridonkulous.

did they jump the shark?  I see us as only increasing in visibility.

by thereisnospoon 2008-11-11 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about ridonkulous.

there is increasing in visibility and relevant and true to its promise. ;)

by canadian gal 2008-11-11 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk about ridonkulous.

And this coming from the author of the meta-diary about meta-diaries.  Oh snap, I kid, I kid CG!

by KLRinLA 2008-11-11 04:18PM | 0 recs
O NO U DINNIT

LOL YUS U DID

by Dracomicron 2008-11-11 09:12AM | 0 recs
How about fivethirtyeight.com?

They predicted that Obama would win 52.3-46.2, when the actual outcome was 52.6-46.1.

by Zzyzzy 2008-11-11 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: How about fivethirtyeight.com?

Nate Silver was great (more than great, actually), but the key point here is that Jerome specifically called out R2000, not 538.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

What about the errors of constantly claiming that Obama couldn't win the states Clinton won, touting polls that showed Obama in trouble, claiming that Obama couldn't win key demographic groups -- not to mention opening the door for some slimy people blogging here in defense of Clinton and in opposition to Obama?

by politicsmatters 2008-11-11 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

As well as banning people who stood up to some very nasty and/or intellectually dishonest anti-Obama bloggers...and threatening to ban anyone who would dare to say that some WV voters were racist (even as you could turn on the news and see WV voters say that they wouldn't vote for a n-word)....

by politicsmatters 2008-11-11 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Or the exit polls showing that about 20% of the WV primary voters voted against Obama based on his race.

I think I heard that about half of voters based their vote, partly, on race.  Obama and McCain split their votes.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is Jerome anyway?

I think he's waiting for the honeymoon to be over.  He doesn't seem to like to write nice things about Obama.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is Jerome anyway?

And I get slapped with a warning for repeating information that was readily available on wikipedia. Go figure!

by venician 2008-11-11 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Where is Jerome anyway?

It's really unclear what kind of actions draw the ban-hammer.  Someone ran around for a few days with a username of "Jerome Armstrong is a D**chebag" for a few days.  Someone else had "jeromeisarepublican" active for a few weeks.  

We've had posters accusing Obama of sexism, racism, homophobia, sympathy for terrorists, socialism (and sometime centrism in the same diary), atheism, secret Muslim-ism and all other vile things and they continue to be able to post here.

The moderation on this site is all f'd. The trolls are allowed to run free posting divisive and defamatory diaries while the troll-bashers get banned and/or lose TU.

If I was a right-wing troll wanting to cause chaos, it would be no problem.  I could just post diaries dissing Obama and other Democrats at will.    I call anyone I wanted racist or sexist or homophobic, and the whole community would duke it out (half attacking me and half defending me).  If I lost TU or got banned, I could make a new account (or 10 more) in about 10 minutes and begin  again.

by the mystical vortexes of sedona 2008-11-11 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Where is Jerome anyway?

And it would take you three, four months to lose your posting rights.

Do you remember what it was like during right before the DNC?  Republicans figured it was their last chance to get Obama and Hillary people fighting, and boy did they.

by Jess81 2008-11-11 02:36PM | 0 recs
Multiple choice answer...

_ A. Chasing down checks from late-paying political clients.

_ B. On vacation after a very tumultuous and busy political season.

_ C. On his phone hiring someone to break Markos' legs.

_ D. Ignoring this crap because he has better things to do than patronizes idiots like the person that posted this diary and everyone else that's commented in it.

_ E. Running his own analytics to provide a snarky yet thoroughly academic tome which comes to the conclusion that Moulitsas is an ass whose primary function in life is self-promotion (now that he's hit the bigtime).

_ F. Interviewing with the Obama transition team to bid against Kos for the national web-based initiative being proposed by the new administration.

_ G. OTHER _____. (Please provide details in response to this comment! LOL!)

by bobswern 2008-11-11 09:55AM | 0 recs
Rumor mill is suggesting that Markos is

being drafted by Obama administration for an important position of "Internet(Virtual World) Secretary". Our Blogfather is in serious discussion with Kos to take over his blog and become the uncrowned king for next eight years.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 11:13AM | 0 recs
Jeez! Sounds like something...

...right out of a Neal Stephenson novel!

by bobswern 2008-11-11 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Jeez! Sounds like something...

Speaking of which, how about we use dKos to start building the ground game to establish a data haven?  We demonstrate a significant market interest and generate some capital, we might actually be able to use the bludgeon of 100,000 users to create a political climate hospitable to establishing one.

by Jay R 2008-11-11 07:21PM | 0 recs
maybe R2K just got lucky at the end

For the national tracker, they were a consistent outlier until the last week or so.  Silver has written that he suspects that the pollsters probably adjust (conciously or subconciously) their "secret sauce" to get their topline poll results more in line with the averages.  

Nate Silver on R2K from a 10/21/08 538 post:

House Effect/Lean: Aggregating all of Research 2000 polls in this general election cycle -- including their tracking results plus their state polling for both Daily Kos and the myriad newspapers that they contract with -- they have had a slight Democratic lean of 1-2 points. However, the lean has appeared to be stronger in their national tracker, and less strong (in fact, almost nonexistent) in their state polling.

Features/Strengths: Full set of cross-tabular results published each day. Poll tends to be fairly stable, in part because they use a fixed party ID weighting (Democrat +9). Research 2000 is the only pollster to publish each individual day's results in addition to the rolling average.

Quirks/Concerns: Racial demographics are aggressive -- probably too aggressive -- showing blacks making up 14 percent of the electorate and Hispanics another 13 percent. Turnout will be up among minorities this year, but probably not by quite that much. The +9 party ID split is arguably also aggressive, although within the broad range of what other polls have found this year.


by mboehm 2008-11-11 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: maybe R2K just got lucky at the end

Blacks were 13 percent, only a point off from R2K's assumption. And while Latinos were off, add them up with Asians and "other", and it balances out. So while not R2K's intent, it worked out in the end.

The party split was D+7. But R2K was too aggressive on older voters, which were pro-McCain.

And while Nate found it to have  a "pro-Obama" lean, turns out that the final result was "pro-McCain". Ironic.

by kos 2008-11-11 10:49AM | 0 recs
Future prediction of human behavior is an

uncertain business. Humans, primarily being irrational elements make that uncertainty factor important.

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 11:08AM | 0 recs
Slams?

Hardly. Just some good natured ribbing.

by kos 2008-11-11 10:40AM | 0 recs
LOL! I know...see my comments...

...upthread...this diary isn't snark, technically, but in many ways it's certainly sarcastic humor...

Nice to see ya' slummin' 'round here. LOL!

by bobswern 2008-11-11 10:49AM | 0 recs
nothing wrong in giving a friend a friendly

body slam once in a while..in this case JA probably deserved it a little bit :)....

by louisprandtl 2008-11-11 10:54AM | 0 recs
Oh, I see how it is...

...Jeremy pulls the servers and all of a sudden User #9 isn't too good for MyDD anymore.  You don't have to paint ME a picture, buddy!

(((points two fingers at own eyes)))
(((points two fingers at your eyes)))

I'm watching you, mister.

by Jay R 2008-11-11 07:27PM | 0 recs
Well, to be blunt

There did seem to be a lot of folks with a static view of the electorate.

by RandyMI 2008-11-11 10:54AM | 0 recs
If you believe R2K/Kos

Then you'd have to think there was a massive movement to McCain late, because R2K/Kos was always 9-12 points (give or take), then tightened at the end.  No other poll was as consistently probama, until it closed at the end.

Did they change their model?  Or just get it right at the end?

by IssaquahIndie 2008-11-11 12:37PM | 0 recs
All right, we were right

We were right, Jerome was wrong. Yay, and more importantly, yay Obama.

Now seriously, let's just lay off Jerome and let the man do his thing without embarassing him any further. If Jerome wasn't doing something very right, we al wouldn't be here.

by X Stryker 2008-11-11 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: All right, we were right

True enough.

During the general election, I was even using his posts to keep me from getting too high.

(He was rather totalitarian during Primary Wars, tho.)

by Bush Bites 2008-11-11 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

I think Jerome was being overly cautious in his estimates - i.e., it would be best if we were winning in those polls that were based on turnout in 2004, so that nothing was left to chance.  R2K did seem generous to Obama, at least to me, but luckily it was pretty accurate at the end of the day.

by rfahey22 2008-11-11 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

I don't think "Obama is the worst candidate in my lifetime" is being cautious.

by lojasmo 2008-11-11 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Ok, you got me on that one.

by rfahey22 2008-11-11 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

When it became clear that Obama was going to win and win big, Jerome largely disappeared. I haven't seen him back again.

The last time he got excited was after the Sarah Palin speech.

by wengler 2008-11-11 05:44PM | 0 recs
Since we're on the subject

has anyone signed onto DKos lately?  I can't because the site doesn't even load.  Any answers out there?

by hienmango 2008-11-11 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Since we're on the subject

Maintenance. It's back up now.

by wengler 2008-11-11 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

The great thing about bloggers is their record is out there for everyone to see...

by obama4presidente 2008-11-11 08:22PM | 0 recs
Actually, the critcism was very fair......

I made the very same criticisms of the DKos R2K poll on DKos itself.  The Hispanic percentage was, indeed, absurd to the point of embarrassment.  And the party ID breakdown was way wrong, even if the D-R gap turned out to be accurate.  Indies were never going to be as high as the R2K daily track provided.

I'm amazed the final R2K daily track was so reasonable, but the turnout model was still stupid.  The poll just got lucky by getting the subsample breakdowns wrong in just the right direction to get the topline very close to right.

For the record, my own prediction in the DKos prediction contest was a 53-46 national popular vote, so I nailed it.  :-)  But I was overoptimistic on the electoral vote, predicting Obama to win Missouri, Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota for 397 instead of 365.  But at least I correctly predicted every electoral vote Obama DID get, including NE-02 (Metro Omaha).

by DCCyclone 2008-11-12 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos slams Jerome over R2K polling accuracy.

Carter had his bit I am right and you are wrong moments too.

But like Kos no one will remember them.

by dtaylor2 2008-11-12 10:11AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads