Here's why the polls are rigged, reasons you can relate to...

[DavidL]

1) About 1 in 3 people who are registered to vote and voted in 2008 do NOT NOW have home land-line phones. These are the "likely voters", but two million people have gone from being 14 to being 18 between those years, almost ALL of them have cell phones!

2) Only some of those people with only cell phones answer calls from unknown numbers, (they are smart enough to wait for the message ...if there is one... and reply by calling back to a number they do not recognize), and no polls take call-backs.

3) People who have already voted don't bother with polls, they are NOT about to say that they are "undecided", or voting for Romney even if they already voted for Romney.. they simply won't answer, won't participate. So a few of the 25% Romney early voters don't reply to polls, figure that in, they don't bother to reply, which means about 1-3% of the total likely voters are actually early voters are not counted, since they don't answer polls. (This is kind of convoluted, but it says that Romney voters answer polls only because they haven't yet voted, and will vote for Romney about 80-90% of the time they say they will, otherwise they probably don't vote!).

4)Most Obama supporters don't get polled, they are already Democrats, already union members on some list somewhere, so their phone numbers are excluded from polling.

5) People between 18-30 and 55-90 who work on political campaigns are not likely to be home to be polled, and those between 18-30 are unlikely to be home to take a call between 9AM and 9 PM half the time. Those people have too busy a life to answer a poll, they are more likely to be Democrat, because of their age, more likely to vote Democrat, but just not answer home phones from people they don't know, or whose caller ID comes up "unknown" when pollsters call them when they are home. They just go out and vote for Obama someday before or on Nov 6th, and don't bother with calls from pollsters, or just hang up on them if they pick up when called.

BOTTOM LINE:

ANY poll conducted by phone shows a distict REPUBLICAN/ROMNEY bias, since more people who are able to answer a poll are home alone with nothing else to do, are wiling to express their opinions, are NOT working for Romney or Obama or any Democrat or Republican,

The simple facts: people who poll either home or 2012 cell phones with caller ID, few of the caller ID phones, (most of America) will get polled accurately, and most of them are young, active, concerned people; people who don't want to reveal their identity, or who are too busy living, most likely Democrats, not fearful Republicans.

Conclusion: polling by phone is a dead statistical method in the USA, it simply is very Republican, (translate old, unsophisticalted phone type-totally-unsophisticated) biased.

[pnwmom]

1. It isn't true that Dems are excluded by virtue of being "on some list somewhere." The reputable

pollsters use random dialing techniques which pick up even people who don't have listings, and the best pollsters now include cell phones. Being a Democrat or a union member wouldn't keep you from being polled.

[TroyD]

2. We have to be careful not to turn into the 'unskewed polls' crowd

We have to accept that Obama took a big hit after the first debate.

Fair or not, the public's perception of it was a disaster for Obama and there has been a big fallout in the polls.

Hopefully that trend is now reversing itself.

[pnwmom]

4. He did take a hit. And I think the media helped with that hit -- not reputable pollsters. n/t

[DavidL]

3. That is NOT what I said, please re-read, and try to get ALL the

facts in perspective.

Random calls to cell phones are included in VOICE INTERVIEW calls, ONLY! Try to keep up!

There are other facts I presented which you didn't bother to take in,

Come back when you take them in.. please stop arguing with a fellow Democrat, simply because you have a problem taking in all the facts, and seem to have an obligation to argue on the internet before you understand the total what I posted.

Here's a hint: I NEVER SAID CELL PHONES ARE NOT POLLED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes Democrats like you make our worst enemies, failing to understand, and insisting upon being the first to prove you know something.

No wonder you got to 40,000+ posts! No one bothers to argue with someone with half the truth on their side.

[pnwmom]

6. Maybe you should read your own post more carefully when you post it.

And maybe you should develop a thicker skin.

This is what you said that isn't true:

"Most Obama supporters don't get polled, they are already Democrats, already union members on some list somewhere, so their phone numbers are excluded from polling."

While it is true that most Obama supporters aren't polled (neither are most Romney supporters -- only a small fraction of any supporters get polled), it is untrue that most Obama supporters don't get polled because they are already Democrats or already union members on some list somewhere and so their phone numbers are excluded from polling.

Just because I didn't dispute any of your other points didn't mean I didn't "take them in." I was just responding to a particular point in your argument that I happen to know is false, having once worked for a major pollster.

[DavidL]

7. You are one of those Democrats that is so math-challenged that you cannot

draw Euler diagrams.

Try to figure this out from your laptop on your couch. Do the Venn exclusions, and come up with a simple answer, it's really NOT beyond freshman math.

If you have a cell phone only, and are listed somewhere on some DU site, or union site, or Democratic site, and you don't answer phone calls from unknown numbers, you are NOT VERY LIKELY to be polled, EVER!

FACT!

Now move on, stop arguing with people who have more math skills than you do.
Stop trying to win each and every argument, probability is NOT about you being right 100% of the time, but about me being right MOST of the time.

Get on with trying to make a better point here. You are failing miserably, please don't tell me you are one of the chosen ones to run this site and make other Democrats look more stupid than you. There actually ARE people brighter than you here. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[pnwmom]

12. Get a grip, DavidL. Hurling insults doesn't strengthen your argument.

It is not a FACT that being listed as a Dem or union member on any site does ANYTHING to reduce your chances of being polled.

Using only a cell phone or not answering a phone will reduce or eliminate your chances, but plenty of Republicans and Independents and non-voters fall in those categories, too.

[DavidL]

13. I fully understand, you don't seem to

I'm not giving you another opportunity to post a reply more nonsense to my posts.

Thanks for making yourself and your posts so obviously illogical to most posters and viewers here!

"Using only a cell phone or not answering a phone will reduce or eliminate your chances, but plenty of Republicans and Independents and non-voters fall in those categories, too."

You don't, obviously, have a handle upon how many Democrats are missed, and how many Republicans are more likely to be sampled, you certainly do NOT have a handle on the issue. You just get lost in the forest of statistics, and don't have a way of finding your way out. Arguing with me, who will claim Democratic voters are under-sampled in most polls, that's not something you want to investigate, too intellectually lazy, I guess. Prove me wrong.

[pnwmom]

15. You haven't offered a single statistic, a single bit of math -- just a bunch of insults

wrapped around some unproven assumptions. It's not up to me to prove you wrong.

[brooklynite]

5. Unrec

Your evidence indicates that the polling data is inaccurate. You offer no evidence of an intent to mislead through inaccurate polling.

[DavidL]

8. Unrec your unrec.

You obviously don't have a grasp on basic math, nor on basic polling collection procedures.

Having worked for 5 of the most prominent polling companies in the last 20 years, 1 of which were done at little more than mnimum wage as a staffer, I have an idea as to how polls are conducted.

Either you have evidence to the contrary, or you totally misunderstood my initial post, and think that Romney is legitimately ahead: which is it?

[brooklynite]

9. My objection stands

In response to your question, the answer is "Neither". I believe that in a close election, legitimate polling companies utilizing different philosophies of survey research, and carrying out frequent update polls which are going to pick up every attitudinal hiccup, and as a result, some polls are going to show Romney ahead. Are there illegitimate pollsters? Of course there are. But your allegation implies that all of them are, and are being intentionally rigged. And that's what your allegation lacks evidence of.

Take a look at the other replies to this thread, and your replies back. If you're the only one who "understands the math", perhaps there's something wrong with your conclusions.

[DavidL]

10. UM..perhaps there's something wrong with your conclusions

I made no conclusions.

You did.

I made the "conclusion" that Obama is likely to win, based upon my factual observations.

You concluded otherwise, or misinterpreted facts?

[brooklynite]

11. "Here's why the Polls are rigged"

Did I misinderstand you?

[DavidL]

14. You have a background in statistics?

If you don't, please don't bother to argue with me! I do. Polling is basically very "UN-scientific" today, favoring Republicans.

Try to absorb that. otherwise don't argue, I know better.

[brooklynite]

16. Actually, I do...

I work on and analyze surveys that my organization conducts regularly. And in my carefree youth, I -also- worked for political polling firms.

In any event, however elite your math skills may be, they offer only a basis for determining that the polls are inaccurate; you have no apparent evidence to support your allegation that they are "rigged".

By the way, congratulations. You've managed to throw an insult at 100% of the people who replied to your OP. I think we call that a "statistically significant sample..."

[AverageJoe90]

17. Good stuff, Dave.

TBH, though, I don't think they're so much 'rigged' as they are perhaps notably flawed. But I am convinced that Obama's support is larger and more fervent than many, even on here, realize.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Without Getting Into The Weeds

Without getting into the weeds are you suggesting that the final pre election polls will not be highly correlated to the actual results?