No worries, it's impossible to keep track. I just thought you'd be interested in the conversation. I suspect many would skip this post who had already seen the previous one.

See this conversation.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Great-Video-If-You-Haven-t-Seen

Yeah, I still feel like they're overdoing the impact of this. Yes, there are a lot of people without power and even more dealing with the craziness of the aftermath, but still, we can't be talking about more than 10% of the national population being affected. And Gallup will still be able to get data from many of those affected people. It just seems whatever impact this will have can't account for more than a point or two sway in the overall numbers, if that. 

Thanks SC. Is it just me, or is Gallup being overly sensitive to the impact of the hurricane on voter preference. I understand that there are large population areas which will be hard to reach due to ongoing power outages, but surely it won't have that big an impact on the overall number, seeing as it's a national poll. I mean most of the people in Manhattan still have power and are going on with life as normal. New Jersey is a more difficult issue, but I can't believe there isn't a decent method to account for this in the data. 

Oh, I think Gallup does a fine job. I cited their voter turnout poll. The problem is that Gallup doesn't do state polls, they only do national polls. So while I would trust their results in the battleground, there are none from them to look at. Similarly, I think Rasmussen does a good job, and you'll note that their results from the battleground states are in fact inline with what the national polling shows, as one would expect.

The bottom line is this. The state polls of the battlegrounds and the current national polling can't both be right. The battleground states, by definition, are inline with the overall national results, if they weren't they wouldn't be getting contested. So, one or the other of these sets of polls is wrong. Looking inside both, it seems the state polls are showing some really screwy results in the three areas I outline in the post above.

It's not evidence per se. That's my hunch. It is the same problem that has plagued the exit polls in the last several elections. I don't have evidence as to what the correct ratio should be except the recent Gallup poll which determined that Republicans would turn out at 36%, dems at 35%, and indies at 29%.

Because I don't think they are necessarily cooking the data. I just think that conservatives are harder to reach than liberals  and independents, so these problems in the polls are the result of pollsters not using a good method to have an accurate sample. I take the numbers indicating how each voting segment will vote to be accurate, I just think they aren't talking to enough conservatives when they do their calling.

Umm, that's a white check mark, on a blue background guys. Get it straight. /candy crowley

Peter, all the polls show Romney with a strong lead among independents. The only way Obama wins is if he has a significant lead in party turnout. He won't. The polls that show this close or giving Obama a lead have ridiclulous turnout models. They claim that democrats are both coming out at more than a 5% higher rate than republicans, as well as showing democrats making up more than the 39% of the electorate that they made up in 2008. What's more, the "likely voter" screens in these polls are a joke. Many of them are essentially registered voter screens, predicting that close to 90% of registered voters will turn out. The internals of these polls that Silver relies upon and that have you worried are completely unsupportable. Don't worry, your heart and your head can rest easy.

I could do without making Mark Levin and Rush the face of conservatism.

It's D+8. They say white's only make 73% of the likely voters. In other words, it's garbage.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/topline/national-journal-congressional-connection-poll-topline-results-oct-29-2012-20121031

Oh, it also says that 70% of the people they contacted are likely voters, even though actual voter participation hasn't topped 58% in any recent election. Guess whom a loose voter screen favors.

Nice photo. Ken posted this yesterday, too.

Personally, I like to write with a knife in my mouth. That's what makes my posts so edgy.

Thanks folks. Here all week!

PS - why don't you guys just include a link to RCP Latest Polls page when you do this everyday?

I'm not saying that we couldn't have done a rescue mission or that we shouldn't have. I'm saying that I believe Obama and co. are just that feckless that even with better technology and tactics, they still were afraid of another Carter style disaster. Obama killed the Osama raid a few times before finally pulling the trigger on that, don't forget.

On question no. 1, I heard people speculate over the weekend that Obama was probably more worried about a botched rescue mission a la Carter and the helicopters in the desert of Iran. That sounds right to me.

This man spent 2.5 years getting doors slammed in his face by French Catholics as he tried to explain Mormonism to them during his mission in that country. He was governor of the most liberal state in the country and had to work with a legislature of 87% Democrats. He stood up for traditional marriage when his Supreme Court ordered him to enact same sex marriage. He is no stranger to hatred, or being attacked, or being rejected. He will not wilt due to being disliked or maligned.