Gallup massively overestimated Repub vote in 2010

[Cicada]

In their final poll before Nov 2010 election Gallup predicted Repubs would get 55% of congressional votes, Dems 40%. The actual results 51.4% repub vs 44.8% dem, difference 6.6%. Gallup missed the actual result worse than any other pollster. Second worst? Fox predicting R+13, third worst Rasmussen predicting R+12. Most polls were within a point or two of correct.

See this for how each polling firm did in 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/how-did-the-polls-do_n_778216.html

[Skee]

1. Polls Don't Matter

The central tabulators don't care what voters want.

[link:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html|

[Jennicut]

2. So not surprising.

Though I think Fox changed who does their polling now.

[Cicada]

8. In 2010 Fox polls used subsidiary of Rasmussen for polls

So it really was two firms really way way off - Gallup and Rasmussen

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. They Were Embarrassingly Inaccurate

Did they have an explanation?

[Cicada]

6. Gallup said their likely voter model failed

They said they were going to review the error in the months following the election

[abolugi]

4. I think it was Chris Hayes

that said the repubs are "bitterly clinging" to their Gallup and Rasmussen polls.



They are the only polls 2 showing Romney even close to President Obama. Its the only ones they dare mention.

[buzzman]

5. it's the vote that counts

don't let polls get people cocky about beating the gop
get out and vote

[WI_DEM]

7. Hard to believe that a 51-45 result could bring so much damage--just think if it had been a 15-pt

margin!! OMG!!

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Generally, anything more than 3 points, in either way, is going to do some major damage...

In '94, the overall vote was pretty much the same, 51-45 (rounded). When the Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, they won the popular vote 52-44.

So, Gallup's numbers weren't even right in terms of historic context. Had they been right, as you said, it would have been so much more damaging. The Democrats would've lost nearly every seat with numbers like that.

[Denver Dave]

9. Polls rarely ask about all candidates on the ballot

Of the 3 or 4 telephone polls that I received, the poll never asked about any other specific candidates other than Romney and Obama.

There are two other candidates on the ballot in over 2/3 of the states, enough states to conceivably (but unlikely) win the Electoral College and have qualified and accepted federal matching presidential campaign funds that we have paid for. However, after the polls never mention the other candidates, the private Commission of Presidential Debates set's the bar to be included in the debates at polling 15% (up from 5% when Ross Perot slipped in).

The other candidates have significant support, especially considering they are rarely mentioned in polls or the mainstream media. These candidates will not win the election and probably not be spoilers, since they cancel each other out. However, the 2 matching funds candidates are important to the debates because they will talk about issues that have will not be heard otherwise.

10 Huge Issues Being Ignored in the Presidential Campaigns:
http://www.nationofchange.org/ten-huge-issues-being-ignored-presidential-campaign-1348067863

I hope that you will help your issues be included in the debates by signing this petition, posting the link to your facebook page and asking your friends to ask their friends to do the same:

http://www.change.org/petitions/open-up-the-2012-presidential-debates

If we want a "seat at the table" we'll have to speak up.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Whatever Gallup predicted

the outcome was great for the Republicans, bad for the country