Ed, I appreciate the apology, but I do not feel that you “mislead” me. I am sorry that you happened to be wrong. I felt that the data you were using as your basis for the arguments was reasonable. What surprised me is how much of the left’s base must have been sitting out the election events of 2009-2011. Why would they have been doing that? Clearly they were, but it makes no sense to me why.

DrUrchin on November 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Agreed.

Ed is a good writer, and I too thought his arguments and assumptions were reasonable. Many out there, both left and right spheres, thought that 2008 was an anomaly. But, in fact, 2008, is now a working assumption.

America is a center-left country.

By the way, unfortunately I don’t have time to participate in the chat because of increased demands at work. But I listen to the show most days.

there have been a number of calls for AP and me to apologize for “misleading” people about polling and the electorate.

Well there were a lot of calls to change the front page layout back and complaints about the new green room lobbed at you too. Everyone’s a critic. I for one don’t doubt your intentions nor your integrity so keep on keeping on.

At the risk of wrinkling my tinfoil hat, I do think something doesn’t add up with the results of this election. Something just don’t smell right to me, and I don’t think it’s AP’s litter box.

In order to be predictive, the sample has to hew closely to the turnout model of the actual election. The best way to calculate that is to check the trends from the most recent election cycles.

How in the world does Ed know the best way to calculate an election turnout?

I appreciate that non-experts voice their opinions on lots of subjects, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.  But I don’t think they should present themselves as knowing more about a subject than they actually do.

bluegill on November 7, 2012 at 6:11 PM

ground-game? I don’t think it works for the GOP (I spent more than a few hours doing that phone thing and would rather have gotten a root canal without pain-killers).

let’s face it…Romney was not a favorite of the GOP until he got the nomination. although I think his character is beyond anybody we have seen in my life-time, that “taking the high road” didn’t seem to work (sad I think). the GOP should have joined in the “Chicago pool” game (sad I think and for those not around here, Chicago pool is not a term of endearment). Hate to say it but nice guys do in fact finish last.

as a final note…that illegally obtained clip of him with the “47%” thing should have been explained (he was talking about campaign strategy…I’m sure Obama had similar conversations about forgetting middle-aged middle class white males).

.OOOH, Fish fight!!!
red_herring vs. bluegill!!
Tonight on 237 Pay-per-view!!!!
(hey, gotta laugh about something today!)
Lonevoice on November 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I’ve been in a generally pissy mood all day (as you may have been able to tell) but this put a smile on my face. Thanks!

red_herring vs. bluegill!!

Tonight on 237 Pay-per-view!!!!

(hey, gotta laugh about something today!)

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Grow up. Are you just going to repeat the same thing over and over? It looks like you just want someone to blame and dump on.

Some readers are acting like little girls, stomping their feet, pouting, “but, mommy, you promised me a pony! You promised!! You got my hopes up and I’ll never listen to you again!”

Seriously, we are all disappointed. We called it wrong. Unfortunately, the Republican ground game didn’t deliver when we needed it to.

But we had access to the same information as these pundits, and they explained their reasoning. Whether or not you agreed with that reasoning was your own decision. Don’t blame the pundits for your disappointment now.

A lot of you sound exactly like the liberals did, threatening to move to Canada, after Bush won.

Let’s grow up, act like adults, regroup and come back stronger next time.

we were “suckered” (a bright blue neighbor alluded to that after too many cocktails during the Walker recall election).

when I voted yesterday at my VERY small town, I saw a ton of “natives” showing up to vote…they all had to re-register since they had not voted for so long and had been purged from the active list…

obviously a call went out to get them there…the Dem strategy seems to involve a high level of secrecy when it comes to revealing voting intentions. I left the polling place with a very bad feeling about the outcome.

e, really? Then discount Ed’s analysis in the future and move on. It’s that simple.
change is for suckers on November 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I realize that I’ve become a bit obsessive (perhaps that’s an understatement but its in my personality) but I honestly can’t comprehend that Ed doesn’t see just how flawed his style of Poll analysis is. He’s been doin this for a long time now, and I would have thought that after yesterday he would have finally concluded that unskewing is not a valid form of poll analysis.

As for myself, I’m thrilled to have run across people like we find on this site. For the longest time, I thought *I* must be the CrAzY one because it certainly felt like I was swimming against the tide.

I think many people were surprised by the results – I know I went into yesterday with more optimism than I’ve felt in quite some time. Now, all I can muster is a combination of – “I guess it is supposed to be this way” and my favorite quote – “It’s seldom as good as we hope, nor as bad as we fear.”

Look at the bright side, at the rate things are going, pretty soon, we’ll all get to line up for some g’ment cheese to go with our whine

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Talk about cherry picking, two election cycles ago?

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Dude, really? Then discount Ed’s analysis in the future and move on. It’s that simple.

Rasmussen did really poorly this election. They were out there showing Romney with a big lead in Florida, Romney with leads in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, tied in Wisconsin, etc. In short, they were well off the mark in key battleground states.

Sad to say it, but PPP was more accurate in the state polls than Rasmussen.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/24/wapoabc-poll-check-the-sample/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/01/zogby-mccain-up-1/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/03/mccain-ahead-in-minnesota/

then shame on him.

change is for suckers on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

It is an interesting tactic, Obama practices it all the time. It is my goal in life to be just like Obama./

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It’s not like this was a blowout. Electorally, maybe, but if a handful of states had a 2% shift Romney would be the next President.

Thinking the fundamentals would rule the day isn’t ‘hackery’, especially since the same polls showing Obama up in swing states showed Republicans with a healthy lead in enthusiasm.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Well said, Cindy. But in the Age of Obama, perhaps thinking for oneself is no longer necessary. From now on, I need Ed to tell me what to believe, and if it does not come to pass, then shame on him.

ou don’t like his analysis in hindsight, fine, read someone else. I don’t think you can legitimately claim that Allahpundit is susceptible to wearing rose-colored glasses.

I agree whole heartedly about ap. He’s the last person I would have suspected to be so blinded.

Also, it’s not just the fact that Ed and ap were wrong. At least ed’s entire theory behind his analysis, that you should adjust poll demographics based on what you think they should be, is bunk. He clearly doesn’t believe that.

How can anyone now believe ed’s gut? What happens the next time he sees a poll that doesn’t “feel” right.

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 2:41 PM

My problem is that I read for information and then make up my own mind. How many times and from how many people did you need to hear that the election was close? So if it had still been close but Gov. Romney would have won, Hot Air would have been the stuff? I am sorry you were tricked into thinking Obama couldn’t win.

Hackery? Wow. Let us know when you find a blog that meets your rigid standards. I think you might want to go the Nate Silver’s writings, I hear he knows his stuff.
Cindy Munford on November 7, 2012 at 2:37 PM

it seems no conservative blogs meet that standard at least based non the election. That’s a pretty big problem unless you just prefer to be spoonfed exactly what you want to hear.

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Hackery? Wow. Let us know when you find a blog that meets your rigid standards. I think you might want to go the Nate Silver’s writings, I hear he knows his stuff.

Hotair holds itself out as being better than that.

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If you’re going to stop reading HotAir, just do it already. Stop telling us about it.

red_herring on November 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM

“Wholly incompetent” at what? Providing his opinion on what he personally believes based on looking at numerous variables and historical precedent? You don’t like his analysis in hindsight, fine, read someone else. I don’t think you can legitimately claim that Allahpundit is susceptible to wearing rose-colored glasses. So, read him. But don’t come in here acting like Ed is to political punditry what Obama is to the American presidency.

What would you have done differently if Hot Air had promoted the possibility of a loss with more vigor? Did you now consider it?
Cindy Munford on November 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I can’t say that I would have some anything differently. But like I said before, if I wanted hackery I would listen to hannity. Hotair holds itself out as being better than that.