Unlikely Voter

Some researchers led by Noah Smith at Carnegie Mellon tried an experiment: Could they predict the results of traditional polling, which has as its core feature a genuine random sample of people, with careful monitoring of Twitter?

Rasmussen released two new polls today. The Illinois and Delaware Senate races would seem to have little in common, but they do share a common element: they are being held for the seats vacated by Barack Obama and Joe Biden after their victory in November 2008.

Are voters inclined to send more Democrats to the Senate to work with them?

Public Policy Polling looked into the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District, the seat vacated by the late Jack Murtha.

Rasmussen took a special poll of one particular matchup possibility in the 2012 Presidential race. He looked at Ron Paul against Barack Obama and, surprise, Paul runs very well, trailing the incumbent President 41-42.

How can this be, when Paul was rejected so soundly in the Republican primaries just two years ago? Reading the poll, I’m left to wonder if it was written and paid for by supporters of the Texas Republican.

I know my model doesn’t handle multi-way races, but I thought this poll was fascinating. 21st Century Trending polled likely primary voters and caucus goers in 30 states, and found some novel results for the 2012 election.

By request I’ve looked up the race in Indiana’s 9th District, which appears like it’s going to be a fourth rematch between former Rep. Mike Sodrel and Rep. Baron Hill. Hill voted for the PPACA, so national Republicans are sure to target him in this usually-Republican state that barely went for President Obama in 2008.

Gary Langer at ABC has more details on that bad poll by Harris.

It’s worse than I thought.

“Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” “You can use a poll to prove anything.” We all hear the lines like these, which reflect the popular view of statistical analysis and opinion polling. Nobody believes it. It’s all made up, says the conventional wisdom, or at least doctored to a degree that it can’t be trusted.

It’s not actually so bad at all, but it’s hard to make that case when people like the Daily Beast’s John Avlon undermine the field with examples like these.