View Full Version : Nevada Election

November 10th, 2010, 06:52 PM
OK, those of you who know me, should know by now that I am almost always opposed to conspiracy theories. Still I couldn't pass offering this one up (even if I'm not sure I agree with it yet).

In the run up to the Senate election in Nevada Reid almost never had a consistent lead. All major polls had him losing to Angle, most polls by 4 points.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/election_2010_a_look_at_polling_in_the_toss_up_sta tes

Yet, he magically pulls of a 5.6 point victory. We are talking about most major polls being off by a factor of almost 10 points. Taken with the anecdotal stories of voter fraud this makes me think about what was going on a second time.

I'm not saying that there is any good evidence for vote fraud, certainly not massive vote fraud, but the media's explanation of this simply being the "Reid machine" seems a bit hollow.

I'd be happy to hear other theories on this one.

November 10th, 2010, 07:21 PM
Rasmussen basically said its their fault for not analyzing it well enough..

At the moment, our working hypothesis centers around the measure of enthusiasm and certainty to vote questions. Republicans and Republican-leaning unaffiliated voters were clearly fired up, ready to vote and following the election closely. But a larger-than-anticipated number of less fired up and less committed voters came to the polls for Reid.
As we work our way through this, we are fortunate to have a great pool of data to work from. The key is not just understanding what was off in our mix of potential Nevada voters but what changes we could have made in our sampling approach or Likely Voter model to capture a more accurate sample. As we do this, we will need to make sure that any adjustments we consider also would work in all the other states we polled this year.

Not that fraud is impossible mind you, but it would have to be significant to throw the game that much as where a polling outfit can sample wrong and get a pretty big swing.

November 11th, 2010, 11:35 PM
It's a mix of things, none of them conspiratorial in my opinion. You can't win 'em all, and that goes for pollsters, too. Recall the exit polls spread by the media while the polls in two time zones were still open that had Kerry beating Bush by a large margin? Now there's where you might want to start thinking "conspiracy", because that had the potential to change the race. Where's the motive for any conspiracy here? The only one who stood to benefit from rigged polls pre-election was Angle, and she lost.

And if the concern is voter fraud, you need evidence and a ten point descrepancy between polling numbers and vote count ain't evidence of voter fraud in my opinion.