PPP polls picked every state in 2012. http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...-ppp-polls-ohio-virginia-swing-states-2012-11 PPP: Obama Is Going To Beat Mitt Romney In A Landslide Brett LoGiurato Nov. 6, 2012, 1:20 PM Public Policy Polling, a left-leaning firm, conducted about 255 polls this election season — including 19 polls in the final four days. PPP has been the only firm to consistently track most of the battlegrounds — and even the "lean" states — throughout the 2012 campaign. The final state polls give President Barack Obama a decisive victory over Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Here's where their map stands, according to the firm's polls: Brett LoGiurato/Business Insider (Data: Public Policy Polling) There are some caveats, however. Here's a breakdown: NORTH CAROLINA AND FLORIDA: PPP has found these two states to be extremely close. Obama wins Florida by a single vote in PPP's last poll of the state. Romney, on the other hand, wins North Carolina by just two votes. The two states are unlikely to shift the outcome of the race either way — but winning North Carolina would give Obama an astounding 347-191 win. NEVADA AND COLORADO: Unlike most other polls, PPP found Obama with a greater advantage in Colorado (6 points) than in Nevada (4 points). Still, Obama led by comfortable margins (3 to 6 points) in both states throughout the firm's October polling. OHIO AND VIRGINIA: PPP conducted four polls in each of these states over the past three weeks. Their average leads for Obama were 3.7 points in Ohio and 3.5 in Virginia. WISCONSIN, IOWA, NEW HAMPSHIRE: PPP polls found three states are well within the margin of error, and give Romney his best chance for some surprise pickups. According to PPP, Obama leads by just 2 points in Iowa and New Hampshire, and by 3 in Wisconsin. "EXPAND THE MAP" STATES: PPP polls have bad news for Romney in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota, where his campaign made a last-minute push in the final weks of the campaign. Obama leads by at least 6 points in all three states. Here's PPP's final map, which shows the state of play in every state and gives an idea of the Electoral College range for both candidates:
You think that the liberal biased PPP claiming liberal Obama would win the election disproves Silver's accusation that PPP is the biggest herder in the business? Rush Limbaugh liked Reagan when the entire establishment hated him. And Reagan won. So Limbaugh isn't biased. He's an awesome forecaster, right? You post these polls from right before elections and you think that proves something or other about the reliability of the polls. It doesn't prove squat. As has been shown repeatedly, the polls all converge right before the election and Nate Silver has proved that they do that little gymnastic maneuver by placing their thumbs on the scales. They make their polls look they way they want them to look. Months before the election, the polls are considerably different. And they don't show the same thing they do at the end. And that's where we are right now. History shows that the polls are going to change right before the election as pollsters intentionally manipulate them and try to get them in line with other pollsters. So how do these polls you keep showing that are two months before the election mean anything at all? They obviously don't. They'll change. Right before the election. The motivations for this pollster bullshit is obvious. Human psychology works the same way in polls as it does anywhere else. It is well known among stock strategists at major brokerage firms that it is far less dangerous for them to simply get in line with the consensus and be wrong than to tell people what they really think. Because if everyone else is wrong, too, then it won't come back to hurt you. So the pollsters coalesce at the end and reduce their risk of looking stupid. Even if they're wrong. Leading up to the election that can do anything they want. And the primary thing they want is to satisfy their clients and get more business. Or they won't get hired to do any more polls. And virtually every poll firm's clients right now want to show Trump getting shellacked.
If you put two and two together, that PPP is a great forecaster and also the biggest herder, then it becomes obvious that they start manipulating their polls right before the elections to try to get in line with the averages of the other polls, which is an effort to be least wrong and look good for posterity's sake. So why, Tony Stark, are you telling us anything about what PPP says right now, two months before an election? They're going to put their thumbs on the scales and change their polls right before the election, right? Posting these polls right now two months before the upcoming election and claiming they are meaningful, by posting previous election polls that were given just prior to those previous elections is deceitful.
It is clear that PPP is a left-leaning polling firm. They go so far to admit it. However their polls for major races are extremely accurate because they do in-depth polling with large sample size. Historically they are very accurate.
From Nate Silver... admitting Polls have been skewed. And NYTimes provided strong evidence some polls like PPPs do it on purpose. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...y-Polling-the-biggest-herders-in-the-business 1. This may also be part of why the polls have frequently proved to be “skewed” toward either Democrats or Republicans. In 2012, there was a significant bias toward Republicans and in 2014 a significant one toward Democrats... (nate has been much smarter since he left the New York Times.) ==== 2. A few pollsters are shameless about their herding. One of them is Public Policy Polling (PPP), an polling firm that conducts automated polls for both public consumption and for liberal and Democratic clients. Take a look at this exchange, for example, between The New York Times’ Nate Cohn13 and PPP’s Tom Jensen. Cohn discovered that in 2012, the racial composition of PPP’s polls was correlated in an unusual way with President Obama’s performance among white voters in their surveys. If Obama was performing especially poorly among whites in one PPP poll, it tended to have a higher share of nonwhite voters, which boosted Obama’s result. And if Obama was doing relatively well among whites, PPP projected less nonwhite turnout, keeping his lead in check. As a result, PPP’s polls tended to show an unusually steady race between Obama and Mitt Romney. I’m picking on PPP for a reason: They’re the biggest herders in the business...
Doesn't matter if they are the biggest herder or not,all I care about is the accuracy. PPP had Obama ahead months before the election,not just before the election. Maybe bad poll firms like Rasmussen should herd since they had Romney ahead of Obama in most their polls.
I absolutely agree.I never said they weren't biased.I put a lot of weight into their polls because they are accurate.