I used to test the sensitivity to bias by runing a variant where I presumed a +1% bias towards Democrats, so I subracted 1% from the Democrat result and added 1% to the Republican result. If I do that to the current Rasmussen presidential poll, Romney goes from an EV of 257.37 votes to 276.80 votes, or from a 28.95% chance of winning to 67.08% chance of winning.
Being less severe, if I use a +0.5% adjustment, Romney gets an EV of 267.82, or a 48.51% chance of winning.
If I go for broke and test that I don't know what the bias is, but I assume it's a triangle between 0% and 2.5%, with a likely at 1%, Romeny's EV goes to 279.37, with a 70.21% chance of winning.
In the Senate, let's do the same thing.
Adjusting for a 1% bias towards Democrats and a 1% bias against Republicans, the EV goes from 50.37 seats to 52.55 seats, or from a 44.5% chance of winning control to a 96.56% chance of winning control.
Being less severe at a 0.5% bias, the EV is 50.93 seats, or a 64.56% chance of winning control.
With uncertain bias as before, the EV is 52.74 seats, or a 93.26% chance of winning control.
I can play with the range of bias to test the sensitivity of the results, trying a spread with a lower high-side and different likely. When I tried this with McCain in 2008, the +/- 1% bias-adjusted result showed McCain leading the race. After that election, I stopped using the bias adjustement and just went with straight Rasmussen numbers.
-PJ -PJ
What do you get if you use the turnouts for WI or 2010?
You just showed me how much difference voter intensity can make. That might explain why the Obama regime is starting to throw hail Mary passes all ready like this Amnesty plan. They know their only hope is to fire up their base so they are thrashing around looking for something that will fire up the Hopey-Changey crowd this year.