Skewed Polls

[Winman]

For those who support Romney, recent polls are very discouraging. Almost all recent polls give Obama a good lead over Romney. The problem is, nearly all of these polls are skewed heavily in favor of Democrats. When these polls were conducted, 50% of those polled were Democrats. This gives Obama a big lead. But this does not reflect recent elections.

But many still wonder how the other polls can show such varying results for the presidential race. This is because the mainstream media-commissioned polls over-sample Democrats to produce skewed results that favor the Democrats. The recent CNN/ORC poll was based on a sample that included 50.5 percent Democrats. The makeup of the electorate, according to exit polls, in 2008 was Democrats 39 percent to Republicans 32 during an election in which Barack Obama won the race 53 percent to 46 percent over John McCain. Even if one assumes the 2012 electorate will match that, which most analysts consider highly unlikely, a poll sample including 50.5 percent still over-samples Democrats by 11.5 percent.

The electorate in 2010 was made up of 35 percent registered Democrats and Republicans with almost all the rest being independents. Rasmussen Reports partisan data measured from hundreds of thousands of voters by Rasmussen Reports, which measures the partisan percentages at 37.6 percent Republicans, 33.3 percent Democrats and 29.2 percent independents.

When poll results are corrected to reflect the true ratio between Democrats/Republicans/Independents that will likely vote, Romney comes out well ahead in all polls.

Read here to understand how when all the polls are corrected to reflect reality, Romney has a good lead over Obama.

http://www.examiner.com/article/how...-defeating-barack-obama-the-presidential-race

 

[LadyEagle]

I hope you're right. I only know of a couple of people who are voting for obama (I'm working on them)--nearly everybody I talk to, from the HVAC man to friends, are planning to vote for Romney! I don't even see any obama signs anywhere, but when I was leaving the dentist office today, a lady was coming in the door with 2 Romney yard signs to drop off there.

 

[Winman]

I hope you're right. I only know of a couple of people who are voting for obama (I'm working on them)--nearly everybody I talk to, from the HVAC man to friends, are planning to vote for Romney! I don't even see any obama signs anywhere, but when I was leaving the dentist office today, a lady was coming in the door with 2 Romney yard signs to drop off there.

Well, I live in Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the nation, and that is the difference. If they polled Tennessee, then Romney would come out ahead in the polls, if they polled Connecticut, Obama would come out ahead. These polls would be skewed.

In reality, only about 35-40% of the voters will be Democrats. All evidence shows the Republicans will have a bigger turn out this year. This is what all the skewed polls are about, to discourage Republicans from coming out. I do not think this will work, it might have the exact opposite effect. If an equal number of Republicans as Dems comes out, Romney will easily win. Undecided voters have ALWAYS gone to the new candidate about 70 to 30%.

It's like Dick Morris says, if you asked a married person if they will still be married to the same person next year and they say they are undecided, then their spouse is in REAL trouble. About 10% of those polled right now say they are undecided, this means they are not sure they want to stay with Obama. The majority will go with the new guy, Romney, and put him over the top.

What I am saying is that if you take a real poll that is composed of about 40% Democrats and Republicans, and about 20% Independents, Romney will win every poll.

 

[InTheLight]

Gut reaction? You know someone's side is losing when they start to question the polls. This has been a dialogue on the conservative talk shows for about a week now. Stop whining.

 

[preachinjesus]

We're pretty good at polling these days. Given the computer models, statistical analysis, peer/press review, and openness in process we usually have a good idea what is the case. Of course there is always the "margin of error."

I second what was just said, when your down everybody is your enemy. Polls are a natural point of criticism. Granted I do think we're all over-sampled on polls but they're pretty good. What isn't good is exit polling. That's a mishmash of perspectives.

The best polls from 2008 were Gallup and Rassmussen. They're the only ones that I watch. They both still have Romney getting smoked on Election Day in the only Presidential category that matters: electoral college.

I still don't understand how the RNC could nominate such a weak candidate in a year when they should walloping the incumbent. This is exactly why I deny any party affiliation.

 

[billwald]

Without knowing how the respondents were selected and how the questions were worded it is impossible to judge poll results.

 

[Winman]

Gut reaction? You know someone's side is losing when they start to question the polls. This has been a dialogue on the conservative talk shows for about a week now. Stop whining.

I am not whining at all, I am telling folks not to get discouraged by the many recent polls that all show Obama ahead, because they are not accurate.

Watch and see, and then we'll see who whines.

 

[preachinjesus]

I am not whining at all, I am telling folks not to get discouraged by the many recent polls that all show Obama ahead, because they are not accurate.

I'd still challenge this. Back when Dole was running against Clinton a lot of people said he was way ahead and the polls were wrong...well. The whole Bush/Gore thing is kinda out of the ballpark because that was down to, literally, like 5,000 votes. However, Bush and Kerry got the same result from Democrats. And we saw the results of McCain/Obama. The polls are very accurate reflections of current feelings and persuasions.

For all the reasons I listed above, the polls are accurate. You just can't consistently argue this because if they weren't accurate they wouldn't be doing this. There isn't a group of people in a room somewhere telling these independent polling agencies how to act.

Sooner or later the conservative across the US are going to have to realize the country is drastically changing (I'm not saying this is a good thing, or a bad thing, it just is.) Look at Virginia, in 10 years the demographics of the most populated areas of the state have completely changed. These areas are going to go overwhelmingly for President Obama and, as a result, the state will probably go his way.

Ultimately the electoral map is going to look a lot like Bush/Gore. Romney will win the middle (fly over) states and most of the counties in the US. When someone lays out the county map you will see a sea of red. However, Democrats control the high density areas and large population areas. Those will go overwhelmingly for President Obama.

Just saying man, the polls are pretty good. Now Romney can change his outcome, but I don't think he will be able. He's shown us that he is simply unable to sufficiently articulate a narrative that separates him from the President and shows how the President has failed.

The Republicans really have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Winman]

I'd still challenge this. Back when Dole was running against Clinton a lot of people said he was way ahead and the polls were wrong...well. The whole Bush/Gore thing is kinda out of the ballpark because that was down to, literally, like 5,000 votes. However, Bush and Kerry got the same result from Democrats. And we saw the results of McCain/Obama. The polls are very accurate reflections of current feelings and persuasions.

For all the reasons I listed above, the polls are accurate. You just can't consistently argue this because if they weren't accurate they wouldn't be doing this. There isn't a group of people in a room somewhere telling these independent polling agencies how to act.

Sooner or later the conservative across the US are going to have to realize the country is drastically changing (I'm not saying this is a good thing, or a bad thing, it just is.) Look at Virginia, in 10 years the demographics of the most populated areas of the state have completely changed. These areas are going to go overwhelmingly for President Obama and, as a result, the state will probably go his way.

Ultimately the electoral map is going to look a lot like Bush/Gore. Romney will win the middle (fly over) states and most of the counties in the US. When someone lays out the county map you will see a sea of red. However, Democrats control the high density areas and large population areas. Those will go overwhelmingly for President Obama.

Just saying man, the polls are pretty good. Now Romney can change his outcome, but I don't think he will be able. He's shown us that he is simply unable to sufficiently articulate a narrative that separates him from the President and shows how the President has failed.

The Republicans really have no one to blame but themselves.

If this election is similar to Bush/Gore, then Romney will easily win. That is the point of this thread, current pollsters are polling as though people will vote like they did in 2008. If so, Obama would win easily. But these same pollsters know for a fact that Obama is not going to get the same turnout this election, MANY folks who voted for Obama in the past are very dissatisfied with him. Many Republicans were very discouraged at the end of Bush's last term were not enthusiastic about voting. The 2010 elections showed that Republicans are highly energized and will come out in large numbers this election.

Young people came out in droves last election for Obama, but they will not this election. Obama will be fortunate to get 50% of the youth vote he got last time. He is not drawing the huge crowds at universities this time.

Undecideds are very high this election, all elections in the past 60 years show the undecideds go to the challenger about 70 to 30 percent.

None of the current polls are taking this into account, that is why they are skewed in favor of the Democrats.

Watch and see.

 

[preachinjesus]

Watch and see.

Well that about sums it up then. We shall do that.

 

[saturneptune]

Well that about sums it up then. We shall do that.

Barring an event that is a life changing experience for many people, I still maintain Obama will win by a small to moderate electoral majority. He will not have the victory he had in 2008. It only takes 270 electoral votes.

There seems to be very little interest in the election locally here in Kentucky. I have seen no Obama signs, and about four Romney signs. Obama won about 36% of the vote in 08, and probably will not make that this year. People here will vote for Romney, there is just no excitment about it. It is merely a vote to get rid of Obama. In the states that count towards winning, Obama has a substantial lead.

Of the swing states, I believe Obama will win slight majorities of popular vote in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Colorado. Romney will probably pick up NC, Indiana, and Iowa.

 

[InTheLight]

There seems to be very little interest in the election locally here in Kentucky. I have seen no Obama signs, and about four Romney signs.

This is a good point. Here in Minnesota, land of Humphrey, McCarthy, Mondale, and Wellstone, I haven't seen ONE Obama/Biden bumper sticker or one lawn sign. That is astonishing.

 

[targus]

There seems to be very little interest in the election...

It's fatigue.

People are just sick of hearing about politics...

All the while nothing improves.

IMO that works in Romney's favor - and against Obama.

My wife and I attended a party at a neighbor's house recently. Did not know most of the people attending and we knew nothing about their politics.

We played a game that reuired everyone to write a single word to complete a sentence and then compare answers.

To a person everyone there answered "I am sick of about hearing about..." with the word "Obama".

 

[kyredneck]

....To a person everyone there answered "I am sick of about hearing about..." with the word "Obama".

Could be they're just tired of the 'Obama bashing', whether they be Dem or Repub. Kinda like this forum, probably at least 90% of the posts contain his name in a negative way.

What in the world are 'you people' going to do without Obama is what I'd like to know?

 

[preachinjesus]

It's fatigue.

People are just sick of hearing about politics...

All the while nothing improves.

I completely agree here. Its 24/7 all you hear now...even when its not an election year.

Our leaders lack fortitude, conviction, and the ability to lead our country back to great things. Frankly, they are what we deserve.

 

[Borneol]

All the polling between the candidates has been confusing of late. Thought Jonathan Tobin had a good explanation of would could be going on. In general Obama is likely up, but the race is close.

"Obama Poll Surge Doesn’t Jibe With Democrats’ Registration Decline"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...snt-jive-with-democrats-registration-decline/

excerpt from his article:

Many Republicans are not buying the numbers produced by national polls in the last few weeks that show President Obama padding his lead over Mitt Romney. Some of this sentiment can be put down to wishful thinking by conservatives who can’t fathom why so many Americans want to re-elect Obama. It is only human nature that we tend to think polls that verify our views of the way things should be are credible while dismissing those that contradict as bogus. Indeed, with the president taking the lead in so many national as well as swing state polls recently it is difficult to argue that the race hasn’t shifted in his direction. However, there are those, such as former Bill Clinton advisor/pollster and current pundit Dick Morris, who have consistently argued that the polls are wrong because their turnout model is incorrect. Morris believes that all of their numbers reflect a belief that the Democrats will be able to match their historic turnout they achieved in 2008, something he argues is not remotely likely to happen.

Morris’s argument was widely dismissed as mere spin by a conservative-leaning analyst, but recent reports showing a huge decline in Democratic registration when compared to four years ago should give even the most sanguine liberals some food for thought. As Fox News reports, several studies have shown that the number of voters declaring themselves to be Democrats has dipped precipitately in swing states, particularly in Ohio....

 

[LadyEagle]

What in the world are 'you people' going to do without Obama is what I'd like to know?

Obama's name may become the new household curse word some day, if it hasn't already.

 

[ktn4eg]

I've said it B4 & I'll say it again:

BOTH BO & MR ARE J - E - R - K - S ! ! !

At least w/BO you pretty much know where he stands on the major domestic and foreign policy issues.

As 4 MR, he's flip-flopped (e.g., he was PRO-CHOICE/PRO-ABORTION [& PROUD OF IT] now, all the sudden he announces that he's PRO-LIFE / ANTI-ABORTION!!! IOW, "I was against it B4 I was for it!!" [Sorry, Bill Clinton!!]) on important "social" issues.

And then, when MR was MASS gov., it was his idea for GOVT-CONTROLLED health care that so impressed BO that BO took MR's concept of GOVT-CONTROLLED health care & made it his (BO's) "template" 4 OBAMA care!! No wonder MR told us abt a month ago that he'd change "very little" of OBAMA's GOVT-CONTROLLED "OBAMA care" if he (MR) becomes POTUS. Well, duh, IT WAS MR'S IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE!! "I guess that we'll just have to wait until after MR is inaugurated to find out what MR is REALLY like!!!" [Sorry, Nancy Pelosi!!]

BOTH BO AND MR SPELL DISASTER FOR OUR REPUBLIC!!! One simply uses the "fast" lane to take us to heXX. The other one prefers to take us there but just a tad bit slower. What's the REAL difference in the end?!!? After all, either way, the US of A still winds up in hexx!!!!

 

[Winman]

All the polling between the candidates has been confusing of late. Thought Jonathan Tobin had a good explanation of would could be going on. In general Obama is likely up, but the race is close.

"Obama Poll Surge Doesn’t Jibe With Democrats’ Registration Decline"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...snt-jive-with-democrats-registration-decline/

excerpt from his article:

That is a good article. This election is not going to be 2008 all over again. Democrats and Independents were almost fanatical in that election and came out strongly for Obama. This simply is not happening this time. It was the conservatives who came out in mass in 2010, not the liberals. If this happens in November, Romney will win.

Obama will always draw larger crowds than Romney at speeches. Conservatives are not so apt to go hear a speech in person, but they will go and vote.

While all polls are merely a snapshot of public opinion at a given moment, the registration numbers can’t be debated. Voter registration in Ohio is down by 490,000 from 2008 when, as was the case around the country, there was a flood of young and minority first-time voters eager to elect the first African American to the presidency. That decline in Ohio appears to be largely concentrated in the three largest counties that contain urban cities like Cleveland, where Democrats predominate. That same trend is reflected elsewhere. As Fox notes:

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it’s down 19.7 percent.

No Obama girls this time.