Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polling Question: How Can Obama Be Ahead in States Where Dem. Senate Candidates Behind?
Self | September 2, 2012 | PJ-Comix

Posted on 09/02/2012 6:48:04 AM PDT by PJ-Comix

Okay, I have a question: How can Obama be ahead in states where the Democrat Senate candidates are behind. I'll give you an example: Connecticut. In that state, the Republican Senate, Linda McMahon, leads her Democrat opponent by 3 points according to the polls yet the polls also show CT as solid for Obama. How can that be? How does Obama run AHEAD of the Democrat Senate candidate?

I see similar situations in other states, such as Wisconsin, where Obama is supposed to be ahead yet the Democrat Senate candidates are behind.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: barackobama; lindamcmahon
Looking for explanations of this phenomenon. A rip in the electoral/polling continuum?
1 posted on 09/02/2012 6:48:06 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Lies?


2 posted on 09/02/2012 6:49:17 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Bradley effect.


3 posted on 09/02/2012 6:50:56 AM PDT by Mrs.Z
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

Wishful thinking?


4 posted on 09/02/2012 6:52:05 AM PDT by PJ-Comix (Beware the Rip in the Space/Time Continuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Easily explained PJ: the liberals don't want to be seen as racists and must support the half-black Kenyan.

The Kenyan must go.

5 posted on 09/02/2012 6:52:32 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Many conservatives find lying to pollsters a satisfying hobby. And besides, if you object to the Bamster, you’re a raaaacist.


6 posted on 09/02/2012 6:52:52 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs.Z

Britain has a Tory Effect which could apply here.


7 posted on 09/02/2012 6:52:55 AM PDT by PJ-Comix (Beware the Rip in the Space/Time Continuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Just wait till ole Barry wakes up Nov. 8th to a landslide defeat, finding out all those Democrats saying yes to the pollsters to avoid the appearance of being racist actually say no in the voting booth to avoid the appearance of being stupid.


8 posted on 09/02/2012 6:53:47 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I don’t have a good reason for this.

I’ll give you another example. In my state, Missouri, all 3 Republican candidates for Senator were outpolling McCaskill by 5+ points (before Akin shot himself in the face). But Romney/Obama is a dead heat. Obama won’t be within 5 points of Romney in Missouri on election night.

Do the pollsters wait until the election to do more accurate polls to save their reputations?

From the tone and tenor of the campaigns, I would wager the internals are far different than the public pablum we are being fed.


9 posted on 09/02/2012 6:55:31 AM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

oversampling.....


10 posted on 09/02/2012 6:56:00 AM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

MA is another such state. Scott Brown comfortably ahead of Fauxahontas yet rated as solidly for Obama.


11 posted on 09/02/2012 6:57:01 AM PDT by PJ-Comix (Beware the Rip in the Space/Time Continuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Because people still like the Obama “brand” (see the great Daniel Greenfield article posted earlier). Their local Dem Senate candidate? No so much.

iow people support Obama because he’s Obama. They’re taking out their political and economic anger on the downticket candidates.


12 posted on 09/02/2012 6:58:36 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the808bass
Do the pollsters wait until the election to do more accurate polls to save their reputations?

Yup! They can lie like hell now because their results can't be verified but by the final weekend before the election they have to reveal the "horrible" truth or end up with their reputations ruined.

13 posted on 09/02/2012 6:59:10 AM PDT by PJ-Comix (Beware the Rip in the Space/Time Continuum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

In heavily Rat infested areas, people are afraid to say they are voting against Obama. They don’t know if the caller is a real pollster or an Obama thug.


14 posted on 09/02/2012 7:01:17 AM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the808bass
polling companies are paid to do polls, how interesting would R n R ahead of BO and Buttboy by 12 for the next three months. People love a horse race.

Pollsters are not stupid.

15 posted on 09/02/2012 7:05:49 AM PDT by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Can we safely assume this is a rhetorical question posed to make a point?


16 posted on 09/02/2012 7:07:10 AM PDT by possum john
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: urbanpovertylawcenter
I also believe that pollsters attempt to keep it a "horse race" as long as possible. That's why they are currently oversampling Democrats for the most part. As we get closer to the election, the sampling will more closely reflect the expected turnout, as in the pollster world, the only polls people remember are the last ones, so they want to be able to say that they were right so that people will hire them for the next election cycle.

It's the same dynamic that has the network carrying the Super Bowl praying for a close game. They don't want a 38-3 score at halftime as they will lose millions of viewers for the second half and they will have to rebate advertisers a lot of money.

17 posted on 09/02/2012 7:11:48 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Pollsters are remembered for how accurate they are the day before the election.


18 posted on 09/02/2012 7:13:16 AM PDT by Leo58 (Those who cheer you today will curse you tomorrow, the only thing that endures is character.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Proud2BeRight

“In heavily Rat infested areas, people are afraid to say they are voting against Obama. They don’t know if the caller is a real pollster or an Obama thug.”

I agree. How would one respond to a poll concerning Chavez in Venezuela?


19 posted on 09/02/2012 7:26:40 AM PDT by calico_thompson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

While I wish “spin” polls were really the case, I remember hearing the same kind of comments in 2008 about how the polls were being skewed toward the dems and how the polls would shift to a McCain lead in the day or two before the election.

As I recall, they showed about 51-48 Obama at that point - within a percentage point or so of the final tally.

I’m not buying that theory this time around. Fool me once and all that.


20 posted on 09/02/2012 7:34:36 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Behind enemy lines in the city where it's illegal to buy a Big Gulp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mrs.Z

Bradley effect

Tom Bradley speaking at AIDS Walk LA at the Paramount Studios lot in 1988
The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect,[1][2] is a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.[3][4][5] The theory proposes that some voters will tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, while on election day they vote for the white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.[6]

Good call.


21 posted on 09/02/2012 7:48:17 AM PDT by Calusa (The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles. Quoth Bob Dylan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Calusa

You also have people invested in OBAMA who may change at the last minute...

This is similar to 1980....the press told us Carter was Great and Reagan was just an actor....I think the RATS are hoping for a big Mittens mistake...


22 posted on 09/02/2012 7:54:19 AM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Different polling uses different metrics.


23 posted on 09/02/2012 7:57:51 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I’m still trying to figure out how he got elected.
Lies, cover-ups, more lies, daily media props, lies.


24 posted on 09/02/2012 8:09:45 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's agenda¬óDivide and conquer. FREEDOM OR FREE STUFF- YOU GET ONE CHOICE, CHOOSE WISELY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Connecticut is a very “socially Liberal” state, and Ms McMahan, though a fiscal Conservative and a Conservative in many other ways is not seen as a “right-to-life” Conservative; so many Liberals (who are also, many of them “wall-streeters”) are not turned-off by Linda. While, they may not be as comfortable with Mister Romney as they are with her. By election day they may change their mind, but it would be more likely about the Presidential race than the Senate race. I imagine this election will see “split tickets” in many instances, including some Democrats who will vote for Romney and vote for their Democrat for Congress at the same time.


25 posted on 09/02/2012 8:15:47 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I could see it in someplace like Mass, where Brown is the incumbent.

But you are right, it doesn’t make too much sense in open-seat races.

But, are we sure these are the same polls? I mean is the same polls asking: who are you voting for for pres, who are you voting for for senate?

Or are they taking results from 2 different polls? If that’s the case I’m not sure we can fairly compare the results.


26 posted on 09/02/2012 8:28:42 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
It's the same dynamic that has the network carrying the Super Bowl praying for a close game. They don't want a 38-3 score at halftime as they will lose millions of viewers for the second half and they will have to rebate advertisers a lot of money.

Yes they need Proctor and Gamble to buy air-time to sell various soaps, no one likes a run-away horse race, and they wonder why we turn them off..

27 posted on 09/02/2012 8:38:32 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: calico_thompson
“In heavily Rat infested areas, people are afraid to say they are voting against Obama. They don’t know if the caller is a real pollster or an Obama thug.”

Especially if you are a UNION household... Caller ID is a beautiful thing, I hardly pick up the phone anymore...

28 posted on 09/02/2012 8:40:48 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
What is sadder is the average Joe doesn't look @ all the Senate Races... Not just CT, but we have real races in OH and MI that may go in the "R" column.

I say it again, I think 60 is a possibility in the Senate, Obama will have no coat-tails, negative ones in fact, I see a vote against him and people possibly pulling the "R" ticket for the 1st time swinging the Senate like we could only dream about....

29 posted on 09/02/2012 8:44:55 AM PDT by taildragger (( Palin / Mulally 2012 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the808bass

From the tone and tenor of the campaigns, I would wager the internals are far different than the public pablum we are being fed.

***

Why feed us pablum?


30 posted on 09/02/2012 8:48:07 AM PDT by ROTB (Live holy, forgive all & pray in Jesus' name. Trust He is willing & able & eager to ANSWER BIG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

No coattails? One would think that Obama would be a drag on the ticket. The real test is how many of these Dem candidates downticket want Obama to campaign for them or to appear with them on the campaign trail or vice-versa.


31 posted on 09/02/2012 8:57:15 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calusa; Mrs.Z
While I do hear you on the Bradley effect there were many of us here thinking that it would apply in 2008 regarding the polls. however, the polls were right and McCain lost.

Now there's a lot of reasons for that and intensely bad press coverage on McCain versus a fawning, bootlicking Obama-loving press corps had a lot to do with it, 2008 was a reverse-Bradley. People voted for the black guy to look cool and non-racist.

Of course this year, that dog won't hunt, so maybe your Bradley effect will apply. Personally I think the media just outright lies and the REAL polls are looking real good for R&R but they're just not telling us.

32 posted on 09/02/2012 9:00:25 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

A candidate of a party running in a state that, in national elections, tends to vote for the other party, can try to tailor his or her positions on some issues to the inclinations of the state. For example, in the South, a Democrat would tend to characterize himself as conservative on social issues; and, in the North, a Republican would tend to characterize himself as liberal on social issues.

Among other reasons:

1.A particular candidate may be a better politician than his opponent.

2.A particular candidate may be an entrenched incumbent, who has endeared himself to many individuals over the years, e.g., by fixing a problem with Social Security benefits.

3.(House races only) The district may be gerrymandered so as to be a blue district within a red state, or visa versa.


33 posted on 09/02/2012 9:41:38 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

IMO, zero has been blaming congress for so long that some people disassociate the President from Congress.


34 posted on 09/02/2012 10:54:20 AM PDT by duckman (Dr Ben Carlson: Vision Not Division.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Personal Responsibility
While I wish “spin” polls were really the case, I remember hearing the same kind of comments in 2008 about how the polls were being skewed toward the dems and how the polls would shift to a McCain lead in the day or two before the election.

As I recall, they showed about 51-48 Obama at that point - within a percentage point or so of the final tally.

I’m not buying that theory this time around. Fool me once and all that.

I agree with you. I also remember similar comments towards the polls in 2008, and the election showed the polls were, in fact, accurate.

35 posted on 09/02/2012 11:12:07 AM PDT by jeannineinsd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

MSM poll lies + Bradley effect = R squared win.


36 posted on 09/02/2012 12:41:45 PM PDT by Mrs.Z
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
While I do hear you on the Bradley effect there were many of us here thinking that it would apply in 2008 regarding the polls. however, the polls were right and McCain lost.

The biggest difference this time is that in 2008, Obama was an unknown quantity, so a vote for him was a novel thing to do, and many voters said to themselves, "it can't be any worse than what we have now."

In 2012, we know him all too well, and it is MUCH worse than it was before he was elected. So some of those folks who may be SAYING they'll vote for him again, have no intention of actually doing so.

37 posted on 09/02/2012 11:34:47 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Very astute analysis!

2012 is not going to be like 2008! I’ve been mulling over the idea that 2012 will be like the elections of 1996 or 2004, where in both cases the incmbent won; but neither year had such horrific economic issues.

No, I see 1980 all over again.


38 posted on 09/03/2012 6:16:09 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson