Skip to comments.New Pew poll: Obama wins by 10 if Democrats lead in turnout this year by, um, 19 points
Posted on 08/03/2012 7:31:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Normally I give these polls with ridiculous samples the ol' college try, but I'm not even going to bother with this. You're welcome to it if you want to put in the time. The sample:
No need to boot up your computer's calculator. That's 43.5D/24.5R/32I, or D+19. The 2008 presidential exit poll, in a big blue year, was D+7. And yet, even here, we find this:
Nate Silver notes that Pew has been polling high for Obama all year and that registered voters tend to skew Democratic vis-a-vis likely voters. If you adjust for those effects, he thinks Obama's actual lead here is around four points. Fair enough; that's all I'll give you from Pew. If you want more, hit the link. Instead, let me play contrarian by quoting from RCP expert Sean Trende’s latest piece playing off yesterday’s questionable Quinnipiac numbers. Hugh Hewitt did a superb job grilling Quinnipiac’s pollster about their sample today, but Trende argues that worrying about the partisan composition of samples is way overblown:
I say this, in part, because weve been having this debate for a very long time, and it usually goes nowhere. In 2004, re-weighting polls to reflect the 2000 exit polls was all the rage among Democratic bloggers. The argument went that Republicans hadnt had parity with Democrats in polling in a very long time, so we should ignore polls showing Republicans even with Democrats, or perhaps even ahead of Democrats in terms of ID. Of course, the final exits showed a tie between the parties, as Republicans managed to turn out their base at supercharged levels.
Since then, the same thing has occurred in every election: The losing side objects to the partisan composition of polling. The polls then proceed to get the final result roughly correct…
In all three states polled, the RCP Averages (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania) include at least one poll of likely voters from a nonpartisan source that is roughly consistent with the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac result. They also include polls that are not consistent with the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac result. Overall it looks like CBS/NYT/Quinnipiacs system places it on the more pro-Democratic side of the house effect scale, but not outrageously so.
That Quinnipiac poll suddenly becomes very worrisome if a guy as sharp as Trende thinks there might be something to it. Similarly, read the e-mail Bill Kristol got from a friend “with an excellent track record of reading election trends.” He makes a simple point: While it’s true Romney’s even with Obama in the national polls, it’s not true that he’s even with him in the far more important swing-state polls. (Silver has a chart illustrating this, in fact.) His theory is that the Bain attacks are working — not nationally, where comparatively few people are seeing them, but in areas that are being bombarded with tens of millions of dollars in ads. Perhaps not coincidentally, just today Romney hired a PR person for the exclusive purpose of answering the Bain critiques. That’s not to say Romney can’t make up the difference — conservatives will be carpet-bombing the swing states with ads soon enough — but the idea that he might be behind right now by a small but significant margin where it counts isn’t necessarily liberal media bias at work.
Update: Jay Cost of the Weekly Standard e-mails to reassure me:
It’s one thing to give pollsters a wide berth, but D+8 in Ohio [in the Quinnipiac poll] is absurd. My general rule of thumb is that the historical average over the last 25 years is D+3.5. The best for the GOP was in 2004 (when it was even) and the worst was 2008 (when it was D+7). Anything over D+7 is just not defensible.
And one of the points, too, is that there is a difference between methodological soundness and inference. You can dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s as a pollster, but if you get a D+9 sample in Ohio, I’m sorry, that does not lend itself to a valid inference about November.
In other words, you don’t have to go so far as to argue that pollsters should weight by party ID, but you should be aware of what the spreads are and be very skeptical of anybody going as far as Pew (!) or even those CBS/NYT/Q polls are.
Have they no shame?
Why vote for Obama?
Get free stuff.
Laugh at the chumps going to work everyday while you sleep in.
Have high-paid spokespeople make excuses for you to cover any illegality or immorality.
Watch communities and companies (which you didn’t build anyway) crumble down to your level.
Walk around with a chip on your shoulder.
If you let the Republicans or Tea Party win, they will take your air, food, water, and all your free stuff and give it to the wealthy.
If you happen to be a rich liberal (e.g., union offical, journalist), this is your chance to get in on government sinecures, junkets, parties, real-estate scams and money-laundering schemes .
All these “I don't agree with the result of this poll so it must be a fraud” posts are no different.
Wishful thinking then, wishful thinking now
1 - Romney is our candidate
2 - Demographics
3 - A Society stupid enough to elect a man like Obama to the presidency is way more than stupid enough to re-elect him
If you re-normalize this poll to agree with Rasmussen (R sample about equal to D sample) you get Romney by 3 to 4 percent. Add a point for Likely Voters vs. Registered voters and that would get you 4 to 5%.
That’s about what Rasmussen gets. I think a 3 to 5 percent Romney lead is where we are right now as we wait patiently for the inevitable October Surprise due about October 20th or so.
If we assume all of the Dems voted for O, and the Reps voted for Romney, then Romney gets 2/3 of the independents.
So you believe there will be 19% more rats voting than repubs?
According to Wikipedia:
HERE ARE SOME KEY OBSERVATIONS:
In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, “Rasmussen’s final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama’s final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there.”
Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.
At the end of the 2008 presidential election, there were eight national tracking polls and many other polls conducted on a regular basis. Polling analyst Nate Silver reviewed the tracking polls and said that while none were perfect, and Rasmussen was “frequently reputed to have a Republican lean”, the “house effect” in their tracking poll was small and “with its large sample size and high pollster rating [it] would probably be the one I’d want with me on a desert island.” After the election, Rasmussen’s poll was rated as the most accurate, when compared to various other final pre-election polls.
A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads, “Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”
Journalist Mickey Kaus said, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious New York Times, go with Rasmussen.”
Sorry, math mistake. Romney would get 294 Independent votes, (753-459), and Obama would get 255, (1068-813). Still, Romney wins the Independent vote.
As long as there is no voter ID verification and purging of ineligible voters from the list, it could happen.
It was a highly used term during the McCain vs Obama election.
The BIG difference today is... many more people (NOT just democrats have been forced to depend on the government or lose their home and watch their children get shipped into foster homes)
I take every poll seriously. Better to be lied to before the election and fight harder than you would have without the untrue bad news than to see Obama win because we just brushed it off as...
They might be democrats, but allot of them are Americans and Patriots first and they know we HAVE to get rid of Obama.
You have a valid point about what happened here with McCain. Many were also hoping that respondents were simply reluctant to say that they weren’t voting for Obama. But back then (as far as i can recall) there weren’t any polls in the final days indicating McCain might be in the lead. It’s early but as of now most polls are showing a tight race, and at least one respected pollster (Rasmussen) has Romney solidly in the lead.
Whatever one thinks of him, Romney is running a stronger campaign than McCain. Palin seemed to be the only one trying to win. McCain could always look forward to returning to his comfy position in the senate and being well-liked by the media once again. Romney is hungrier. He is also younger and more attractive, and though it shouldn’t make a difference it probably will. Obama is still attractive to many but he is no longer new and exciting. More than that, Obama blew away McCain in terms of a war chest. Once Romney is free to start opening up all his coffers (following the convention) Obama will be facing an opponent who is basically on equal footing in that regard.
In the end, this election will ultimately come down to Romney vs the media. Obama is merely the figurehead of a coup d’etat orchestrated by the big money on the left and the liberal-controlled media. If Romney and his team realize that the media is and will continue to be hostile to him no matter what they do or say, and have a plan in place to counter them, then i think he can win.
Anything could happen in the world I guess
These rounding errors can be tricky. lol
“So you believe there will be 19% more rats voting than repubs?”
Polls of likely voters, or registered voters, or whatever, do not account for the MASSIVE illegal voting
strategies that are at this very moment being planned, and have been in preparation for the past three years, building on many years’ of real experience.
The Obama/Holder Department of Injustice WILL NOT properly monitor voting places, nor prosecute allegations of voting illegalities.
Regarding this poll, my husband just called Pew and spoke to Molly Rohal to get specifics.
She said they sampled 77% greater number of Democrats than Republicans. They said it was a valid representation.
What a scam!
I took basic statistics in college, paid attention, and learned a lot, so I believe they can work well. Anybody in my circumstances knows that one out of 20 polls is going to return a false result- and there’s no way to know whether it is off by two points or 30. My question is: what do pollsters do to protect tehmselves against this mathematical certainty? Do they throw that poll out and start over? (I’d bet not)
Bonus question: when was the last time a major media poll’s internals showed a suspiciously large oversampling of Reps? (answering to the approximate decade would be close enough)
The media is almost as ignorant of basic statistical techniques as they are about firearms. Even Britt Hume shows his total ignorance by pretending to see significance in two point moves. Almost as bogus as RCP’s ‘poll of polls.’ You would flunk the basic course if you used that technique in class.
I’ve only known one journalist who could do advanced math... it’s that rare.
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.