Mitt Romney five percent lead by unskewed Gallup poll data

Examiner.com ^ | 9-10-12 | Dean Chambers

[tellw]

The Gallup seven day tracking poll of the presidential race released today shows Mitt Romney behind President Obama by a 49 percent to 44 margin. The seven day tracking poll of 3050 registered voters, that has a margin of error of 2.0 percent, samples Democrats by about a 8 percent margin based on calculations from the reported data. If the data is properly weighted for the partisan makeup of the electorate, the data from this poll unskewed would show a Romney lead of 49 percent to 44. By skewing the poll, it gives Obama a five point lead instead of showing Romney leading by the same total.

[BfloGuy]

Any poll of registered voters [if you’ve got a driver’s license, you’re likely a registered voter] isn’t even worth analyzing.

[GilGil]

It amazes me how ignorant and uninformed you guys are. What is defeating you is your ignorance not the Democrats.

The fact is THERE ARE MORE REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS in the country according to party affiliation exceeding Democrats by 4%. 37.6% (R) 33.3%(D) 29.2%(other). This situation has been trending Republican for a while now for the Republicans for over a year. This information comes from Rassmussen and you guys have not been aware of this for over a year. Taking these trends into account the Democrat polls make no sense.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

[Alter Kaker]

This information comes from Rassmussen and you guys have not been aware of this for over a year. Taking these trends into account the Democrat polls make no sense.

Rasmussen Reports poll out today has Obama at 50%, leading Romney 50-45. Do you agree with that? If not, why not?

Party ID is a fuzzy metric -- it varies considerably depending on how you assess it. But it makes no sense to take party ID results from one poll and apply them to candidate support numbers from another poll and pretend that that's a useful metric.

[GilGil]

First of all Republicans outnumber Democrats by something like 2 million now in party affiliation. As I stated earlier there are 37% Republicans verses 33% Democrats according to party affiliation. Since you were the one to suggest that there were more Democrats than Republicans, I had to correct you first on that fact. This is huge.

Secondly Indpendents are trending for Romney 54-40 again according to CNN. http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/09/cnn-obama-52-romney-46.html

The independents count for 29% of the vote. Rassmussen has also told us that basically all the Dems will vote for O and all the Repubs will vote for Romney then that leaves the Repubs with the advantage since they exceed Dems by 4% and they have 54% of the Indies. This means Romney will win. As far as the Rassmussen poll goes it does not make sense in light of these other numbers.

Let’s not forget that pollsters can totally miss the mood of the country as in 1994 where no one saw the Republicans take the House for the first time in 40 years.

I also suspect that the Democrats are not as monolithic as assumed. In the end I suspect Romney will win 55-45 the same numbers as those who want to repeal Obamacare.

First

[Alter Kaker]

Here's your problem -- you're picking and choosing different numbers from different polls to suit your liking.

Too bad this isn't the buffet at Sizzler.

You can't juxtapose independents in one poll up with party ID in another poll and GOP favorables in a 3rd. That's about as unscientific as you can get because different polls have different survey methods. Somebody classed as an "Independent" (albeit Republican-leaning) by one metric may be considered a Republican in another poll.

Re: Party ID, it varies considerably depending on how you measure it, but most polling firms find a small but pretty consistent Dem advantage for the reasons I articulated. That does not mean that Dems win every election - Indies have a slight GOP lean historically.

Here are Gallup's trends over the past few years.

[GilGil]

Well I see you ignoring some glaring facts. The 2010 elections. The Wisconsin elections. These are two facts that trounced the polls. As a matter of fact the polls said Walker was going to lose. It was sooooo close leaning against Walker that he was going to lose. In the end he trounced the other guy. After all they did in Wisconsin they could not win.

Even Rassmussen was not projecting a Walker win when it was obvious he would win. The same holds for Obama. As far as throwing out the facts I gave you nice try.

Obama will ho down the same numbers as are opposed to Obamacare about 55-45 just as happened in 1994 with Hillarycare. No one saw that coming not even Rassmussen.

Sorry you lose. There are too many on this forum willing to be victims and throw in the towel at the slightest hint of heavy lifting.

[Alter Kaker]

Um, I don't even know where to begin.

As a matter of fact the polls said Walker was going to lose.

Yeah, no. Try again. These are the four polls that came out closest tothe election.

WeAskAmerica 6/3 - 6/3 1570 LV 54 42 Walker +12
PPP (D) 6/2 - 6/3 1226 LV 50 47 Walker +3
Marquette University 5/23 - 5/26 600 LV 52 45 Walker +7
WPR/St. Norbert 5/17 - 5/22 406 LV 50 45 Walker +5

[Alter Kaker]

Polling average: Walker +7
Actual result: Walker +7

I'd say the polls were pretty decent...

[MrChips]

It is my FAVORITE movie. But then, I am a Latin teacher, so, of course it is. :-)

[thingumbob]

Won the Oscar for best male actor 1939

[thingumbob]

Won the Oscar for best male actor 1939