Posted on 09/29/2012 8:21:34 PM PDT by smoothsailing
September 29, 2012
Byron York
For all the complexities of polling, says Scott Rasmussen, there are some fairly simple numbers to remember when thinking about this year’s presidential race. “For the last 20 years, between 37 and 39 percent of voters on Election Day have been Democrats,” says the pollster. “Republicans have ranged from 32 to 37 percent. Right now, our sample looks like 36 percent Republican versus 39 percent Democrat.”
The bottom line, Rasmussen continues, is that there is most likely a two, three, or four percentage point advantage out there for Democrats. That’s what it’s been for nearly a generation; that’s probably what will happen on November 6.
Given that, and factoring in independents, Rasmussen’s national surveys show Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by a small margin. The president has a two-point advantage in the latest Rasmussen national tracking poll, and comparably small margins in the super-swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. “I think the race is tilting, just barely, in Obama’s favor, with the potential to shift between now and Election Day,” he says.
After some polls, particularly one from Quinnipiac and the New York Times, showed huge Obama leads in the swing states — nine points in Florida and ten in Ohio — there’s been a contentious debate about the relationship between state polls and national polls. Romney aides constantly point reporters toward the national polls. Of course they do; those polls are closer, and at the moment the Romney campaign is fighting hard against the impression, gaining momentum in some media circles, that the race is virtually over.
Team Romney has a point. When there are national polls showing a very tight race and big swing state polls showing a blowout, something is likely wrong. If the national results are close on November 6, it’s very unlikely that Ohio and Florida will be blowouts. And if Ohio and Florida are blowouts, it’s very unlikely the national race will be close. “When all is said and done,” says Rasmussen, “it is impossible for me to conceive of a circumstance where there is a huge discrepancy between those key states and the national numbers.”
And whatever the numbers are at this moment, Rasmussen expects them to move by Election Day. In the last three elections, he notes, the polls moved against the incumbent party in the final weeks of the race. That’s not an unbreakable pattern, and it might not happen this time, but it suggests Romney will gain on Obama, at least a bit, before November 6. Of course, some major, unexpected event might move things more.
Meanwhile, Republicans across the country continue to express skepticism, scorn, and in some cases outright contempt for the polls. Last week in Ohio, voter after voter at Romney-Ryan rallies complained about the polls, with most saying they just don’t believe them. It’s something every pollster, left, right, and center, is hearing every day.
“When polls appear to be in dispute,” says Rasmussen, “partisans go to the ones they like best and say they are right and everything else is wrong. Then they rationalize it. You rationalize things to fit what you want the world to be.”
In 2004 the turnout was E with what Ras had as a D+1.5 party id.
How is it that Ras thinks it will be D+2-4 in 2012 - after what happened in 2010 and what his partisan split shows now (R+4)? Makes no sense unless he’s playing along with crowd to look fair and hedge his bets.
I have never seem the Rs with more amp and angst. They will walk barefoot through a snow storm. Much more excited than 2004. Just look at any poll thread here at FR. People are freaking out. That is a sign of enthusiasm. Look at the base and blogs, the polling samples have never been an issue like this year.
That's just silly. Democrats have had an advantage in party ID for some time, as Rasmussen says in the article. That has nothing to do with enthusiasm or the rate at which voters head to the polls; it simply reflects self identification when pollsters ask.
Reagan had Reagan democrats. We were only 6 years removed from Nixon, and the democrats had a huge bulge in affiliation. There were many Kennedy democrats then. Today the demographic is different.
I think there are Reagan democrats out there who haven’t moved over yet. The debates will turn this in our favor.
Republican victories have never been delivered without votes from democrats. It’s just that many of those democrats are now called Independents.
I thought Rasmussen was saying this will break for Romney, if history is any judge, by a few more points.
THAT is all we need.
This election will be decided in the first 15 minutes of the first debate.
Unfortunately, all the Media Stories about Obama brilliance, and overwhelming debate win have already been written, as they had to be submitted to Media Matters for approval by 6PM tonite.
Check out post #7, it’s the most detail I’ve ever seen from a Rasmussen poll. It must be what you see if you’re a subscriber.
Remember gang polls are not prognostications they operate on current data manipulated by past realities. If the voter turnout is like that in 2008 Obama wins, if like 2010 (not a national election) then Romney has a very good shot. Right now 2008 turnout models are the norm, but this may change.
1. I say it’s BS
2. What fraction of Democrats are going to vote for Obama this time around?
So even if this is true, it’s great news for Romney.
That's the black community's mindset and 0bama knows that. The bottom line here is that the PRESIDENT has no ethics, morals, scruples, and no shame. THAT is the problem. Our President is a foreigner with a foreign ideology and in direct conflict with American ideals.
I agree. I think what Raz is doing is playing it safe and not upsetting the partisan left.
In 2004 the party id was D+1.5 and the turnout was Even with a far less enthusiasm gap than today.
Today the party id is R+4.5 and the turnout will be D+4 with a stronger enthusiasm gap? I don’t think so. Makes no sense.
See Red Steel’s post #14. It helped me understand a little better what Ras is doing.
Pollster seem not to be able to account or are poor at accounting for voter apathy or voter enthusiasm.
Rant after Nov 6th.
I wear a kilt...not a skirt.
Exactly! Sheesh, who needs the media to depress Republicans when we'll do it ourselves?
The reality is that turnout after 1980 has ALWAYS ranged from even to D+4, except for 2008. There is some evidence that this could be an usual outlier year where Rs outnumber Ds, but that WILL be an outlier.
We also know that the polls USUALLY shift towards the challenger down the final stretch. We also know that those who are say they are undecided down the final stretch USUALLY break 2:1 for the challenger. We know that Romney is adopting a late "daisy cutter" strategy designed to maximize those effects. With the Ras interview, we also now know that there is room for a more Republican electorate than Ras predicts RIGHT NOW without being unusual.
Long story short, Scott Rasmussen is a pollster, not a cheerleader. However, what he has to say is pretty good news for Romney. It makes no sense to pile on him because he doesn't draw a conclusion that MIGHT be true but for which there is no evidence to indicate WILL be true. Republican turnout has never exceeded Dem, so he can't say that any data he has indicate it will this time.
I have no doubts.
(”Then they rationalize it. You rationalize things to fit what you want the world to be.”)
Actually, that’s a pretty description of what the pollsters are doing, not Republican voters!
Rasmussen kept using a D+2 assumption even after its August polls showed likely voters to be R+4, probably just to play it safe, since D+2 is closer to the historical norm (it was D+3 or so in 2000, even in 2004, and D+7 in 2008). It is possible that his September party-ID numbers (which he will release this coming week) will not be as Republican, since the RNC was in August and the DNC was in September. If the electorate on Election Day ends up being D+2 or less, Romney will probably win; if it’s D+3, it will be very close, à la 2000, and it could go either way; and if it’s D+4 or more, Obama will likely win.
What is clear is that the electorate will not be D+7 this year, much less the D+8 through D+12 that some ridiculous pollsters have been using.
2008: D+7
2004: Even
2000: D+4
I’m hoping the final for 2012 is D+2 or less. That should be enough to win with a comfortable cushion and stave off challenges and dirty tricks.
I’m with you on the enthusiasm level, it’s seems huge for ABO. What I’m not sure of is the enthusiasm for Romney, I’m just hoping folks see him as the only choice.
There may be a 2-4% advantage for Dem voting in Nov. but 3% more Dems will vote for Romney than Republicans for Obama.
“So wait...Rasmussen, the most GOP friendly pollster out there, is also wrong?”
College football’s `Bowl Championship Series’ also has scientific credentials using research methodology recognized by political polling organizations.
Not surprisingly the Associated Pimps’ are also involved in both venues, providing their non-biased, impartial input. The BCS is a large pile of bovine excrement.
Saying, “They can’t all be wrong” begs the question. Assuming he isn’t found in bed with a live boy or dead girl, Romney wins hands down, tomorrow and in five weeks.
Don’t buy the BS. They’re all wrong.
When the dust settles we get to kiss fat sister Sue, rather than Aunt Doris with the running lip chancre. Yippee.
Did you read in my post that indies would break for Obama? NO! Actually I agree with your points in your post.
Yet, we get these stories only minutes before.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2938165/posts
Sounds like Scott is pulling a number out of his ear. Why is he sure that the Repubs won’t show up?
Pray for America
I'd put it higher than 3%, maybe 5-6%. Check out the chart in post #7, 15% of white male Dems for Romney!
Very impressive details. Looking inside at the Extended data, this is 88% solid or lean Romney for GOP voters vs. 85% solid or lean Obama for Democrats.
Romney is on more solid ground right now by far. The world is falling apart around Obama, whether the media reports it or not. I don’t see an upside for him. The race is Romney’s to win or lose.
It will be the independents who break for Romney, who will decide the election.
Romney simply cannot generate the necessary level of enthusiasm to win.
I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't believe that Romney has it in him to unseat the incumbent.
How did we win any election in the last 20 years if the Democrats were always outvoting us?
Something wrong with the Gender numbers. He is showing Romney down to Obama among men and up over Obama among women... He either made a mistake in the posting of the data i.e. reversed the results or the men who answered the poll were much less Whites than their actual numbers in the population...
Calculations details based on the Rasmussen internals that you posted:
% Obama = (84*39 + 9*32 + 29*38)/100 = 46.66 %, round it to 47 %.
% Romney = (12*39 + 87*32 +29*45)/100 = 44.99 %, round it to 45%.
Look at post # 7 with the detailed Rasmussen internals... Romney is winning independents by 5 points (43% Romney, 38% Obama)... Anyone who wins the independents by this margin on elections day is going to win the elections...
I think there are Reagan democrats out there who haven’t moved over yet. The debates will turn this in our favor.
The MSM is anticipating this argument. Seen the cover of Newsweek lately? BO as "The Democrats' Reagan"?
The fact that is the US proves you wrong.
The fact that there is the US proves you wrong.
Correction:
I said 15% of white male Dems for Romney, I meant 15% of all white Dems.
We’re see in Nov. How did those polls do in the WI recall race?
This is just a fact. You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but it is easier to fool a group of people that have an average IQ of 85. That is around 18 PTS below the IQ on an average European American.
Could this be part of the cause for the stunning poll number? After all O’Bumbler is only half Black. The part that abandoned him as a child.
Big problem with your logic. Obama is the black Muslim Carter, but Romney is the white Mormon Carter. There’s no Reagan running, so the rules are going to be different. There is just too little difference between the two candidates to excite anybody, and the only thing animating the Republicans is opposition towards Obama. Only the MittBots think Romney is something that he isn’t.
This is a weak foundation from which to launch a Presidential missile. That is why the missile is not flying high enough or fast enough when Obama has been so utterly incompetent and corrupt. Look at the ads Mittens has been pushing. I’m compassionate and so is Obama, but, umm, I can manage government better. Ryan: Gays are in the military and there’s nothing we can do about it now. Time to move on. Romney: Abortion is legal for the health and life of the mother and for rape and incest, it is settled law. RomneyCare was a great success in my state, but I never said it would work as a national model even though I did. You have to read the nuance in my lying words. Oh, and RomneyCare is proof that I am compassionate because I got everyone insured. But but but, I didn’t defund Medicare to do it.
And so it goes...
Absolutely Awesome! Thanks for posting the pic!
Ping
It would be interesting to compare how party turnout changed from 2006 to 2010.
Then whatever difference occurred there, apply it to 2008 to predict a 2012 number.
There is another component in this year’s election that was not in effect during any previous election cycle before: we’re living now in a post-Citizen’s United world. The money that a lot of the Super PAC’s are sitting on is breathtaking - and they also have not yet unleashed their fury. Most of the private Super PAC’s are for the Right, not the Left. So in addition to the Romney Gun$, Obama (and in turn, EVERY Democrat) will have to contend with the groups like American Crossroads and many others just like them. It’s likely to be a barrage that they cannot withstand too successfully.
There’s another consideration too. In many of the polls so far that have vastly oversampled Democrats, Obama loses a fair number of them - which has to be bad for him. A lot of Republicans in 2008 stayed away from the POTUS section of the ballot because of McCain. I think that number was significant. A lot of other Republicans probably voted for Obama because he was black. None of that will matter now. Obama is not the unknown commodity he was prior to 2008. He’s known now. And there is a large number of TEA Party voters who know that while Romney isn’t their first choice, that doesn’t matter this time. The TEA Party voters know all too well what’s at stake. The TEA Party destroyed the Democrats in 2010. And I doubt they will be swinging to Obama anytime soon for any reason. We have to trust there are some things polling doesn’t measure successfully. If Obama himself had been on the ballot in November 2010, is it Rasmussen’s contention that HE would have stopped the slaughter of the Democrats that night? The 2010 mid-terms showed a Repulican advantage in voter registration of just over 1% according to Rasmussen then, and the Democrats were destroyed wholesale at just about every level. Rasmussen says his research shows that same figure to be at 4% in favor of Republicans at his last report in in August 2012- so four times the size of the 2010 number. So I guess if that holds, we’re gonna see how his Democrats +2-4 points into November 2012 will hold up.
There is another component in this year’s election that was not in effect during any previous election cycle before: we’re living now in a post-Citizen’s United world. The money that a lot of the Super PAC’s are sitting on is breathtaking - and they also have not yet unleashed their fury. Most of the private Super PAC’s are for the Right, not the Left. So in addition to the Romney Gun$, Obama (and in turn, EVERY Democrat) will have to contend with the groups like American Crossroads and many others just like them. It’s likely to be a barrage that they cannot withstand too successfully.
There’s another consideration too. In many of the polls so far that have vastly oversampled Democrats, Obama loses a fair number of them - which has to be bad for him. A lot of Republicans in 2008 stayed away from the POTUS section of the ballot because of McCain. I think that number was significant. A lot of other Republicans probably voted for Obama because he was black. None of that will matter now. Obama is not the unknown commodity he was prior to 2008. He’s known now. And there is a large number of TEA Party voters who know that while Romney isn’t their first choice, that doesn’t matter this time. The TEA Party voters know all too well what’s at stake. The TEA Party destroyed the Democrats in 2010. And I doubt they will be swinging to Obama anytime soon for any reason. We have to trust there are some things polling doesn’t measure successfully. If Obama himself had been on the ballot in November 2010, is it Rasmussen’s contention that HE would have stopped the slaughter of the Democrats that night? The 2010 mid-terms showed a Repulican advantage in voter registration of just over 1% according to Rasmussen then, and the Democrats were destroyed wholesale at just about every level. Rasmussen says his research shows that same figure to be at 4% in favor of Republicans at his last report in in August 2012- so four times the size of the 2010 number. So I guess if that holds, we’re gonna see how his Democrats +2-4 points into November 2012 will hold up.
Sorry I made a typo, 43% of independents voting for Romney according to your chart but not 45% but the calculations are not effected...
There is another component in this year’s election that was not in effect during any previous election cycle before: we’re living now in a post-Citizen’s United world. The money that a lot of the Super PAC’s are sitting on is breathtaking - and they also have not yet unleashed their fury. Most of the private Super PAC’s are for the Right, not the Left. So in addition to the Romney Gun$, Obama (and in turn, EVERY Democrat) will have to contend with the groups like American Crossroads and many others just like them. It’s likely to be a barrage that they cannot withstand too successfully.
There’s another consideration too. In many of the polls so far that have vastly oversampled Democrats, Obama loses a fair number of them - which has to be bad for him. A lot of Republicans in 2008 stayed away from the POTUS section of the ballot because of McCain. I think that number was significant. A lot of other Republicans probably voted for Obama because he was black. None of that will matter now. Obama is not the unknown commodity he was prior to 2008. He’s known now. And there is a large number of TEA Party voters who know that while Romney isn’t their first choice, that doesn’t matter this time. The TEA Party voters know all too well what’s at stake. The TEA Party destroyed the Democrats in 2010. And I doubt they will be swinging to Obama anytime soon for any reason. We have to trust there are some things polling doesn’t measure successfully. If Obama himself had been on the ballot in November 2010, is it Rasmussen’s contention that HE would have stopped the slaughter of the Democrats that night? The 2010 mid-terms showed a Repulican advantage in voter registration of just over 1% according to Rasmussen then, and the Democrats were destroyed wholesale at just about every level. Rasmussen says his research shows that same figure to be at 4% in favor of Republicans at his last report in in August 2012- so four times the size of the 2010 number. So I guess if that holds, we’re gonna see how his Democrats +2-4 points into November 2012 will hold up.
Well Rasmussen’s own Party Affiliation survey for August showed a +4.3% R gap, he never used his own data in his own normalization of the numbers.
In 2006 the dems had a big edge in party affiliation they expanded that gap by ~1.5% in the subsequent election.
In the 2010 midterm the gap in party affiliation was 1.3% R, what has happened to move the needle to the dems by 4%+ ?
Of course he has been getting hammered by Axelrod.
Interesting.
I don’t waste time with Newsweek. Incumbency is both an advantage and a burden. In Obama’s case it’s a catastrophe.
You can say that again!
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.