The False Pro-Obamao Poll Slants
-
This article is by Dick Morris, who knows a ton about all this stuff. In addition to his article, I have infput of my own.
My Wifie received a poll letter from the Columbus Dispatch. Odd. We aren't anywhere near Columbus. But, I never got one.
And I would come before her in a list.
Which tells me, that the Columbus Dispatch is conveniently polling from a specialized list.
Now, what would that list be? It can only be the list of teachers via the Ohio Education Association, or the NEA. How convenient, eh?,
and even then, Obamao is pretty much "tied". When the real vote gives Romney the win....
once again it will be "something is screwed up because the polls said..."
Here's the article by Dick Morris:
************************************
« Obama Tries To Distract Us – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!Dick’s New Children’s Book — Dubs Runs For President »
Why The Polls Understate Romney Vote
By Dick Morris on September 21, 2012
Republicans are getting depressed under an avalanche of polling suggesting that an Obama victory is in the offing. They, in fact, suggest no such thing! Here’s why:1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.
In English, this means that when you do a poll you ask people if they are likely to vote. But any telephone survey always has too few blacks, Latinos, and young people and too many elderly in its sample. That’s because some don’t have landlines or are rarely at home or don’t speak English well enough to be interviewed or don’t have time to talk. Elderly are overstated because they tend to be home and to have time. So you need to increase the weight given to interviews with young people, blacks and Latinos and count those with seniors a bit less.
Normally, this task is not difficult. Over the years, the black, Latino, young, and elderly proportion of the electorate has been fairly constant from election to election, except for a gradual increase in the Hispanic vote. You just need to look back at the last election to weight your polling numbers for this one.
But 2008 was no ordinary election. Blacks, for example, usually cast only 11% of the vote, but, in 2008, they made up 14% of the vote. Latinos increased their share of the vote by 1.5% and college kids almost doubled their vote share. Almost all pollsters are using the 2008 turnout models in weighting their samples. Rasmussen, more accurately, uses a mixture of 2008 and 2004 turnouts in determining his sample. That’s why his data usually is better for Romney.
But polling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.
If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality.
2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.
But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.
An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.
So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!
Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll — one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.
-
THE POLLS ARE WRONG!
Unless they show Obama losing
...
the THE POLLS ARE RIGHT!
-
in review
2010 election beatdown. + special election Scott Brown
Mass for Kennedy's senate seat2012 Recall of Scott Walker where he won by a larger margin (Wisconsin is a must win for Obama).
2012 buy-cott support of chick-fil-a.
37.1% Republican registration, 33.3% Democrat registration, double digit lead among Independants for Romney.
31 and counting - states that have banned same sex marriages....
plus I think the pro -obama polls have a slanted sample rate of more dems .....
-
Again gentleman, let's not get our hopes up due to any twists in polling data.
Browns fans throw a fit every year if our team is listed at the bottom of power ranking projections.
the possibility that they might actually be incorrect is a nice pipe dream but hasn't really come around so far....
Plan for the worst and hope for the better.
WSS
-
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login