Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[PeterMP]

Interesting endeavor. Aside from 538, you may also want to consider a few articles about polling in this cycle.

Re: the Democrat/Republican Mix in some of these polls:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...67.html?page=1

Re: registration in many swing states:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ing-key-states

Re: why party ID in polls does matter
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ert-their-eyes

Re: problems with most recent polls
http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...ectorates-2008

My conclusion is that the current polling is misrepresenting the truth on the ground, and that a lot of states still must be placed into a toss-up category

I don't think people think party ID is going to be that big of an issue. That essentially a lot of people in 2008 that didn't identify as Republican were actually Republican and voted that way. Changes in voter registration are just swing backs from embarrassed independents in 2008 that weren't really voting for Obama any way. Then in some states, you see the other factor where people have claimed to leave the GOP for the tea party. In the end, people don't really switch parties that much. It is easy to get lost in the numbers.

Turn out is always important in elections. But I don't think that the GOP is really going to get great turn out either. People talk about how people will show up to vote against Obama. History shows that really doesn't happen that much.

**EDIT**
The thing people forget when just looking at pure polling data with respect to who are you going to vote for (i.e. who are you going to vote for?) is Romney's negatives. It is VERY hard to win an election when people say they dislike you as much as they do him.

You almost have to imagine a scenario where people are saying they dislike him, but they don't.

[JimboDaMan]

They do both. They call people, and they allow them to self-identify. Some polls will just report that. Others than will weight groups based on what they expect the actual electorate to look at because reasonably some people aren't likely to respond to polls.

So I guess the question is, are the Republicans we are told are more likely to vote also less likely to respond to polls?

[mistertim]

D's are going to vote for Obama. R's are going to vote for Romney. I's are going to be very close. The biggest maybes in this election are 1) what proporation of I's vote for either party and 2) who turns out (e.g., proporation of total voters that are R or D). Many of the polls showing huge Obama leads are projecting 2008-like turnout for Obama, some even more. For a ton of reasons, this is extremely unlikely. As the articles state many times, if there's a case saying that the electorate will look like 2008, I'd like to consider that case. I just don't see it.

Couple of things to note regarding this, as far as "Independents" as well as the "enthusiasm" (or turnout, which that eventually morphs into on election day) aspect. As far as Independents go from what I've read many polling groups are oversampling Democrats a bit more this time than in 08. The main reason is the Tea Party and how much it grew from when Obama took office until now. There are many people who are very conservative and who will almost certainly "bite the bullet" and vote for Romney (if they decide to vote), but who identify now with the Tea Party movement and consider themselves, and identify themselves as "Independent", even though they likely identified themselves as Republicans in the past and respond to pollsters with support for Romney currently..

In regard to the enthusiasm for Obama waning, there are polls that seem to suggest this isn't necessarily the case, especially among minorities, who are going to be even more represented in the vote this year than in 2008 just by the nature of demographic changes over that time period.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...a7bd_blog.html

Obviously its too soon to say for certain, but I also wouldn't dismiss polls out of hand as not being accurate or representative enough, as conservatives seem to generally be rallying around as a talking point to explain why polls say they're losing. Well, that or that there is a giant media conspiracy. But that is to be expected from some of them, IMO.

[PeterMP]

So I guess the question is, are the Republicans we are told are more likely to vote also less likely to respond to polls?

We know certain people are less likely to respond to polls, and it depends on how the poll was done. If you are calling people from 9-5, your going to bias your sample. Older people are more likely to talk to pollsters. Younger people don't.

The mix of cell phones and non-cell phone calls matter in terms of who you get.

What mix you get and how you weight depends on how you conduct the polls and what you think the electorate is going to look like.

---------- Post added September-26th-2012 at 05:22 PM ----------

In regard to the enthusiasm for Obama waning, there are polls that seem to suggest this isn't necessarily the case, especially among minorities, who are going to be even more represented in the vote this year than in 2008 just by the nature of demographic changes over that time period.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...a7bd_blog.html

I'm not following the polling that closely this election, but from what I've seen/heard is that Romney's negative are up and Obama's are down.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...6501348668693/

Given that, it would be hard to argue for enthusiasim the reverse of that.

[NLC1054]

Rachel Maddow was just talking yesterday about how the latest thing to get attacked by conservatives would be polls.

If Romney were ahead in any of these polls, would conservatives by worried about "oversampling" at all?

[twa]

So I guess the question is, are the Republicans we are told are more likely to vote also less likely to respond to polls?

I certainly am,as is my wife

polls also differ on which voter is polled ,with some using youngest adult in the household, some just registered voters and others likely voters....and vary on whether cell or just landlines are called

[alexey]

I was one of those Democrats. I see no inconsistency in arguing:

If the administration is wrong about WMDs we have no business invading.
If the administration is right about WMDs we are about to suffer hideous troop losses (recall we were being told the enemy could bring WMD into battle at 45 minutes notice).
Either way, with the level of Rummy's knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, there was no compelling reason to proceed with the invasion at that time.

I saw the invasion being obviously sold to the public, and things looked like it was coming pretty early. I was completely against it because it looked like Saddam was beginning to comply, as would any cockroach that wants to live. Invasion was not necessary.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157547/democ ... nally.aspx

Democratic Enthusiasm Swells in the Swing States, Nationally


Voter enthusiasm in these states has grown among members of both political parties; however, Democrats' level has increased more. Thus, whereas equal percentages of Democrats and Republicans were enthusiastic in June, Democrats are now significantly more enthusiastic than Republicans, 73% vs. 64%.

Independents' enthusiasm also jumped substantially over this period -- up 18 points, similar to the 20-point gain among Democrats; however, independents' enthusiasm still lags behind that of both partisan group

[JimboDaMan]

I certainly am,as is my wife

polls also differ on which voter is polled ,with some using youngest adult in the household, some just registered voters and others likely voters....and vary on whether cell or just landlines are called

You cannot be less likely than me to respond to polls. Physically not possible.

[alexey]

Rachel Maddow was just talking yesterday about how the latest thing to get attacked by conservatives would be polls.

If Romney were ahead in any of these polls, would conservatives by worried about "oversampling" at all?

The job of political people is to help get their people elected. I do not think it is strange or surprising that they do not try to be fair and balanced

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Click on the link to read the rest.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/more_poll_trutherism/

More poll trutherism

Conservatives debate: Is the liberal media purposefully or simply accidentally making Romney look like he's losing?



I’m not sure it’ll amount to anything but today seems to have marked the birth of the sophisticated version of the elaborate liberal media polling conspiracy fantasy.

The silly version (let’s call it “poll trutherism,” which I think Dave Weigel sorta coined) broke out earlier this week, once Rick Perry discovered the genius that is UnSkewedPolls.com. And the silly version is a good enough piece of propaganda for the hackier elements of the conservative media sphere, from the Washington Times to TownHall to WND toFox & Friends.

In this version, the liberal media purposefully skews the polls, making the (secretly winning) Romney campaign appear to be unable to gain ground on Obama, in order to demoralize Republicans, thus ensuring Obama’s reelection. (Even Jim Geraghty is highlighting some conspiratorial claims from a Republican pollster involving Democrats somehow “lobbying” major pollsters to undersample Republicans.)

[twa]

You cannot be less likely than me to respond to polls. Physically not possible.

A tie maybe

[Predicto]

Couple of things to note regarding this, as far as "Independents" as well as the "enthusiasm" (or turnout, which that eventually morphs into on election day) aspect. As far as Independents go from what I've read many polling groups are oversampling Democrats a bit more this time than in 08. The main reason is the Tea Party and how much it grew from when Obama took office until now. There are many people who are very conservative and who will almost certainly "bite the bullet" and vote for Romney (if they decide to vote), but who identify now with the Tea Party movement and consider themselves, and identify themselves as "Independent", even though they likely identified themselves as Republicans in the past and respond to pollsters with support for Romney currently..

This is why (as I understand it), the polls are not oversampling Democrats. To the extent they are doing anything, they are weighing Democrats the same as they always did, but are overweighing self-identified "independents" and underweighing self identified Republicans.

Which may or may not be valid.

[skinsmarydu]

Ed's a bloviator in the mold of O'Reilly. He does a good job of getting the sap rising in the crowd but hardly a man of substance. TRMS certainly has Maddow's liberal slant on things, but it's one of the best of the best.

She did give a blast to the current admin last night. But I cant miss her show b/c she always has ONE thing that NO ONE ELSE has discovered.
Sorry, I love Ed for his "bloviator-ness". I'll never get tired of someone publicly concerned about the same things as me. And not to besmirch O'Reilly...I have actually agreed with 3 things he has said in the past...from a 2006 'page-a-day' calendar...
1)Children have no business with unmonitored media in their bedrooms, behind closed doors. Too much out there now.
2)Gov't gives us just enough to get by on...gotta find the link to that one, totally contradicts half of what he says now.
3)When you get that giant tattoo on your neck, don't be surprised when you can't find a job.
('m an extreme liberal, am tattooed and pierced where you can't see unless I want you to. If I didn't HAVE to have a job, I would be a human coloring book. I do have common sense.)
And for Buford, Alex Wagner is great...probably why MHP and Chris Hayes have her on their shows on the wknds. Michael Steele started seeing the error of his ways his first week on the network. He's coming around, little by little.

[Buford]

Romney: Massachusetts health care law is proof of empathy

TOLEDO, OH -- Mitt Romney on Wednesday pointed to the health care reform law he enacted as governor of Massachusetts as proof of his empathy and care for the American people.

In an interview with NBC News, Romney referenced an element of his record he almost never invokes on the campaign trail to answer a question about how he can better connect with Americans and prove he understands the lives and trials of middle class Americans.

"I think throughout this campaign as well, we talked about my record in Massachusetts, don't forget -- I got everybody in my state insured," Romney told NBC's Ron Allen in an interview before his rally here tonight. "One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don't think there's anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record."

Romney's health care law in Massachusetts has long been a lightning rod issue for conservatives, who unfavorably compare it to President Barack Obama's own federal law and as a damning reflection on Romney's conservative bonafides.

More from link