Tuesday Polling Report [5.8.12]
Today is primary day in Indiana, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Senator Lugar of Indiana will most likely be forcibly retired by his own Christine O’Donnell. Democrats in Wisconsin will decide who will face the anti-worker Governor Scott Walker. Onto the polls:
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT (Gallup Tracking): Romney 46, Obama 45
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT (Politico/GWU/Battleground): Romney 48 Obama 47
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT (Rasmussen Tracking): Romney 47, Obama 45
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT (TIPP for Investors Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor): Obama 46, Romney 43
TOTALLY MEANINGLESS STUPID “SWING STATES” CONFIGURATION–PRESIDENT (Gallup): Obama 47, Romney 45
I mean really, between this and the Core States configuration we have seen from Rasmussen, I cannot think a more idiotic waste of polling dollars. Until such time as all the swing states combine to form one giant mega-state called Virflorcarolmexzonacolorahio, these polls are just a smaller form of the national polls, which also don’t tell us much. The individual states are where the presidency is decided and thus the individual state polls are where the polling should be directed.
But that poll does have some interesting internals:
“But the poll also finds a reversal in what has been a key GOP asset in the five previous battleground surveys taken since last fall: an edge in enthusiasm among voters. For the first time, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting — a shift from a 14-percentage-point GOP advantage at the end of last year to an 11-point deficit now. […]
By a yawning 27 points, those surveyed describe Obama as more likable than Romney — not a frivolous asset. The candidate viewed as more likable has prevailed in every election since 1980. Even among Romney’s supporters, one in four call Obama more likable…By 10 points, voters say Obama is more likely to care about the needs of people like themselves. By 7 points, they call Obama a stronger and more decisive leader.”
First Read also notes that in a close election (as these national and semi-national polls are saying it is right now), the ground game is of vital importance. And guess who has the edge there:
[The Obama campaign is] far ahead …. of the Romney campaign when it comes to organizing on the ground. It’s not even close on this front; It’s amazing how in just eight short years, the Republicans have allowed one of their great strengths from 2004 (field organizing) to simply disappear. If a close election is decided on mechanics: advantage Obama. By the way, with all this back-n-forth on crowd sizes — it’s fair to say Obama ’08 would have out-drawn Obama ’12 in both cities. But the problem for the GOP is that Obama ’12 still outdraws Romney ’12… and by a LOT. Will Romney address a crowd as large as Obama did on Saturday before Tampa?”
No new map today as there hasn’t been a new state poll in several days. Yes, I am going through withdrawal. And to answer a commenter last week, I think it was Liberal Elite, about why I change the map with every new poll instead of just averaging the most recent polls together and only change the map when the average changes: well, that’s how most of the news organizations are doing it, and it is probably a fairer way to do it, but since I am discounting the polls that would normally be outliers (i.e. Rasmussen), I feel comfortable changing it with every recent poll. Yeah, more work for me, but more fun for you, I guess.
How come when a poll shows Obama winning, Obama is winning. But when Romney is winning, polls just show national blah blah blah, and are biased and dont mean anything?
Um, Obama is leading the poll that I am calling meaningless, i.e. the Swing State or Core State poll. He is winning it by 2, 47 to 45.
But I take your point. This is a liberal, Democratic blog. Most of us here support Obama, and thus we are biased. Thus, we do tend to celebrate polls that show Obama leading and discount polls that don’t, or explain why that poll is not showing Obama winning. For example, Rasmussen is a biased poll due to the overrepresentation of Republicans in their polls.
If you want unbiased, this is not the place to be.
oh, come now. I was just bein a prick. As if you’re talking to someone who DOESNT want Obama to win. It raises an interesting point. How are we, as liberals, prepared to react if Obama wins the electoral vote, but not the popular one? Do we acknowledge that it is a stupid system and should be changed next time around? or do we tell the conservatives to shut up while reminding them about the 2000 election?
How are we, as liberals, prepared to react if Obama wins the electoral vote, but not the popular one?
He wins the election. While it was fun to point out that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, all it was was a consolation prize. Indeed, if Kerry had won Ohio in 2004 and thus the election, guess what? He would have still lost the popular vote to Bush! The popular vote is meaningless. Now, you can argue all you want how it shouldn’t be meaningless and that we should do away with the electoral college (which I do not support), but that is a different conversation.
Under the rules of the game, to win the Presidency, you have to garner 270 electoral votes. Anything more than that, including how many popular votes you get, is just whip cream, cherries and sprinkles on top.
Do we acknowledge that it is a stupid system and should be changed next time around?
Personally, I think the Founders got it right with the electoral college, even if it can sometimes produce a winner who did not win the popular vote. The Founders wanted to ensure that the President was a “national” winner, i.e., someone who won in most if not all parts of the country. East, West, North, South. Cities and country. If we just had a popular vote, then candidates would ignore large parts of the country entirely and focus solely on the major population centers.
I don’t think that’s right.
or do we tell the conservatives to shut up while reminding them about the 2000 election?
I always tell conservatives to shut up because there has not been one instance where what they were saying was of any value whatsoever.
I don’t know what the DLers will say, but here’s why you should take these Romney-friendly poll results with some salt (beyond the usual caveat that polls mean very little this far out):
Because almost all national polls assume voter turnout patterns based on a number of recent elections — did the person vote in the last election, the election before, the primary, etc., is one of the important questions they ask.
These models are almost certain to undercount the minority vote, because minorities typically vote in lower percentages — but they didn’t when Obama was at the top of the ticket. Unless the poll in question is willing to acknowledge that, it’s probably going to lean R.
DD, they already DO focus on large population centers… those population centers are in states with high electoral vote caches. Furthermore, so many states are “locks” for either party that only a handful of large “swing states” get any kind of attention.
Also, these polls are all making alot of flawed assumptions based previous elections. But what they are NOT taking into account for this election, is that Romney is a way better than normal republican candidate, and Obama is a way worse than normal democrat candiate. So current polls are completely and totally inaccurate and irrelevant. And until someone admits this phenomenum, the polls are going to continue to be inaccurate. Besides, how accurate can they be, each poll ask 1000, or 1500 voters, when there are going to be over 100 million people vote. It is not scientifically possible for any of these polls to be accurate, either leaning one way or the other
Actually Rusty, if that were true (which it’s not) one would have seen a groundswell of support at the polls during the primary. Didn’t happen. Republicans have stayed away in droves.
By the way, my favorite interface for looking at the election at the electoral college level is:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/