HOW POLLING DATA IS SKEWED AND WHY ROMNEY IS ACTUALLY AHEAD

Sep 26, 2012 by

[9.25.12 — Below are three different articles on the issue of polling data. The first article is by Dick Morris who himself is a professional pollster. The second article is written by Tom Blumer who runs BizzBlog.com; and the third is by Jerome R. Corsi, a well-known author who frequently publishes on World Net Daily.  All three show that Romney is actually ahead of Obama and explain how polling data is calculated. – Donna Garner]

 

Why The Polls Understate Romney Vote

By Dick Morris on September 21, 2012

 

http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-polls-under-state-romney-vote/

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:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

====================

 

Wake Up, Mainstream Media: If Tide Is Shifting, It’s in Romney’s Direction

Team Obama is cracking up at crunch time.

By TOM BLUMER

 

September 24, 2012 – 7:37 am

 

http://pjmedia.com/blog/wake-up-mainstream-media-if-tide-is-shifting-its-in-romneys-direction/?singlepage=true

 

 

Team Obama is cracking up at crunch time.

 

President Barack Obama’s free ride with enough of the disengaged portion of the electorate to matter may finally be coming to an end.

 

A look at the top two presidential election polls listed at Real Clear Politics on Sunday morning  showed the race between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney in a dead heat.

 

The first, the daily tracking poll at Rasmussen – the most accurate presidential pollster  in the 2008 presidential contest — had the 2012 race knotted at 46%. (Pew Research, often cited along with Rasmussen as being the most accurate four years ago, was only on target in its final 2008 poll after showing absurdly cooked 15- and 14-point leads  for Obama over John McCain one and two weeks, respectively, before Election Day.)

 

The second Sunday poll came from Gallup, which reported a 47% deadlock — erasing a six-point Obama lead  from the previous week. Interviews in both polls went through Friday, September 21.

 

The six polls listed below Rasmussen and Gallup at RCP showed Obama with an average lead of 4.5 points. Their poll cutoffs were several days earlier, ranging from September 16-19.

 

Even after considering that at least two of the previous polls had samples overstuffed with Democrats, that’s quite a swing in just a few days. If this kind of move had gone in Obama’s direction, there would be a constant drumbeat in the establishment press declaring the race all but over.

 

Oh, wait. There is anyway.

 

On Saturday, Thomas Beaumont and Charles Babington at the Administration’s Press  attempted to pile on. In a piece headlined “Tide shifts to Obama in most competitive states,” the pair wrote that  ”the advantage has shifted toward President Barack Obama after a series of miscues by Mitt Romney, punctuated by the Republican challenger’s comments about people who pay no income tax.” The premise of babblers Beaumont and Babington is that the key swing states Romney badly needs to win are now slipping away.

 

Really? Before the national polling swing in Romney’s direction just cited, Rasmussen had the following toss-up state rundown: Virginia, Obama up by three points; Nevada, Obama by two; Ohio, Obama by one; Florida, Romney by one; Colorado, Romney by two; New Hampshire, Romney by two; Iowa, Romney by three; and North Carolina, Romney by six.

 

A question for Tom and Chuck at the AP: Why wouldn’t these states be moving in the same direction as the two most respected national polls? The answer is that they probably are. If the GOP nominee wins the eight states just listed — a three-point move similar to the one we’ve just seen nationally would put him ahead in all but Nevada — he’ll be on track for an Electoral College majority, even if the three electors exploring the idea of withholding their votes for the honor and glory of Ron Paul go through with their threats.

 

Team Obama’s reaction to the deadlocked polls at Rasmussen and Gallup — besides to have its Department of Justice Unconstitutional Electoral Intervention continue its support of a “whistleblower” lawsuit against the latter filed by a disgruntled ex-employee who just so happens to be a self-declared “devout Marxist” and former Obama Iowa field organizer  – is telling. Campaign apparatchik Jim Messina said we should ignore national polls, because winning battleground states like Wisconsin is what matters. W-W-Wisconsin? On Sunday, the Badger State was “Leaning Obama” at RCP. Messina’s reaction would indicate that if the tide is indeed turning, it’s in the opposite direction the AP and the rest of the press want everyone to believe.

 

It’s not like there’s a shortage of administration and campaign “miscues” one can cite as possible reasons for a movement towards Romney, particularly in foreign policy.

 

In Egypt and Libya, the administration was apparently so convinced of its supposedly awesome diplomatic accomplishments in placating the Muslim world that it treated September 11 as just another day, allowing organized “protesters” to enter the gates of the Egyptian embassy in Cairo and Islamist terrorists to carry out an assault on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi which took the life of ambassador Christopher Stevens — the first such loss in 33 years — and three others.

 

In the aftermath of these disasters, the administration spent almost a full week bitterly insisting that the Libyan consulate attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to a 14-minute video made in July, and not the coordinated, premeditated attack that it was. Most of those among the relatively disengaged who were paying even a little attention had to see through this facade, and to shake their heads at the ultimate admission to what was so obvious from the very start.

 

Even now, violent protests including plural effigy-burnings of Obama  continue against the U.S., exposing the “Arab Spring” as the cynical farce so many seasoned observers always knew it was. All of this has many Americans asking a question — “Are we safer now than we were four years ago?” — that was hardly on anyone’s radar on Labor Day. As with the equivalent question about the economy (“Are we better off than we were four years ago?”) — they are answering firmly in the negative.

 

I also believe that the secret recording released by David Corn at Mother Jones with Romney observing that 47% of Americans are heavily dependent on government while 47% of Americans pay no income taxes may be hurting Obama more than Romney.

 

One of the first rules of persuasion is to avoid directly stating facts which will hurt your case. Before the tape’s release, many if not most Americans had no idea about the size of either group of 47%. I would suggest that those who now know are quite unhappy with these conditions and are pinning the blame squarely on Obama, where it belongs. One sign that I may be right: the reaction of U.S. Senate candidate and former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, a seasoned Democrat, was not primarily to go after Romney, though he did; it was to suggest that he is “open” to the idea of having everyone pay at least a little income tax. You don’t do that if you believe that most of your potential constituents are happy with the growing entitlement state.

 

The capper was Obama’s appearance on David Letterman’s show, where he told the starstruck host that he didn’t know how big the national debt was when he took office, and that our debt isn’t a short-term problem. Many disengaged and undecided voters had to be appalled.

 

Perhaps Obama defines “short-term” as “anything happening before January 20 of next year.” If so, here’s hoping that we don’t have to deal with him as president in the long-term.

 

Tom Blumer

Daily Digest

9.24.12

 

==============

 

9.24.12 – World Net Daily

 

‘Unskewed’ Polls Show Nearly 8-Point Romney Lead

 

To read the entire article, please go to:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/unskewed-polls-show-nearly-8-point-romney-lead/

 

By JEROME R. CORSIE

 

Excerpt from this article:

 

  • Politico has reported that in the latest Politico-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which constitute approximately 54 percent of the electorate and usually split their vote between Democratic and Republican candidates, Romney holds a 14-point advantage, 55 percent to 41 percent.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.