Monday, October 29, 2012

Battleground Poll - October 29, 2012

Likely Voter, 1000 sample size, Obama leads 49-48, 3% undecided.

This poll is surprising a of people, since Brit Hume said on the air yesterday that it would report Romney +5 today.  Let's look at the details and the reweights, then I'll make a comment or two.  First of all, the D/R/I of this poll remains the same as last time at D+2 or 43/41/18.  There was also a significant shift in Independent preference from Obama +1 to Romney +10.  However, Obama picked up 2 points of support, and Romney lost 1.

Putting these results through the models, we get the following:

O+1 - Current result
O+2.3 - 2008 turnout
O+0.2 - D+3 turnout
R+1.7 - 2010 turnout
R+1.7 - 2004 turnout
R+3.2 - Rasmussen Party ID

This poll is showing solid gains for Obama in the last week across all turnout models.

Now, having said that, I'm very skeptical of this poll.  73% of Romney supporters say they are "extremely likely" to vote while only 60% of Obama supporters say the same.  Additionally, the preference of Independents moved from a tiny advantage for Obama to a 10 point advantage for Romney.  Yet Romney is trailing?

@numbersmuncher mentioned this yesterday, so I'm going to say it flat out.  I think Democrats are lying to the pollsters that they have already voted.  They are doing this to game the polls, because if they say they have voted, they go straight through the likely voter screens.  You don't lose elections with a 13% enthusiasm edge and 10% edge in Independents.  That is demographically impossible.  One set of numbers or the other are wrong in this poll.


  1. The comment attributed to Hume (I didn't see it) references a "vote election model" showing Romney winning 52-47. Is this different from the Battleground Tracking Poll? It sure sounds different. But then, why would they predict a 5 point Romney win when their latest poll showed 0bama winning by 1?


  2. That's a Weekly Standard article referencing Hume. Where is the source info from Battleground? Their tracking poll shows a 1 point 0bama lead.

  3. You've got me. I have no clue what the Weekly Standard article is referencing. Someone really needs to explain it.

  4. It seems they're running their poll through some black box model (not unlike Nate Silver) rather than just taking the raw numbers from the poll (As I read the article they weight people based on historical predisposition to actually voting.)
    In this way it may not turn out much different than Gallup's more complex LV screen (which Ace talks about all the time.) That would also explain why it's within the MoE of Gallup's LV model ;).

    1. If so, it could well end up matching one of my models.

  5. Here is the analysis, with the election vote model showing 52-47 for Romney. This entire analysis is VERY much worth a thorough read:

    In fact, I can see now why Hume was leading with the 52-47 number rather than the raw poll result. The pollster themselves believe the results paint a MUCH better picture for Romney than the top line number does. I am greatly encouraged to see the polling organization actually discussing these factors that have previously been the domain of only a handful of conservative blogs.