Sunday, November 4, 2012

Battleground Poll - November 4, 2012


Likely Voter, 1000 sample size, Tied 48-48, 3% undecided.

This is a place holder for a later update once I can find the internals.  I am currently only able to work off the article at Politico, which has picked numbers out of the poll to report, without linking to the full data.

Despite the discussion in the article that "Obama has gotten a boost from Hurricane Sandy", please remember that this poll was Obama +1 last time it was run.  Obama has lost a point of support in the last week. 

They also report that Independents now favor Obama by 1 point, but note that the change is because voters that previously identified as Independent are now reporting as lean Republican.  I've avoided playing with their sample numbers in the past to correct their "lean toward a party" sub-sample, but it looks like I will have to finally, just to get a consistent sample for my models.

Once I can get the internals, I will post the model results.

19 comments:

  1. I was hoping to look at the internals too. Having no power the past week probably was a Godsend. Although I was grousing about not being able to follow the polls etc. in retrospect at least I got some sleep during that time.

    I feel like a roller coaster.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Sandy "boost" for Obama was overstated.

    It came from 1) That D+8 National Journal poll alone tilting the RCP average to Obama and 2) Gallup hasn't posted any polls at all, Rasmussen has been sparingly, and the D+ hacks like Marist and Quinnipiac have been.

    I do think Sandy killed Romney's momentum, though. Merely by getting people to stop thinking about the election.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just discovered you. In fact, just discovered Ace HQ this last week. I read Dan McLauglin's analyses of polls last week at Red State.

    Will check back with you in a few hours to see what you've come up with. Thanks a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A few things:

    (1) The ABC/WaPo tracker has it 48 - 48 with Indies tied at 46 percent for both Romney and Obama whereas two days ago it was a 7 point Romney lead. I'm no expert on tracking polls, but how is this possible? Are they not running a rolling average?

    (2) Rasmussen says 49 - 49 with a D+2 electorate and Romney winning Indies by 9. Rasmussen confuses me. Still they say R+2.6 in party registration yet the electorate is going to be D+2? And if the electorate is D+2 yet Romney is winning Indies by 9, how is the race only tied?

    A week ago I was sure of a Romney victory but I'm starting to approach the proverbial ledge, thanks mostly to Rasmussen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I was on the ledge but these polls are so confounding and contradictory that I can't take them seriously right now. There's something up with their modelling and it's possible it's an outdated system that needs serious adjusting before 2016, which I expect will happen if Romney wins by 4+ points (well outside of the average). If it's tight, then it'll just be status quo with minimal adjustment IMO.

      Delete
    2. I still think it is the early vote polling that is messing everything up (assuming honest pollsters). Polls are showing 30%+ already voted, but actual votes are no higher than 20%.

      I suspect an Obama campaign strategy.

      Delete
    3. Brandon, I guess the only way it could be D+2, Romney up 9 with indies, and tied is if Obama is winning more Dems than Romney is winning Rep's. But that doesn't seem plausible so who knows.

      Delete
    4. >>(assuming honest pollsters)<<

      That's a ginormous assumption, Dave. :-)

      Delete
    5. I still think it is the early vote polling that is messing everything up (assuming honest pollsters). Polls are showing 30%+ already voted, but actual votes are no higher than 20%.

      More specifically, it's loose LV screens which are being applied. The net effect is that some LV polls are basically RV polls where everyone is passed along.

      Functionally, this is a type of filtering no different than party-id weighting which many decry, but this has the net effect of benefiting democrats...

      ... ohh, and making it cheaper to run a poll. Less people dropped during the LV profile, less calls you need to make.

      Delete
  5. I read your post of a few days ago saying the only thing making you nervous was the Romney campaign saying how close it was.

    Yes, I've heard both Portman and Kasich on tv speak of that, but isn't that normal to say? I mean, to say otherwise can convince a few people to stay home, the last thing you want.

    Portman was on a Fox show last night. (God, my memory is shot. Oh, just remembered--he was on Huckabee's show which is televising from OH, I gathered.)

    I know Portman's an easy going guy, temperate in his remarks, but I'd say he seemed to know something, and that something was good. It does seem to be turnout. If our voters get to the polls, no weather or anything else deterring them, with no idiotic Baptist leader shouting from a megaphone that it's okay for Mormons to be in the Senate or the House, but not the Presidency (as one did in an interview and article), then I like our OH chances.

    I worry about VA, and even Fl, but I'm a worrier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Virginia maybe but I think even the Obama campaign knows they've lost Florida, not quite North Carolina acknowledgment but I don't think they're contesting it anymore. Seems like the Obama campaign are running around trying to plug a breaking dam.

      Delete
    2. Bottom line is if we vote, we win. The table is set for us to win this easily, but we have to turn out.

      Delete
  6. Dave, I asked in a thread below, but do you have any blog stuff planned for watching the results come in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. I'm going to be watching with everyone else at Ace of Spades. I'll be doing post mortems on the polls though at some point.

      I'm running a half marathon on Saturday, so will be pretty busy once the election is done.

      Delete
    2. Gawd, the comments at the Ace of Spades are the funniest thing on the internet.....

      Delete
  7. John Ralston, who is pretty smart on Nevada politics (and left of center) calls Nevada for Obama. Rasmussen has Nevada 50 to 48 Obama. Despite that I still believe Nevada votes for Romney. There is such a huge difference between 2008 and 2012 that is not being covered. I went back and looked at some of Obama’s Las Vegas speeches. In 2008 there were all these “SEIU for Obama” “Electrical worker’s union for Obama, Culinary union for Obama…..etc…etc….). In 2012 you don’t see the union signs at the Obama rallies. None…..zip…. I got to thinking about the “Obama phone” woman on YouTube. The unions in Cleveland had to hire protesters. In the heart of Union Ohio the union had to hire protesters. In Vegas, unions are not protesting Romney and not supporting Obama. In Vegas you got 50,000 union members at the snap of a finger and you have to hire protestors? Really? Something is different……

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nevada is the one swing state I don't think is going our way. Early votes have dropped around 6% for Obama, but that's not enough. Reid won by 6% in 2010, I think CA and the unions have taken Clark County over.

      Delete
    2. Reid won, but he couldn't carry his son, Rory to be Governor on the same ticket……Nevada elected a republican gov….and is set to elect a republican senator and 2 republican house members………so…..*thblblblblblblb*….I’m still betting lunch on Romney……

      Delete