Dick Morris believes that at this point, Romney has the advantage

[SNR]

http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-pulls-ahead/

Romney Pulls Ahead
By Dick Morris on September 25, 2012

The published polling in this year’s presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama’s massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney’s margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I’ll tell you who you’re voting for and I’ll be right at least two times out of three!

Most pollsters are weighting their data on the assumption that the 2012 electorate will turn out in the same proportion as the 2008 voters did. But polling indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the president among his core constituency. He’ll still carry them by heavy margins, but the turnout will likely lag behind the 2008 stats. (The 2008 turnout was totally unlike that in other years with all-time historic high turnouts among Obama’s main demographic groups).

Specifically, most pollsters are using 2008 party preferences to weight their 2012 survey samples, reflecting a much larger Democratic preference than is now really the case.

In my own polling, I found a lurch to the Democrats right after their convention, but subsequent research indicates that it has since petered out. Indeed, when one compares party identification in the August and September polls of this year in swing states, the Democratic Party identification is flat while the ranks of Republicans rose by an average of two points per state.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate’s partisan preferences.

Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can’t get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won’t ever get there in the actual vote.

So here’s where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen’s polling:

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).

• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana – which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)

• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He’ll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).

This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But…

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:

• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)

• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)

If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.

• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)

• Obama’s lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll

• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don’t count out New Mexico.
It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:

• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.

• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher

• The GOP field organization is better.

That’s the real state of play today.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Donger

You think there's the same amount of enthusiasm for Obama in 2012 as there was in 2008?

I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

Well, yes, of course the actual vote is what matters. But I don't get the impression that Obama enthusiasm is anywhere close to what it was in 2008. I guess we'll see how that translates into votes soon.

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

Right now is fine and accurate.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I realize that "enthusiasm" is something they measure, but what if someone was "very enthusiastic" about voting for Obama in 2008 but in 2012 they are only "enthusiastic." Less enthusiasm, but they still appear to be a likely voter, and it still counts as 1 vote. 2008 didn't count "more."

At some point, you have to simply acknowledge that the professional polling agencies might know more about producing an accurate poll than you do.

Enthusiasm translates into turn-out. Dems were extemely enthusaistic about Obama in 2008, and that translated to huge turn-out. Dems and independents appear less enthusiastic about Obama this time; if that translates into suppressed turn-out, that falls in favor of Romney (many hard core conservatives are actually more motivated by hatred of Obama, than love for Romney.)

In any event, the argument makes sense...if it's true. However, this is Dick Morris--and his track record is checkered at best. Frankly though, it's Romeny's only prayer at this point short of some October surprise or serious blunders by Obama in the debates.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

In any event, the argument makes sense...if it's true. Frankly, it's Romeny's only prayer at this point short of some October surprise or serious blunders by Obama in the debates.

You are basing this on the polls?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Donger

You are basing this on the polls?

Not entirely. More important is the fact that Romney is a weak candidate. The Reps version of 2004 Kerry. However, pollsters who value their reputation and credibilty would not sacrifice that to simply pump-up their guy, as some cons allege--too much is at stake.

[dirk digler]

What's funny about all this poll conspiracy is that Fox News has to be in on it as well since they show Obama with a nice lead in swing states.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What's funny about all this poll conspiracy is that Fox News has to be in on it as well since they show Obama with a nice lead in swing states.

Obama staying in office probably = better ratings on Fox. It's all a big conspiracy and everyone is in on it!

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

Hey, that's why I said Dick Morris believes it. I could have used an HCF/sportsshrink/pete title like "OOOOOOOPS, looks like Obama will lose afterall!" but I didn't.

I report, you decide.

Fair point.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What's funny about all this poll conspiracy is that Fox News has to be in on it as well since they show Obama with a nice lead in swing states.

I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Dick Morris.

You are the last on poster here who can ever criticize any source. In your 24-7-365 quest to paper this forum with threads you quote some way way out there sources.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

And they are not experienced enough or care enough about accuracy to determine if they are using bad formula? And Dick Morris knows better?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

And they are not experienced enough or care enough about accuracy to determine if they are using bad formula? And Dick Morris knows better?

I don't know what the motivation is.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm not sure that there's any conspiracy. It just sounds like some of the polls are weighting their results based on outdated and erroneous information.

Any proof of that, other than Dick Morris or wishful thinking from other conservative pundits?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Any proof of that, other than Dick Morris or wishful thinking from other conservative pundits?

Sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...for-obama.html

And it is true that a number of polls have been heavily weighted toward Democrats. There was the late August Washington Post/ABC poll that had a plus-9 Democratic skew (and still had Romney ahead by one point). And there was a Marquette poll (PDF) of Wisconsin two weeks ago that had a plus-8 Democratic skew.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Donger

Sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...for-obama.html

And it is true that a number of polls have been heavily weighted toward Democrats. There was the late August Washington Post/ABC poll that had a plus-9 Democratic skew (and still had Romney ahead by one point). And there was a Marquette poll (PDF) of Wisconsin two weeks ago that had a plus-8 Democratic skew.

So you are saying there is a conspiracy among the competing pollsters, then? Because most are pretty clear.