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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Next time you quote Rush you should at least give him credit.

I'll sure do that. Do you have any comments about my posts in this thread?

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yeah, I just think it's standard practice to rely more heavily on the last election for your turnout model rather than trying to actually predict a turnout model based on current conditions. Twenty or thirty years ago, that was probably a pretty good rule of thumb, but we've seen some pretty dramatic swings in enthusiasm the past 6-8 years so I'm not so sure that it's still a good bet.

If you're comparing midterm election turnout with presidential election turnout, you are comparing apples with oranges.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'll sure do that. Do you have any comments about my posts in this thread?

I only pointed that out because I heard Rush make that same exact argument today. You guys must think alike.

No since you are channeling Rush I think they are mostly BS.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I don't. I heard this same complaint in 2008 and the polls were right. They will be right this time as well.

Oh were they? On Sept. 22, 2008, Gallup's 5 day rolling average had Barack Obama and John McCain tied at 46% each. On Sept. 27, it was Obama 49, McCain 43. On Oct. 5, it was Obama 52, McCain 41. On Oct. 31, it was Obama 53, McCain 40.

The final result was Obama 53, McCain 46. When were they right?

Interestingly, even before Obama was a known commodity, McCain got all of the Gallup Oct. 31 undecideds in the end.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

If you're comparing midterm election turnout with presidential election turnout, you are comparing apples with oranges.

I'm not suggesting that they're identical, I'm pointing out how much flux our electorate is in wrt the political parties. That's undeniable.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I only pointed that out because I heard Rush make that same exact argument today. You guys must think alike.

No since you are channeling Rush I think they are mostly BS.

I'm proud of Rush for making such an astute observation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[jjjayb]

http://www.websters-online-dictionar...wagon%20Effect

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

http://www.websters-online-dictionar...wagon%20Effect

Most elections experience the bandwagon effect to one degree or another; if Obama ends up winning this thing by more than 5-6 points, it could be at work here. I don't expect that though, because our electorate is so damn polarized. The only true undecideds at this point are either lazy, or complete numbskulls. The choice is clear, and most who are inclined to vote in any cerebral way at all....have made up their minds. And that may actually be why the election is breaking the way it seems to be breaking.

If you, however, are implying that the bandwagon effect is the motivation for the current polling trends, then you are nuts. Rasmussen, known for it's conservative bias over the years seems to be the only nationally respected outlier--so that's not unusual. Any thought that the media is trying, in a serious way to influence this election, is just a complete joke though.

[ReynardMuldrake]

Speaking of Dick Morris, has he ever correctly predicted an election? You could have a pretty good career as a pundit just by taking whatever he picks and predicting the opposite.

[Psyko Tek]

http://youtu.be/hDTT1yRNsFE

[SNR]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

Speaking of Dick Morris, has he ever correctly predicted an election? You could have a pretty good career as a pundit just by taking whatever he picks and predicting the opposite.

He predicted huge gains in the HOR by the Republicans in 2010 pretty early on.

That's not terribly impressive, but he accurately predicted the extent of the bold leap they would take. And hey, it was correct.

That's the only one I can think of, but then again, I'm not a Dick Morris scholar.

[alnorth]

How wrong does this drooling Dick Morris retard have to be before we stop paying attention to him?

[Bo's Pelini]

Dick Morris said a few days before last presidential election that McCain was winning.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

And who's going to prove that there wasn't some impressive Romney surge in the final weeks that led to a Romney victory or a narrow Romney defeat even if the Sept. 27 poll gave Obama a 78% lead?

Common sense. Its easy to get election day right, people who are playing fair know whats going to happen, and people who have stupidly skewed polls can change their likely voter screen to show a "collapse" or "shocking comeback" to save their own asses. Huge swings used to happen, but not any more. Undecided voters are now very, very few so you can't point to Reagan or his predecessors.

The best way to judge a poll is 4-5 weeks out, since debates don't change much any more and there's usually no huge shocking event that swings votes. By that measure, Rasmussen sucked ass in 2010, and he and Dick Morris will again be stupidly far off in 2012.

[suzzer99]

Most of my family thinks Dick Morris is a bipartisan visionary.