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.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

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.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

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

I already said that I have no idea as to what their motivations are.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

Why would you post that?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Donger

Why would you post that?

Is everything a conspiracy to you?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Donger

I already said that I have no idea as to what their motivations are.

I didn't ask about motivations. Just confirmation that you subscribe to a conspiracy theory on it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I didn't ask about motivations. Just confirmation that you subscribe to a conspiracy theory on it.

Why does it have to be a conspiracy? It seems pretty clear that when even Daily Beast says that the weighting is too heavy in Obama's favor, it probably is, no?

For all I know, the one's that are too heavily weighted are just using wrong and out-dated information. Like I said, I have no idea what their motivation is in doing so (if any).

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

It is often repeated by right-wing pundits that all these polls are using 2008 turnout models. I hate to nitpick, but is that even true?

A lot of factors go into these polls and I don't think any of them release their complete formula. They may (or may not) start with 2008 as a base then make adjustments--but no one ever mentions the adjustments. Really, who the **** actually knows? But it doesn't stop the right wing pundits and their sheep from simply repeating that every poll is incorrect because of this alleged 2008 turnout issue.

I would think the pollsters would want to be accurate. But then again, maybe they are all involved in a conspiracy together to trick the public.

Pollster accuracy isn't measured until the election. Whether a pollster is intentionally skewing his results for political purposes or not, there's plenty of time for them to refine their model and move toward the correct final result. 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?

[patteeu]

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.

How do you explain differences from one poll to another if they're all so good at figuring the art out?

[patteeu]

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.

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.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

How do you explain differences from one poll to another if they're all so good at figuring the art out?

The differences generally aren't that big and all polls have a reported margin of error, often +/-3% that actually gives a pretty large window.

All I'm saying is that you only hear the bitching from the right, and only when a poll is bad news for them. The notion that the leading pollsters, let alone all of them, are intentionally producing bad results in order to make it look like Obama is ahead, is just stupid.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Pollster accuracy isn't measured until the election. Whether a pollster is intentionally skewing his results for political purposes or not, there's plenty of time for them to refine their model and move toward the correct final result. 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?

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

[dirk digler]

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.

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

[Mr. Kotter]

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.

I agree, but I do think there will be less enthusiasm and turn-out this time. Instead of the 5-6% lead Obama seems to be building...it will probably settle back into a 3-4% win---barring some major October surprise or major debate gaffes.

[ReynardMuldrake]

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.

I keep hearing these mentions of bias artificially weighting polls toward Democrats, but I've yet to see any evidence of it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

The differences generally aren't that big and all polls have a reported margin of error, often +/-3% that actually gives a pretty large window.

All I'm saying is that you only hear the bitching from the right, and only when a poll is bad news for them. The notion that the leading pollsters, let alone all of them, are intentionally producing bad results in order to make it look like Obama is ahead, is just stupid.

This election cycle is the first time I can remember any bitching about turnout models. Given that most of the polls are using 2008 turnout as the basis for their models, and given that that was a banner year for democrat turnout (and an abnormally weak year for Republican turnout), it stands to reason that any bitching about turnout models would be coming from the Republican side. That said, there was a story about David Axelrod expressing his displeasure with Gallup earlier in the election cycle based on the turnout model they were using which anticipated a lower minority turnout than in 2008.