Why the polls might be biased against Romney
(a) Obama leads Obama voters only 84-13. Now, some 2008 McCain voters have died or won’t vote for Romney; some 2012 Obama voters will be new voters; some 2012 Obama voters will be 2008 McCain voters; that 84-13 may well turn into 90-10 on election day. But it’s hard to see where the improvement in D turnout is going to come from when so many Obama voters are disaffected.
(b) Independents overwhelmingly favor Romney, by 20 points in some polls. It’s implausible that independents have swung so wildly, yet Democrats are more enthused and more likely to turn out than Republicans. Some, such as Josh Marshall, have posited that the makeup of independents has been changed because disaffected Perot/Tea-Party/Paulite conservatives have left the Republican party. Dan McLaughlin’s counter-argument strikes me as stronger. Even under Josh Marshall’s calculation of voter ID, D+7 among “all adults” should not translate into a 2012 that is better than 2008 for Democrats: Republicans are more likely to vote; Republicans are more likely to vote for Romney than Democrats for Obama (especially given the shift in Catholic opinion since 2008); and Marshall necessarily concedes that the independent vote will be less pro-Obama than in 2008. And I don’t believe Josh Marshall that the current makeup of all adults is D+7…
(d) Some polls show Republicans more excited about this election than Democrats; others show the excitement level about even. But even taking the latter polls as an accurate metric, the relevant comparison is again versus 2008, where the Democrats had a huge excitement advantage. If the Democrats are going to outperform 2008, which they have to achieve the slim lead they achieved in 2008 given the shift in independents, they need to be more relatively excited than in 2008. They’re not.
(e) The Obama campaign is assuming turnout will be 72% white; polls are assuming turnout will be 74% white. But there’s a strong argument that turnout will be more like 75% white. Whites favor Romney by about 61-39; non-whites Obama about 80-20. This would be a shift of 0.8% relative to the polls.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
msm
rob verdi on November 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM
So? Some 2008 Obama voters have died or won’t vote for Obama. Some 2012 Romney voters will be new voters. some 2012 Romney voters will be 2008 Obama voters.
WTF is this guy’s point?
Kataklysmic on November 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM
“Might be”? LOL.
Pork-Chop on November 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Take a deep breath, it’ll be okay.
This guy’s point is that every party loses and gains voters from election to election, and some people might use that fact to argue that Obama’s poor performance among 2008 Democratic voters isn’t significant. However, this guy still believes it to be significant.
pifactorial on November 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Great. The pundits have taken to writing gibberish articles for something to do until Wednesday.
BettyRuth on November 3, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Put down the crack pipe.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Agreed. I’ve yet to see or hear one person identify into this category. Let’s just call them unicorns.
SoRight on November 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Translation: “Guys! Hey Guys! It’s not 2008!”
Mord on November 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM
The polls aren’t biased, just many of the pollsters are doing a really bad job. They’re cutting corners, like PPP, whose entire likely voter screen is literally “if you do not think you’ll vote, please hang up”. That’s not a joke, @numbersmuncher linked to PPP’s page stating that.
strictnein on November 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM
I realize 2010 wasn’t a presidential election year but why wouldn’t turnout this year more closely reflect 2010 than 2008?
Charlemagne on November 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM
You see them all the time…..in OFA commercials. Then they usually get exposed fairly easily as activist hacks lying to your face on camera in order to try and squeeze a few Obama votes out of the “low information voter” pool.
Mord on November 3, 2012 at 4:53 PM
because in 2010, the “entitlement” crowd didn’t really come out to vote. those getting a free phone only vote in Presidential elections. don’t ask me why–they tell me its because their vote counts more in a presidential election.
so in 2010, we had more conservatives motivated than the simply vote-because-they-get-the-tweet.
i think we will have a happy median between the two year’s turnout.
very happy
kelley in virginia on November 3, 2012 at 4:57 PM
For what it’s worth, that would still cause statistical bias, which is what the article is talking about.
pifactorial on November 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM
This guy basically spends the first half of his article saying he doesn’t agree with Nate silver, than spends the 2nd half of the article agreeing with Nate sliver.
happytobehere on November 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM
*then. Argh.
happytobehere on November 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM
I posted this in another thread. Colorado gives us special insight because it has the highest proportion of early voting (80%, only second to OR which has all mail voting) AND it reports who has already voted by party registration.
Obama leads in the poll average for CO; Nate Silver and InTrade both predict Obama will win Colorado.
YET
1. Republicans lead early voting by a significant margin (again early votes are 80% of all votes in O)
2. Republicans always win among those who vote on Election Day.
So unless all Obama wins independents in a landslide, CO is already lost for him.
Since state polls/Nate Silver/InTrade is way off on CO, what makes you think they are right about ANY battleground state?
Norwegian on November 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM
they treat 2010 like it never happened.
That are about to learn the hard way.
portlandon on November 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Wait, what?
BuckeyeSam on November 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Hey, Kunta Kinte swears by them, so they must be right!
Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Ever notice the liberals never actually defend the +8 +9 Democrat samples in Ohio. They just say stupid things like “Polls are only biased and unfair when your candidate is losing”
Do they honestly expect turnout to be +8? If not, they need to shut up.
forest on November 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM
I know one. Was associated with him through church. Says Obama has done amazing things and won him over. Haven’t spoken to him in months and try not to think about him because interacting with stupidity on that scale makes me very angry.
Before I found out about him, i joked the only 2012 Obama voters who had voted for McCain were conservatives who died in the last four years and were subsequently added to the Democrat’s cheating voter rolls.
levi on November 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM
Because that is Plan B for the Democrats:
Lawsuits!
“The polls all showed Obama winning, so how is it possible for Romney to get more votes?”
albill on November 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM
He’s running on the Republican ticket. Period.
Harpazo on November 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM
They have no clue what’s coming.
gophergirl on November 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM
That was a lot of words to say he had no idea what was going to happen election day.
clearbluesky on November 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM
They tried that with the Kerry election. Didn’t work for them.
AZfederalist on November 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Yep. And oh that whole D+12 tilt to the polls is not gonna happen.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Some clues, just to name a few.
1. Most of the pollsters are Democrats
2. Most of the polls are sponsored by news organizations dominated by Democrats
3. The phenomena of confirmation bias: a universal tendency to accept favorable/desireable data interpretations and not question or analyze them further — “That number looks good, let’s stop analyzing”.
farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM
Really? Theoretically possible, I suppose. Still looking for supporting evidence. Possibly a very, very rare creature.
farsighted on November 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Point O’ Flaw
Xavier on November 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM