Pretend we have a state (let's call it Bohio) with only 100 voters in it. (It's a beautiful state, where math problems can be solved on the back of an envelope.) In the 2008 election, 52 of these voters went for Obama and 47 went for McCain. The one remaining citizen voted for, I dunno, Kodos. Exit pollsters asked the Bohioans what party they belonged to, and 39 called themselves Democrats, while 31 were self-styled Republicans, and 30 were Independents.
Now it's four years later, and Bohio pollsters want to know the state of the race. Along with asking who they'll vote for (Obama, by approximately the same margin), pollsters ask about Party ID. 38 of these voters now call themselves a Democrat, while 28 say Republican and 34 say Independent. The "party ID" gap has grown from 8 to 10. Does this strike you as odd?
Before you answer yes, take a second to notice how the gap has grown. A couple of our fictitious citizens have stopped calling themselves Republicans and started calling themselves Independents. There's an easy explanation for that move -- since 2008, a couple of Bohioans probably got involved with the Tea Party movement. Though Tea Partiers are deeply conservative, they also self-identify as Independents.
That simple answer is one explanation. The other is to assume that there's a vast pollster conspiracy, intentionally oversampling Democrats in an effort to award the election to President Obama.
Prominent conservative bloggers like Hugh Hewitt have chosen option B. Facing depressing poll numbers for Romney, conservative activists look to the widened "party ID gap" as proof that pollsters are cooking the books. Here's Hewitt, two weeks ago
The Marist poll out of Ohio that showed President Obama with a 7% lead among likely voters over Governor Romney used a sample that had 10% more Democrats than Republicans --a 2% greater advantage than occurred in 2008 at the height of Obamamania! ...Whatever sample is being used and by whatever poll, it is simply journalistic malpractice not to tell the reader what the sample make-up is.
As we get closer to election day, you're going to hear more and more rumblings about "partisan voter screens" and faulty "party ID gaps." Dick Morris is already writing about it, so you know the rest of conservative fantasyland isn't too far behind. Ignore those arguments. Simple math and simple history provide a much more compelling explanation: the electorate today hasn't changed much since 4 years ago, but people (particularly tea partiers) have taken to labeling themselves differently.
Follow David Karpf on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davekarpf
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Clearly the electorate has changed. Taking a poll and then working backwards to guess the party identification of the electorate, as you do in this article, makes no sense.
I'm not suggesting that there is a vast polling conspiracy, but I do think that many of these polls are clearly faulty.
"When a wise man argues with a foolish man, the fool only gets angry or laughs, and there is no peace or quiet".
Proverbs 29:9
Rasmussen is known for sampling more Republicans. But his accuracy tends to say that he's right (as in correct) and the rest are indeed skewing their data left.
In this article the skew is explained to say Republicans LOST to independents as a result of the Tea Party. Anyone associated with the TP knows that simply isn't true. The TP has brought many to become Republicans and many of the TP were once so called Reagan Democrats and Reform Party Types or previously un-associated with any party. 2010 showed that and it's largely ignored.
I've personally gone through the math and saw if you re-skew the polls even back to 2008 proportions many of the Obama leading polls become too close to call with a slight edge to Romney. The truth is you can't apply statistical math to polls and call them scientific.
As for the House of Rasmussen, Nate Silver has done an excellent job parsing their results and their leans. If you aren't going to be convinced by Silver, you aren't going to be convince by me.
Just please do us all a favor: if on November 7th, you wake up and find that the polling average was accurate, don't start screaming "voter fraud."
Let's hope for option 2. 2012 ought to be the year we gain a *better* understanding of the polls...
OBAMA'S SMALLER CROWDS AND LESSER FUNDS ARGUE AGAINST THAT.
I FEEL OBAMA WILL GET FEWER BLACKS AND FEWER CATHOLICS AND FEWER JEWS AND FEWER YOUTH.
Look at the Consumer Confidence Poll published just recently. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/consumer-confidence-september-2012_n_1915598.html?1348662417#slide=more245085 It seems to state that Consumer Confidence is rising because of ..... job increases? But there are no indicators that seem to suggest that we are creating a gain in jobs. So why would poll suggest that people have more confidence in the job market when the broad indicators do not indicte that?
It seems apparent from the Fed's Mr. Bernauke last week - that the Chairman doesn't believe there are any jobs created either. He has just lowered rates again for the umpteenth time. And this time has said he will purchase some 70bil per month UNTIL he sees signs that the economy is turning around. Its a very radical move - a very dangerous one in my opinion - and one that would only be applied if the country is in dangerous econ status. Love your articles and am a big fan...... bernie