THOU WRETCHED CONCERN TROLLISH EEYORE!
That doesn't mean that Dems will outperform or even match 2008 turnout. They won't. But the Dem party ID advantage in many polls is the result of Soft GOP voters being more likely to ID as indies this year. You'll notice that in most polls where Romney leads big amongst indies the party ID gap is the most favorable for Dems. When the indie vote is closer the party ID is tighter. Again, when GOP leaning indies call themselves Republicans they tighten party ID. When they call thenselves indies Romney wins indies bi but suffers in party ID.
I don't know why Republicans are less likely to ID as such this year. Bu it doesn't change he sxientific math. Pollsters know with fair certainty what the sex/age/racial composition of the electorate will be. So when you weight that way and get a scientifically representative sample the top line number will be right. At least with the 95% lvl of confidence.
This isn't to say a massive GOP turnout couldn't fly under theradar or that pollsters don't struggle with urnout models and intensity. This is gonna be a close election but the polls point to a soight Obama edge. Let's not fool ourselves. We need an upset.
This seems to be the underpinning of your analysis. Do you have some study showing this?
As to party ID, why are pollsters concerned with representative samplings of whites, Asians, Hispanics, and blacks, men and women, etc., but not party ID? If party ID is irrelevant, then wouldn't a sample from the DNC convention be accurate as long as you had ethnic and gender ratios nailed down, even though you would end up with a 100% preference for the Dim?
If a poll was taken only of white voters, the Dims would go ballistic, since everyone knows they tend to vote Republican in disproportionate numbers (though not nearly as disproportionate as blacks vote for Dims) and ignoring that fact could skew the result. That argues for accurate ethnic balancing. Likewise, as to party ID, people who identify as Republicans vote overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate, and Dims vote overwhelmingly for Dims.
Any group can fluctuate from election from election, and the poll that is going to be most accurate tries to pick up on the fluctuations.
Back to your theory that “soft” Republicans are tending to identify as independents this time around: it seems to me that phenomenon would be more likely to occur when a party candidate is very unpopular. Thus, I could see that happening after eight years of George Bush. I do not see a Republican being “soft” after four years of a Marxist community organizer. I think that over-sampling Dims in polling obviously affects the outcome. There is certainly no way to know what the party split (R, D, I) will be in the final vote count, but as has been pointed out on this board and elsewhere numerous times, sampling Dims at a higher relative turnout than 2008 is highly unlikely. Methinks you are falling into the error of being an Eeyore and, possibly, a troll. Chin up!
When polls are calling some states to be a more democrat turnout that 2008, then they are living in a bubble with their head up their arse. In 08, there was Bush fatigue, a revolt from fiscal conservatives, war weariness, a bailout, a loved and hated VP candidate, a media in the tank for Obama, "history", and the worst organization from a candidate that I've seen since I've followed politics.
I also know a little about polling as well from my PolySci days at Michigan State.
IATZ...
The polls are worthless. They totally depend on who answers them with out slamming the phone down the moment you find out it’s another stupid pollster calling.
Crowd turn out is the best indicator. Obama draws 2000 and Romney draws 30,000.
There’s massive excitement over Romney right now. People like him.
I believer Rush and Dick Morris are right, it’s going to be a landslide for Romney.
And I believe Rush is right when he says that the libs will throw -0- under the bus as soon as he loses. There will be much satisfaction in watching that happen.
IATZ
