Posted on 10/27/2012 2:47:59 PM PDT by LS
Ok, so here is the latest explanation (this from a self described Romney voter who is "concerned") for the EV numbers.
You can't measure D/R because of all the "unaffiliated" voters in OH. If a voter doesn't vote in the previous primary he is labeled "unaffiliated" in the next election. Supposedly, this means that 30% more Ds will come out of the woodwork as "unaffiliated."
First, while the D primary was boring, people don't come out for a reason. They MAY be bored, but they also might not like where the party is heading.
Second, the crash we've seen in D numbers in absentees is mimicked by the crash in "unaffiliated" absentee ballot requests, which fell by 158,000 from 2008. Ds fell by 140,000. Rs ROSE by 4200. In other words, these people either left the D party or left politics, more or less altogether, and 4000 may have joined the Rs.
Third, when you hear a statement that "Obama has a 13 point lead in early voting," that is a) a cherry picked county---not across the board; b) it is not a firm number because it results from an EXIT POLL and we all know how reliable those were in 04. Oh, and perhaps most important, in OH, Obama led by 20 (!) in early voting in 08. So even if everyone tells the truth, and even if the reporters in fact got a correct sample of all counties, Obama is STILL short of winning.
and contrary to current spin, there were some hotly contested Dem primary races lower down on the ballot in Ohio, not least of which was Kucinich vs Kaptur.
Does anyone sense a narrative trend? Ignore national polls showing the incumbent at 46. Focus on Ohio, early voting, and gender gaps.
Poll Ping.
Across the board I think we’ve had a lot of good news and I do believe we can win without OH, but shouldn’t have to.
But, I also have one concern that may be nothing. The polls out of OH just last week were showing huge indie leads for Romney some 20+ and thus were very heavily skewed to make it look like O was ahead. However, Rasmussen has the indies almost equal in his new OH poll with an R+1 sample and several dem leaning polls lately seemed to show much more fair breakdowns of D/R with indies trending away from Romney.
I think there are a few possible scenarios. Dems are putting together a concerted effort to have their people report as indies in polls ? There is a real surge for O with indies in some battleground states. Why ? Maybe the exploitation of comments by Akin and Mourdock about rape and abortion is working with indies ? In PA I’ve noticed the pro-O commercials turning to positive themes exclusively, something I’d like to see more of from Romney. Maybe this works with indies ? Finally, it could just be statistically noise and differences in polling techniques.
This is my last real concern, the next few days should tell whether it’s a real one or not.
I remember thinking something similar to point #1, that D voter affiliation in OH is being vastly underreported, because presumably so few Ds voted in the ‘12 Democratic Primary given the obviousness of who was going to win it.
Another factor to consider is that there were likely a number of crossover-Ds who voted in the ‘12 Republican Primary, so R voter affiliation may also be somewhat overestimated.
Even still, only 1.2mln voted in the important R primary compared to 1.1mln in the meaningless D primary. A trend suggesting to me that there may just not be anywhere close to the necessary levels of Rs needed to win OH.
I tried to examine this as follows: I looked at the decline in "Us" in key counties from 08 to 12. With the exceptions I note, all counties saw both parties decline, but Ds more as a percent:
Cuyahoga -16% (Both Ds and Rs gained, but Rs gained net 3000 more)
Erie -10%
Franklin -24%
Green +10%
Hamilton +.02%
Lake -32%
Lucas -19%
Montgomery -27% (Rs gained 5000 over 08)
Now, maybe someone with better understanding of some of these counties can jump in, but on the surface, the notion that the Us are simply Ds who didn't vote in the primary doesn't seem to stand up. If they are, the Ds really LOST FAR MORE than what we've thought. A couple of red counties---Green and Hamilton---actually gained Us while losing Ds, suggesting (but not proving) a shift out of the D party and into R status because they don't like the Ds.
Disagree. Absentees prove it.
Ahh, okay. I see what you’re saying there with the -% in U voters above. Interesting.
In 2012, primary voters were 40% of all GOP voters.
In 2008, primary voters were 44% of all GOP voters.
In 2004, primary voters were 33% of all GOP voters.
In 2000, primary voters were 55% of all GOP voters.
So, surprisingly, 2012 featured a lower percentage of GOP primaries to general election voters than 08 or 2000. In other words, there is a GREAT deal more room to grow, even from the 2012 turnout.
Good point.
I can recall our side trying to ignore polls in 2008 with all manner of inside style info and all we got was letdown. While it’s obvious Obama is way off his 2008 pace and imho will lose the popular vote, if Ohio’s D vs R registration is dependent on if you voted in the primary, how can we disqualify the polls that say D+7, etc.?
I’m not trying to be contrary, I just wonder if there’s something more solid to grasp.
Why would polls give a non biased view of the popular vote with Romney up in just about every poll, but add bias to Ohio? Why not fudge the overall number too?
Last primary refers to the last primary voter A voted in. So if voter A voted in democratic primary in 08 but not 12, he’s still listed as dem not unaffiliated. This point is key and should be thoroughly understood what last primary refers too. It does not just refer to primary in 12.
Were the polls right in WI recall election---a nationalized election? Or in 1994? Or in 2012 for that matter? No. Polls, especially at the state level, can be really bad. Rasmussen is probably the best only because he polls over a three night period, even at the state level. He has OH a tie, and has had it a tie for two of this last three polling sessions.
Two others, Suffolk and Gravis have had it a tie and a little known third says Romney is up two.
You can place your trust in whatever you want. Just remember, polls are inexact pseudo recordings of what people say they will do in the future. Remember Dr. House. Everybody lies.
Absentee and early voting statistics are PAST events that we can record somewhat scientifically. Certainly we can count. Hard for those numbers to lie. Possible, but very hard. And so far the numbers suggest that any D+ anything sample is just wrong.
I asked Dean Chambers of Q Star Polling (not one of those mentioned above---BTW, he also has Romney up two)---why the discrepancy. His answer was that first it's more obvious to jimmy a national poll cause everyone pays attention in all states, and second, EVERYONE knows that once they have Romney up in OH solidly, it's over. Who needs pollsters anymore?
Thanks
Wow, are you sure? That’s big.
Ohio: Dems now saying Ohio GOP strength is skewed by false party affiliation (party is by last primary vote). That is...Malarkey.— Adrian Gray (@adrian_gray) October 27, 2012
I read these threads and I get the sense that people think that Ohio is some sort of unique state in its voting habits. It has never been that. What it is a mirror of the nation. That’s why it always votes for the eventual winnner. So if Romney is up 51/46 nationwide...he is up 51/46 in Ohio regardless of what the pollsters are saying right now. What do you think?
Dean Chambers is exactly right. Tight polls means we are still tuning in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.