Posted on 09/10/2012 3:07:59 PM PDT by smoothsailing
September 10, 2012
Christian Heinze
A new CNN poll of likely voters confirms a Barack Obama convention bounce, as he now leads Mitt Romney, 52%-46%.
But here's a very curious internal.
Romney leads among independents, 54%-40%. That's a blowout number. Both candidates get 96%-97% of their respective parties, so this means that this sample must have leaned Democratic big-time.
And of course, CNN didn't release the sampling breakdown.
There's no doubt Obama got a convention bounce, but the independent number indicates a pretty severe oversample among Democrats in this poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at gop12.thehill.com ...
The poll adds up to 101%. The last poll only added up to 99%. Strange rounding must be in play...
Not so. Did you read the 48 page report? They sampled 1022 people comprised of 441 Dems, 397 Reps, and 184 Independents. They did not provide the number of independents, but they did provide the number of Dems and Reps so one could assume the remainder are independents.
Remember that even back during the Revolution, only around 30% actually particiated in or supported the Revolution, another 30% were no different than the sheeple of today and the last 30% wanted to stay with King George.
No matter what, the sheeple will never have the common sense to give a damn unless it costs them dearly.
The original national CNN data, 709 Likely Voters for September 07-09, 2012:
The derived poll data presented below for the same national CNN, Likely Voters, n = 709
Rounding the below by plus or minus (0.49%) yields above published (rounded) CNN two digit poll data.
Looks as if CNN/ORC have published a Democrat [ +10.26%] Likely Voter oversampled poll. Just for fun, at the far right of the spreadsheet data is a "what-if" the political ID breakdown was (35%R, 35%D, 30%I) - Romney on top by ~4%.
dvwjr valign= width= align= width= size=24 /fontTahoma/tdright/font2bottomnbsp; align= height=bottom
What happens to the numbers if you apply the 2010 voting trends to the model?
Romney leads among independents, 54%-40%.
In other words, the poll is nothing but a worthless piece of propaganda -- obviously achieved by vastly over-stating the Democrat sample vs the Republican sample.
You'd think they'd be embarrassed by such transparent trickery.
But...they're liberals. And...they're desperate.
I remember 2008, polls showing Obama ahead. They were all wrong, skewed numbers, over sampling, liberal pollsters, guess what......as we now know, sadly, they were right.
I did see those numbers, but didn't use them because I wanted to fit numbers in a model based on Rasmussen's 29% Indy standard and build on that to see how skewed the rest would be. I rounded the 29 to 30 for the sake of simplicity.
Your numbers translate to a D 43% R 39% I 18% sample. It's another strange model, D +10 R +2 I -12. Only the R part approaches something sensible. The D's and I's are way out of whack.
I think this time around Romney will have enough sense not to suspend his campaign the way McNut did.
Interesting comparisons here...
Tweaking? More like arm twisting.
Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like
That’s a 53-47 sample. I don’t see Dem turnout being 6% higher than ours.
You make an excellent point.
Reagan and (IIRC) Bush were both down that much in September in both their elections. Moreover, I heard yesterday that Carter was up over Reagan by 8 points in Gallup’s tracking poll in mid-October 1980. In 1984, the first polls after the Dem convention (late July) showed Mondale up five over Ronaldus Magnus. Well, we know how that one worked out...Mondale won by less than 1% in his home state!
If the polls are true, we can still win. If they’re as silly as I think they are (Up 14% among independents and running behind? How’s that math work?) this is going to be a lovely election night.
I understand your trepidation, but consider this: It’s possible that the reason even gold-standard pollsters like Rasmussen are oversampling Dems is that they are using 2008 turnout models. If so, the polling isn’t intentionally inaccurate, but would have inaccurate results. Remember that almost all pollsters got Wisconsin wrong because they used a turnout model that didn’t come close to accounting for the righteous anger among conservatives and independents over the scummy tactics by the Left.
The bottom line is that these polls are dicey at this point in the race no matter what they show, whether by “this point in the race” we mean right after the convention or mid-September. In mid-September 1980 Carter was on track to victory. In the week after the Dem convention in 1984 Mondale was up by five. I’m not sure any pollster would have predicted a 49 state landslide where the defeated candidate came within a quarter of a point of losing his home state to boot. In mid-September 2000 Bush was being declared “toast” by some analysts. The last polls in October had him winning the popular vote by several points.
And remember President Dukakis? After all, how could a guy who was up 17% over a mushy liberal Republican businessman fail to close the deal in November, right?
I may be wrong, but the big problem with comparing the polls in 2008 to now is enthusiasm. Polls in 2008 oversampled Dems to reflect the gap in enthusiasm. Now they’re oversampling Dems despite an enthusiasm gap that runs the exact opposite way. When the convention bounce showed up, a big part of it was that Dems in blue states were fired up by a convention aimed mainly at bolstering them. That’s why the national numbers moved significantly and the battleground state numbers didn’t.
In 2004, I predicted a solid Bush win by analyzing where the campaigns were running ads and sending the Prez and VP candidates. It was more reliable than the polls of the time, to the point that, when I heard about the “Kerry landslide” exit polls in the early afternoon, I rejected them in the same way I would reject a report that Abe Vigoda won the Olympic decathalon.
Thanks Mr. Silverback for rational reasoning. I for some reason always took polls with a grain of salt and truthfully have pretty well been spot on through the years. Obama threw me, I honestly never felt he had a chance, especially when McCain was up in many polls as high as 9 points.
Then, of course, the orchestrated “financial collapse”. Obama will win again primarily because this nation is comprised of too many different minorities, when melded together, become the majority. He has played every group like a fiddle and they will come out for him, again.
They stick with a single model, whether adults, registered voters, or likely voters. They also for the most part stick with the same wording every time. That way poll results from one day/week/month can be compared with the next set of results.
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.