Pollsters May Have Fatal Flaw in Obama Romney Numbers

Townhall.com ^ | July 26, 2012 | Matt Towery

[Kaslin]

As one who polled the 2008 presidential race extensively, it dawned on me, looking at the various "swing state" surveys taken recently, that many pollsters might be making a significant error that results in President Barack Obama with a lead, when perhaps the lead in reality belongs to Mitt Romney.

When surveys are conducted, the people who are interviewed are randomly selected registered (in a good poll) likely voters who are willing to respond. But that just begins the process. Those responses must then be "weighted" or allocated based on some projected model of past or future voter turnout strength. In other words, those conducting the poll must adjust the numbers to reflect the percentage of men, women, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Whites, African-Americans and other groups such as Hispanic-Latinos who will likely vote in the contest.

This is no easy business, and it is why polling is as much an art as it is a science. But there are some ways to get to these determinations, such as polling a state and asking which party voters identify with separately and before the actual "ballot test" survey is taken. But enough of these geeky polling details.

I have in my gut a belief that the polls we are seeing now underrate Romney's strength. For example, we saw a hugely enthusiastic young voter turnout for Obama in 2008. As a result, polls were weighted to give more voter strength to the category of 18- to 29-year-olds than in past years. In general, younger voters just do not turn out to vote.

This year, I am seeing evidence that the enthusiastic and energetic vote of young Americans for Barack Obama has at the very least lost some of its mojo. That likely means they are not as excited about voting. So, an adjustment in the "weighting" of a survey by a reasonable number of percentage points downward for that group could mean the difference in some of these critical "swing" states between Obama being up by one point and Romney being ahead by a percentage point or two.

Another group that likely needs some "tweaking" by pollsters this go-round are those who identify themselves as "independent" voters. In 2008, they helped decide the presidential race, as a significant percentage were sick of the Bush years and were desperate for any type of "change" they could believe in, so to speak. This year, we have more voters than ever identifying themselves as independents. This is surely a result of their absolute frustration with a Congress that appears to be chasing its tail and producing nothing of value.

Independent voters seem to be leaning more toward Romney than they did toward John McCain in 2008. So, if one considers the fact that this group of voters likely should be inched up in the process of producing the final poll, and the fact that Romney is doing better among this group, that too might move a survey that shows Obama with a one or two point lead in a given state and shift the more realistic results toward Romney leading by a few points.

As I said, polling is as much an art as it is a science. But my guess is that some of the states where we are seeing results with Obama leading are either showing too strong of a lead or perhaps have the wrong man in the lead.

Of course, polls don't make campaigns. But they do sometimes create a sense of momentum or, as was the case with McCain, impending doom.

In the end, it is message, image and strategy that win the race -- and debates. For Romney, the message is not clear, and the image is still fuzzy. But he may have a strategy that is going to work. While Obama has burned through his cash early on, Romney has been raising dollars and holding back on expenditures. Obama's camp has spent a fortune trying to savage Romney early in the contest. But the Obama camp may run low on cash just as we enter the last and most important phase of the race. If Romney can get his act together and outspend Obama in the end, Romney has a sporting chance of winning, no matter how the pollsters adjust their numbers.

[Ron C.]

Well, what you want just simply isn’t going to happen. Romney will be the nominee - you can bet on it and win handsomely. The odds of another candidate being named is effectively zero.

[jmaroneps37]

Look at Gallup's enthusiasm numbers. They tell us any poll should come up about 56/44 Romney. Of course the pollsters won't do that because their readers would drop off. They run small businesses but are in the 35% that support Obama.

[Mr. K]

At this point in 1980 Reagan was behind Carter by 9 points (in the ‘polls’)

[Mr. K]

The thing no one is reporting in all these ‘polls’ is that Obama MAXED OUT his support last time- The enthusiasm gave him all the votes he will ever get.

On the other hand enthusiam for McLame was lukewarm, and only as good as it was because he was wise enough to add Palin.

So, Obama has no where to go but down- he got the max he could possibly get last time- and he will NOT do as good this time

And on Romney’s side this time Republicans are ready to vote TOMORROW (not -FOR- Romney as much as -AGAINST- Obama)

Romney just needs to remember that only 30% of the GOP wanted him- 70% wanted someone more conservative

[Gorzaloon]

Romney will appoint homosexual One Worlder elitocrats to the Supreme Court who'll rewrite the Constitution for the benefit of Yale trust-fund legacy spawn named Muffy and Buffy and Skippy and Chippy. He'll nominate girlymen to the left of Souter and Kennedy, to replace Scalia and Thomas, who'll retire thinking Romney will nominate conservatives to replace them.

Oh, I have seen that "untouchable special people who went to the right schools" thing all my career. They stare at the ceiling until they end up on the boards of interlocked corporations. I am not going to be afraid of WASPS per se, though..After all they DID write the Declaration of independence, fought the Revolution, and gave us a Constitution. Why, we even know who some of them ARE, and many of them have actually had JOBS. I say this to contrast this with the present reality. And I compare what this Unknown from Nowhere has actually DONE, not what Romney or some other altenative MIGHT do in the future.

First before all else, we must remove the current deadly malignancy (PBUH), and pay attention to the demonstrated present threat. If the patient lives, then we adress things that have not happened yet.

If we do not do this, it will not matter in the least what Romney "May have" done, because the pawn will have taken our queen, and there is no future beyond May Day Parades.

I am not comfortable with Romney. I have to admit the odd religion does play a part in it. I know his co-religionists, and had one for a roommate years ago. They have all seemed to be decent people, likable and industrious..But still...As in the JFK election, the issue is there, below the surface. I know them, but do I really? And we have seen the issue raised from time to time in Democrat cellar operations.

[GlockThe Vote]

I would go to the polls every day now until november if it meant getting rid of Choomer-in-Chief