Skip to comments.
ABC/Washington Post Poll Makes In-Kind Contribution to Obama Re-Election EffortsBattleground Watch ^ | October 15, 2012 | Battleground Watch
Posted on 10/15/2012 6:20:32 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
Not to be outdone by the ludicrous NBC/WSJ/Mariat Battleground State polls from last week, ABC/Washington Post reveal their national poll today showing President Obama with a 3-point lead 49 to 46. Mitt Romney leads among Independents by 6 points (48 to 42) and locks down his base more so than Obama ? Reps support Romney 93 to 7 while Dems support Obama 91 to 8. Yet Romney trails by 3. How? Incredibly, they polled 9% more Democrats than Republicans. This is not a new phenomenon as I outlined in mid-September in the post ?Obama?s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats.? Today?s ABC/Washington Post poll is the crowning achievement this cycle in unrealistic national polls only 3 weeks out from the election. But these types of advocacy ?polling games? are nothing new.
The party identification in the survey is D +9 (Dem 35, Rep 26, Ind 33). This compares to 2008 when party ID was D +7 (Dem 39, Rep 32, Ind 29) and 2004 when party ID split evenly (Dem 37, Rep 37, Ind 26). Making matters even worse, in their poll just over two weeks ago that survey had a party ID of D +3 (Dem 33, Rep 30, Ind 33). Did the public tune in to Barack Obama?s debate performance and just have a groundswell of love for Democrat passivity and listlessness and embrace the Donkey Party? According to the Washington Post, pre-Debate the race was 48 to 46 in favor of Obama. Post-debate the race is 49 to 46 in favor of Obama. Must have been an uneventful debate right? Here is over-the-top liberal Democrat Andrew Sullivan?s blog yesterday on post debate polls:
If anyone thought that the feisty Biden debate undid the massive damage the president did to himself in the first debate, the news isn?t great. Biden does seem to have reversed the speed of Obama?s free-fall but not the decline itself. Romney?s debate obliteration of Obama ? something that, in my view, irreparably damages a sitting president ? does not seem to be a bounce, but a resilient jump. It?s not going away by itself. That is: not a bounce.
Sullivan also provides a devastating chart showing the post-debate Romney surge in polls (red line) and Obama free fall (blue line):
[chart embedded in article at site]
But today the Washington Post and ABC see fit to publish a poll with Democrat affiliation 9 percentage points greater than Republicans. This blog has hammered the issue of party ID time and again. Basically there is a zero percent change the Democrat?s advantage at the polls in 2012 will be superior to their advantage in 2008. Here is what I wrote on October 1st when critiquing the large disparities in party identification:
In 2008 seven percent more Democrats than Republicans identified themselves as such on election day, well above the historic average of 3%. This was a big change from 2004 when party identification was evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans. But there were many reasons for the strong Democrat turnout that do not exist today. The top of the ticket was a historic candidate (first Black President), America had war and Bush fatigue, the financial meltdown created an anti-Republican wave, and his opponent wasn?t the strongest (good biography, bad and underfunded candidate). These factors led to a strong Democrat self-identification advantage at the voting booth in 2008. But in the 2012 election, none of the advantages outlined above are there for Obama and many of those factors are now largely working against the President: 8%+ unemployment for three years, sub-2% GDP, 23 million unemployed, Arab Spring blowing up and casting the historic vote in 2008 is yesterday?s news. Additionally the Romney campaign ground game has exceeded the McCain campaign across many metrics as much as 10- to 15-fold. Despite the stark changes in each of these factors, polling outfits thus far have consistently sampled an election turnout often greater than candidate Obama?s 2008 best-in-a-generation advantage.
Over the last month we have seen:
-Democrat enthusiasm down 10% from 4 years ago while enthusiasm among Republicans is up 10% over the same period -This is translating into early vote trend in 2012 strongly favoring Republicans which is offsetting a huge Obama 2008 advantage -Enthusiasm for Obama among seniors, youth and hispanics is meaningfully lower than 2008 -Enthusiasm for Obama is down among African-Americans -Enthusiasm for Obama is down among Jewish voters -Republicans have dramatically cut into and at times surpassed Democrats 2008 voter registration advantage
Interestingly many of these above trends actually show up in the ABC/Washington Post poll. President Obama?s support among Non-Whites is a surprisingly low 73%. His support is typically closer to 80% so this drop of is a major red flag in the President?s re-election efforts. But this is where the Democrat over-sampling comes in to save the President. I went to great lengths to demonstrate that these polls that over-sample Democrats are not simply over-sampling generic Democrats, these polls very specifically over-sample White Democrats. And in this survey we see Barack Obama?s support among White voters at 43%, the same level he achieved in 2008. If that percentage was accurate Obama would almost certainly be re-elected. Unfortunately for him that support level is not accurate based on the unrealistic disparity in party identification and the over-sampling of Democrats masks what is far more likely support for Obama among Whites closer to 36 or 37% as I explained in the previous post here.
Despite the mountain of evidence above completely undermining the unrealistic voter turnout models presented by ABC, the Washington Post and others, major news organizations pass off these unserious polls as credible when neither sense nor reason supports such claims. Today?s disaster is only the latest example of major news organizations weakening the public?s trust by publishing fantastical polls whose sole purpose is to advocate for one candidate over the other.
TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: abcwashingtonpost; polls; president
Click here to support FR
Please visit the Fundraiser thread.
It's on the Breaking News Sidebar
ABC and Washington Post add their special sauce to the polling sample. I know we have seen several posts pointing out that pollsters don't sample for party registration but for demographics. But when you end up with a Dhimm sample higher than 2008 how can anyone take it seriously?
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
Skip to comments.
ABC/Washington Post Poll Makes In-Kind Contribution to Obama Re-Election EffortsBattleground Watch ^ | October 15, 2012 | Battleground Watch
Posted on 10/15/2012 6:20:32 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn
Not to be outdone by the ludicrous NBC/WSJ/Mariat Battleground State polls from last week, ABC/Washington Post reveal their national poll today showing President Obama with a 3-point lead 49 to 46. Mitt Romney leads among Independents by 6 points (48 to 42) and locks down his base more so than Obama ? Reps support Romney 93 to 7 while Dems support Obama 91 to 8. Yet Romney trails by 3. How? Incredibly, they polled 9% more Democrats than Republicans. This is not a new phenomenon as I outlined in mid-September in the post ?Obama?s National Lead Based Entirely on Over-Sampling Democrats.? Today?s ABC/Washington Post poll is the crowning achievement this cycle in unrealistic national polls only 3 weeks out from the election. But these types of advocacy ?polling games? are nothing new.
The party identification in the survey is D +9 (Dem 35, Rep 26, Ind 33). This compares to 2008 when party ID was D +7 (Dem 39, Rep 32, Ind 29) and 2004 when party ID split evenly (Dem 37, Rep 37, Ind 26). Making matters even worse, in their poll just over two weeks ago that survey had a party ID of D +3 (Dem 33, Rep 30, Ind 33). Did the public tune in to Barack Obama?s debate performance and just have a groundswell of love for Democrat passivity and listlessness and embrace the Donkey Party? According to the Washington Post, pre-Debate the race was 48 to 46 in favor of Obama. Post-debate the race is 49 to 46 in favor of Obama. Must have been an uneventful debate right? Here is over-the-top liberal Democrat Andrew Sullivan?s blog yesterday on post debate polls:
If anyone thought that the feisty Biden debate undid the massive damage the president did to himself in the first debate, the news isn?t great. Biden does seem to have reversed the speed of Obama?s free-fall but not the decline itself. Romney?s debate obliteration of Obama ? something that, in my view, irreparably damages a sitting president ? does not seem to be a bounce, but a resilient jump. It?s not going away by itself. That is: not a bounce.
Sullivan also provides a devastating chart showing the post-debate Romney surge in polls (red line) and Obama free fall (blue line):
[chart embedded in article at site]
But today the Washington Post and ABC see fit to publish a poll with Democrat affiliation 9 percentage points greater than Republicans. This blog has hammered the issue of party ID time and again. Basically there is a zero percent change the Democrat?s advantage at the polls in 2012 will be superior to their advantage in 2008. Here is what I wrote on October 1st when critiquing the large disparities in party identification:
In 2008 seven percent more Democrats than Republicans identified themselves as such on election day, well above the historic average of 3%. This was a big change from 2004 when party identification was evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans. But there were many reasons for the strong Democrat turnout that do not exist today. The top of the ticket was a historic candidate (first Black President), America had war and Bush fatigue, the financial meltdown created an anti-Republican wave, and his opponent wasn?t the strongest (good biography, bad and underfunded candidate). These factors led to a strong Democrat self-identification advantage at the voting booth in 2008. But in the 2012 election, none of the advantages outlined above are there for Obama and many of those factors are now largely working against the President: 8%+ unemployment for three years, sub-2% GDP, 23 million unemployed, Arab Spring blowing up and casting the historic vote in 2008 is yesterday?s news. Additionally the Romney campaign ground game has exceeded the McCain campaign across many metrics as much as 10- to 15-fold. Despite the stark changes in each of these factors, polling outfits thus far have consistently sampled an election turnout often greater than candidate Obama?s 2008 best-in-a-generation advantage.
Over the last month we have seen:
-Democrat enthusiasm down 10% from 4 years ago while enthusiasm among Republicans is up 10% over the same period -This is translating into early vote trend in 2012 strongly favoring Republicans which is offsetting a huge Obama 2008 advantage -Enthusiasm for Obama among seniors, youth and hispanics is meaningfully lower than 2008 -Enthusiasm for Obama is down among African-Americans -Enthusiasm for Obama is down among Jewish voters -Republicans have dramatically cut into and at times surpassed Democrats 2008 voter registration advantage
Interestingly many of these above trends actually show up in the ABC/Washington Post poll. President Obama?s support among Non-Whites is a surprisingly low 73%. His support is typically closer to 80% so this drop of is a major red flag in the President?s re-election efforts. But this is where the Democrat over-sampling comes in to save the President. I went to great lengths to demonstrate that these polls that over-sample Democrats are not simply over-sampling generic Democrats, these polls very specifically over-sample White Democrats. And in this survey we see Barack Obama?s support among White voters at 43%, the same level he achieved in 2008. If that percentage was accurate Obama would almost certainly be re-elected. Unfortunately for him that support level is not accurate based on the unrealistic disparity in party identification and the over-sampling of Democrats masks what is far more likely support for Obama among Whites closer to 36 or 37% as I explained in the previous post here.
Despite the mountain of evidence above completely undermining the unrealistic voter turnout models presented by ABC, the Washington Post and others, major news organizations pass off these unserious polls as credible when neither sense nor reason supports such claims. Today?s disaster is only the latest example of major news organizations weakening the public?s trust by publishing fantastical polls whose sole purpose is to advocate for one candidate over the other.
TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: abcwashingtonpost; polls; president
Click here to support FR
Please visit the Fundraiser thread.
It's on the Breaking News Sidebar
ABC and Washington Post add their special sauce to the polling sample. I know we have seen several posts pointing out that pollsters don't sample for party registration but for demographics. But when you end up with a Dhimm sample higher than 2008 how can anyone take it seriously?
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2944995/posts
cleveland cavaliers war horse k cups best buy we bought a zoo we bought a zoo ipad accessories
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন