HorsesAss.Org

Poll Analysis: Obama gains in electoral votes

by — ,


Obama Romney
100.0% probability of winning 0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 336 electoral votes Mean of 202 electoral votes

The previous analysis of state head-to-head polls gave President Barack Obama the lead over Romney by an average of 327 to 211 electoral votes and a 99.6% probability of winning a hypothetical late-July election.

We have lots of new polls weighing in on the situation:

start end sample % % %
st poll date date size MOE O R diff
AL Research Consultants 23-Jul 26-Jul 600 4.0 34 59 R+25
AZ PPP 23-Jul 25-Jul 833 — 41 52 R+11
CO Rasmussen 06-Aug 06-Aug 500 4.5 47 47 tie
CO PPP 02-Aug 05-Aug 779 3.5 49 43 O+6
CT PPP 26-Jul 29-Jul 771 3.5 51 43 O+8
FL PPP 26-Jul 29-Jul 871 3.3 48 47 O+1
FL Quinnipiac 24-Jul 30-Jul 1177 — 51 45 O+6
GA SurveyUSA 29-Jul 29-Jul 1169 — 42 50 R+8
GA InsiderAdvantage 24-Jul 24-Jul 591 — 40.5 49.8 R+9.3
IN Rasmussen 31-Jul 01-Aug 400 5.0 35 51 R+16
MI EPIC/MRA 24-Jul 31-Jul 600 4.0 48 42 O+6
MO Rasmussen 30-Jul 30-Jul 500 4.5 44 50 R+6
MO Mason-Dixon 23-Jul 25-Jul 625 4.0 42 51 R+9
MO WeAskAmerica 24-Jul 24-Jul 1172 3.0 39.7 49.0 R+9.3
NV Rasmussen 24-Jul 24-Jul 500 4.5 50 45 O+5
NJ Fairleigh Dickinson 23-Jul 29-Jul 849 3.5 49 36 O+13
NJ Monmouth 18-Jul 22-Jul 535 4.2 50 42 O+8
NC PPP 02-Aug 05-Aug 813 3.4 49 46 O+3
NC Rasmussen 01-Aug 01-Aug 500 4.5 44 49 R+5
OH Quinnipiac 24-Jul 30-Jul 1193 — 50 44 O+6
OH WeAskAmerica 24-Jul 24-Jul 1115 3.0 47.8 40.2 O+7.6
OH Magellan Strategies 23-Jul 24-Jul 597 4.0 45 43 O+2
PA Quinnipiac 24-Jul 30-Jul 1168 — 53 42 O+11
SD Neilson Brothers 19-Jul 23-Jul 546 4.2 42 49 R+7
VA Capitol Correspondent 30-Jul 31-Jul 563 4.1 44.2 39.6 O+4.6
WA SurveyUSA 01-Aug 02-Aug 524 4.4 54.1 37.0 O+17.1
WI Rasmussen 25-Jul 25-Jul 500 4.5 49 46 O+3

Romney is running strong in the places you’d expect: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia (in 2 polls), and South Dakota.

Indiana has been something of a mystery. Obama eked out a win in 2008, and there hasn’t been much polling because the state law makes polling difficult. The new (very small) Rasmussen poll finds Romney with a solid lead.

Missouri is also looking pretty solid for Romney with a +6, +9, and +9 in the new polls.

North Carolina goes both ways, giving Obama a +3% and Romney a +5% lead. Combined with one other recent poll, Obama’s chances in the state are a 53% probability of winning (now):

ObamaRomney07Jul12-07Aug12North Carolina

Two Colorado polls give Obama the edge there, with an 81% probability of taking the state.

Florida gives Obama a tiny (+1%) lead. He has now taken three consecutive polls, and four of the six current polls.

Remember when Pennsylvania used to be considered a swing state? It’s pretty hard to make a straight-faced argument that the state will switch to Romney:

ObamaRomney07Jul12-07Aug12Pennsylvania

The other swing state, Ohio, gets three polls this week, and all three go for Obama. Here again, Ohio is pretty consistently putting Obama over Romney:

ObamaRomney07Jul12-07Aug12Ohio

Wisconsin gives Obama a slender +3% lead. This is the fifth consecutive lead for Obama, going back to mid-June. The two polls, taken together, give Obama a 96% chance of taking the state.

Nevada has Obama up by a single-digit (+5%) lead over Romney, but there can be little question about the state now. Consider this: Romney has not led in the last eleven polls. One has to go back to March—March of 2011, not 2012—to find a poll with Romney in the lead.

With this Michigan poll, giving Obama a +6% lead, Obama has “won” three of the four current polls.

Virginia almost matches Florida for being a swing state. This time, Obama takes the lead. Perhaps we can discern a small Obama edge in the recent polling history:

ObamaRomney07Jul12-07Aug12Virginia

Finally, we have no surprises in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington giving Obama the lead.

With all these new polls, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 99,968 times and Romney wins 32 times. Obama receives (on average) 336 (+9) to Romney’s 202 (-9) electoral votes. Based on simulations, in an election held now, we’d expect Obama to have almost a 100.0% probability of beating Romney.

Electoral College Map

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Lousiana Maine Maryland Massachusettes Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming


Electoral College Map

Georgia Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Connecticut Florida Mississippi Alabama Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:

Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:

  • 341 electoral votes with a 4.11% probability
  • 342 electoral votes with a 3.66% probability
  • 343 electoral votes with a 3.30% probability
  • 356 electoral votes with a 3.03% probability
  • 357 electoral votes with a 2.83% probability
  • 347 electoral votes with a 2.74% probability
  • 328 electoral votes with a 2.74% probability
  • 337 electoral votes with a 2.64% probability
  • 344 electoral votes with a 2.47% probability
  • 332 electoral votes with a 2.46% probability

After 100,000 simulations:

  • Obama wins 100.0%, Romney wins 0.0%.
  • Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 335.8 (17.1)
  • Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 202.2 (17.1)
  • Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 338 (298, 363)
  • Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 200 (175, 240)

Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):

Threshold Safe + Strong + Leans + Weak
Safe Obama 142
Strong Obama 118 260
Leans Obama 81 81 341
Weak Obama 15 15 15 356
Weak Romney 1 1 1 182
Leans Romney 4 4 181
Strong Romney 133 177
Safe Romney 44

This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.

0 0 EC # Total % % Obama Romney
8 4 Votes polls Votes Obama Romney % wins % wins
AL 9 1 558 36.6 63.4 0.0 100.0
AK 3 0 (0) (100)
AZ 11 1 775 44.1 55.9 1.0 99.0
AR 6 1* 679 36.8 63.2 0.0 100.0
CA 55 1* 780 59.7 40.3 100.0 0.0
CO 9 3 1721 51.5 48.5 81.3 18.7
CT 7 1 725 54.2 45.8 94.9 5.1
DE 3 0 (100) (0)
DC 3 0 (100) (0)
FL 29 6 4289 51.1 48.9 84.0 16.0
GA 16 2 1608 45.4 54.6 0.6 99.4
HI 4 1* 517 64.8 35.2 100.0 0.0
ID 4 0* (0) (100)
IL 20 1* 546 61.5 38.5 100.0 0.0
IN 11 1 344 40.7 59.3 0.8 99.2
IA 6 1 1029 52.8 47.2 89.7 10.3
KS 6 1* 442 45.0 55.0 7.0 93.0
KY 8 1* 528 45.5 54.5 6.8 93.3
LA 8 1* 542 41.1 58.9 0.2 99.8
ME 2 1* 516 58.3 41.7 99.7 0.3
ME1 1 1* 488 64.8 35.2 100.0 0.0
ME2 1 1* 421 53.7 46.3 86.2 13.8
MD 10 1* 792 62.4 37.6 100.0 0.0
MA 11 1* 848 58.5 41.5 100.0 0.0
MI 16 4 2257 53.1 46.9 98.0 2.0
MN 10 1 472 53.6 46.4 86.6 13.4
MS 6 1* 717 40.0 60.0 0.0 100.0
MO 10 3 2091 45.3 54.7 0.1 99.9
MT 3 1* 372 45.2 54.8 9.5 90.5
NE 2 1* 553 43.4 56.6 1.6 98.4
NE1 1 1* 389 45.5 54.5 10.4 89.6
NE2 1 1* 252 49.6 50.4 45.8 54.2
NE3 1 1* 284 35.9 64.1 0.0 100.0
NV 6 3 2118 52.7 47.3 96.1 3.9
NH 4 1 442 52.0 48.0 72.3 27.7
NJ 14 3 2627 56.3 43.7 100.0 0.0
NM 5 2 1852 54.8 45.2 99.9 0.1
NY 29 2 2267 63.5 36.5 100.0 0.0
NC 15 3 1819 50.1 49.9 53.3 46.7
ND 3 1 348 41.4 58.6 1.1 98.9
OH 18 5 3646 52.7 47.3 98.7 1.3
OK 7 1* 448 30.4 69.6 0.0 100.0
OR 7 1* 631 54.4 45.6 93.7 6.3
PA 20 4 3335 54.2 45.8 100.0 0.0
RI 4 1* 495 59.4 40.6 99.8 0.2
SC 9 1* 1833 51.7 48.3 85.0 15.0
SD 3 1 497 46.1 53.9 11.2 88.8
TN 11 1* 654 46.0 54.0 7.3 92.7
TX 38 1* 460 38.9 61.1 0.1 99.9
UT 6 1* 1149 27.7 72.3 0.0 100.0
VT 3 1* 528 67.8 32.2 100.0 0.0
VA 13 4 2949 50.7 49.3 71.5 28.5
WA 12 2 1002 57.2 42.8 99.9 0.1
WV 5 1* 373 40.8 59.2 0.7 99.3
WI 10 2 1532 53.1 46.9 96.0 4.0
WY 3 0 (0) (100)

* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).

Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.

The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.

Comments

  1. 1

    This analysis is a “hammer blow” to those ha trolls most invested in Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    i.e. Dr Butt and the Wyoming harlequin..

    psssst.. it affects “little maxee” the asshat troll too. If he says it doesn’t – he’s lying!

  2. 2

    Mitt will pull it off, once we disqualify all those illegal voters.

  3. 3

    1. YLB spews:
    This analysis is a “hammer blow” to those ha trolls most invested in Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    i.e. Dr Butt and the Wyoming harlequin..

    psssst.. it affects “little maxee” the asshat troll too. If he says it doesn’t – he’s lying!

    08/07/2012 AT 7:36 PM

    Hey cholo, I dont care one way or the other. Both candidates suck, and I have already stated I could vote for Obmama.

  4. 4

    Hey Bigot@3, are you also the Wyoming harlequin or little maxee? I don’t follow HA closely enough to know all of your sock puppets.

  5. 5

    @2 Hey, he might, if you guys can keep all the non-Aryans from voting. And the females. Mitt doesn’t do well with the females.

  12. 12

    @2 “Mitt will pull it off”

    I recently wrote a song with that title, and in that same “purge the voter rolls” spirit. I particularly like the verse that goes,

    So what if I’m rich
    and you think I’m a dolt
    Just wait ’til November when we say
    “You can’t vote!”

  13. 13

    Key of F#, but give me a week or two and I can transpose it for you. Second verse,

    Pay no attention to polls
    Cuz my cult’s got Jesus
    And I really do like dogs
    Except that damned Seamus

  14. 14

    poor Darcy, now a 3x loser…..this time it wasnt even close…lol

  15. 15

    Quinnipiac has Romney up 50-45 in Colorado:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-25.....bsCarousel

    What’s interesting is that this poll has sampled 5% more Republicans than Democrats (You have to go to the very last page of the poll data to find it). WTF? It at least largely explains why the poll has Romney +5 in the state.

    The other thing interesting about this poll is that the respondents are asked about the other candidate. More than 20% are voting for Romney because they dislike Obama.

  16. 16

    I looked at the CO polls by PPP and by Quinnipiac:

    Among independents, the Q poll has Romney over Obama, 47-45. But the PPP poll has Obama well over Romney, 49-38.

    Somebody’s wrong.

  17. 17

    Some weirdness in the Q poll in WI:


    Union households, who make up a quarter of likely Wisconsin voters, support Mr. Obama by nearly two-to-one (61 percent to 36 percent).

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-25.....ontentBody

    Why isn’t union support for Obama significantly higher than this? He’s their meal ticket, isn’t he? The anti-Walker?

  18. 18

    @15,

    Hey bobtard; nice that you forgot to mention Obama +4 in VA by the same poll.

    Did the teatrads of VA not get the message that tossing the black guy out is ok, even if it means they have to pay higher taxes for Rmoney’s tax cut?

  19. 19

    @ 18

    There wasn’t anything unusual in the WI or VA components of that poll.

    Things that aren’t newsworthy or otherwise at all interesting I generally leave to Roger Rabbit to cover in detail.

  20. 20

    It’s encouraging news, but I think Democrats will have to win by a at least 5% in each state to offset Republican vote fraud.

    That’s why the trolls here are trying to claim that polls give Democrats a 5% advantage. They know that they plan to steal the election, and their attempts to go through yet ANOTHER election trying to explain the disparity between the polling and the announced results is going to look pretty bad. So they are trying to discredit the polls, in advance.

  21. 21

    @ 20

    Must be someone else to whom you refer. I think polls often are skewed to the Dem side but we’ll find out, I guess. It’s not news that likely voter polls are skewed more to the GOP side since GOP voters are more likely to, you know, vote.

  22. 22

    Bob @ 16,

    “Somebody’s wrong.”

    No. Your statement reflects a lack of statistical thinking. Since the polls are based on samples, we EXPECT variability…even if the same polling firm used the exact same methods (but called a different random sample).

    In fact, the new CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll has a “margin of error” of 2.6% the PPP poll has a “margin of error” 3.5%. You can see in this graph that the numbers overlap very close to 50%.

    ObamaRomney08Jul12-08Aug12Colorado

    Furthermore, notice that the Rasmussen poll is slightly more current than the other two polls (using the midpoint of the collection period). And that shows a tie.

    So…the best explanation is that Colorado has tightened up in the past two months to about a 50%-50% split.

    Update: The degree of divergence between the Quinnipiac and PPP polls is on the extreme side. We might only expect to see such a divergence by sampling variability alone, say, one out of every 100 polls. Note that I’ve got almost 600 polls for the 2012 Obama–Romney match-up.

  23. 23

    Bob @ 17,

    “Why isn’t union support for Obama significantly higher than this? He’s their meal ticket, isn’t he? The anti-Walker?”

    No…this is a stereotype generally spewed by idiots who have been brainwashed by listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and watching too much FAUX News….

  24. 24

    @ 22

    The degree of divergence between the Quinnipiac and PPP polls is on the extreme side.

    This was pretty much my point. A 5-point difference is explainable. This one is a 13-point difference. It might be statistical fluctuation. Or it might be a difference between an admittedly left-leaning polling firm (PPP) and one (Q) that is on neutral ground.

    Independents are pretty consistently leaning to Romney. 11 points to the Obama side in CO? Somebody’s wrong.

  25. 25

    @ 23

    No…this is a stereotype generally spewed by idiots who have been brainwashed by listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and watching too much FAUX News….

    Actually, in this case it was an honest question put forth by a guy who was reading the actual poll result, knows how hard unions worked to elect Obama in 2008 ($53M if I recall correctly), and wonders why union voters are barely above 50% in the Obama column.

    I suppose I could have been watching Fox and Friends or listening to 770 or whatever AM station is right-wing these days in this town.

    But I was looking at poll results and wondering why Obama’s union penetration isn’t greater.

    I had no idea I was perpetuating a stereotype in merely coming up with a question after doing some independent reading. Thanks for setting me straight.

  26. 26

    Bob,

    “I had no idea I was perpetuating a stereotype…”

    Bull-fucking-shit.

    Much too much of your comments are full of this kind of right-wing nutjobber rhetoric for anyone to seriously believe your statement @25

  27. 27

    @ 26

    Then don’t stop there, Darryl, go all-in and insinuate that I’m paid to be here.

    Or you could explain why what I said at @ 17 is not a fair question.

    Although I suppose one answer is that, for all of their efforts, unions really don’t represent the interests of their membership.

  28. 28

    Bob @ 24,

    “This one is a 13-point difference. “

    And, as I’ve shown, a 13 point difference isn’t inconsistent with sampling variability alone.

    …admittedly left-leaning polling firm (PPP)

    While it is correct that PPP is a polling firm that is frequently hired by left-leaning organizations (e.g. Daily Kos picked them up as a pollster after learning that Research 2000 was defrauding them), PPP does not have a reputation for producing left-biased polls.

    I’d be curious to learn of any actual evidence-based analysis of PPP polls that you know of that suggests any bias to their polls.

    Most poll junkies are reasonably satisfied with the methods used in Nate Silver’s 2010 analysis of robopolls. He found the PPP polls to be the least biased of the robopolls, with a very slight (R+0.1%) bias.

    Of course, the dynamics of election (like D and R voter motivation) might change the bias of the robopolls. And methods change as pollsters incorporate cell phones, etc. But I am not aware of any objective analyses suggesting problems with PPP polls.

  29. 29

    Bob @ 27,

    “Then don’t stop there, Darryl, go all-in and insinuate that I’m paid to be here.”

    What the fuck are you babbling about?!?

    “Or you could explain why what I said at @ 17 is not a fair question.”

    Yes…I suppose I could!

    “Although I suppose one answer is that, for all of their efforts, unions really don’t represent the interests of their membership.”

    More bullshit stereotypes. You seem remarkably naive about what unions are all about!

    Essentially, your stereotypes seem like they’ve been lifted straight from some RightWingDing-O-Sphere cookbook.

  30. 30

    @ 28

    I’d be curious to learn of any actual evidence-based analysis of PPP polls that you know of that suggests any bias to their polls.

    I don’t find their poll sampling methods to be biased, either.

    I do find it difficult to read their announcements summarizing their findings, because I believe those announcements are structured to be most pleasing to the people who hire them. The one I read today sure seemed to be – my perception, granted.

    It to me is interesting that Romney is up 22 points among independents in OR and yet down 11 points among independents in CO, each according to PPP.

    That interest has no stereotypical basis. But it’s why I think somebody is wrong, and I think that somebody is PPP in CO.

    It is similarly to me interesting that despite so much union support for Obama over Romney, union members only support Obama by 61% vs. about 47% of the US population as a whole. I would think it is far higher.

    That interest, similarly, has no stereotypical basis as I picked up on it pretty much this morning as well, while digesting polls and looking at crosstab data.

    Think of me what you will. My question @ 17 was derived honestly.

  32. 32

    Bob @ 30,

    So, you suggested PPP is “wrong”. It is certainly possible for pollsters to do something “wrong”, like call people in the wrong state, or actually do their math incorrectly. But PPP is THE most active pollster in this election season (I have 165 PPP polls in my database, the next two most active pollsters are Rasmussen with 59 and Quinnipiac with 58). They are high experienced and have the math (and calling) automated. It seems unlikely they did they did the math wrong, called the wrong state, etc.

    So, what, exactly do you mean by thinking they “did something wrong”?

    Or do you mean you think they got “unlucky” in their sampling?? That wouldn’t be “wrong,” per se; rather, it’s the nature of making inference from a sample.

    Secondly, if you look at the entire polling history in Colorado for this race, there have been 15 polls conducted. The new Quinnipiac poll is the FIRST AND ONLY poll to show Romney with the lead in the state. (Three polls have shown ties, but none give Romney the lead). Therefore, if you have to pick a poll that is “wrong”, why the PPP poll instead of the Quinnipiac poll?

    For me, I’ll just stick with my statistical perspective: neither are outliers–rather both provide sample-based probabilistic evidence about the state of the race.

  33. 33

    @ 32

    I believe Quinnipiac IS off in their sampling. It’s the basis for my WTF? comment @ 15, which I was really hoping would elicit a response from you. Didn’t ask directly for it since I figured you figure I’m a shill and wouldn’t give me the time of day.

    I’m wondering how they get R+5 in their sample.

    I also believe that PPP is off in their sampling insofar as their independent respondents’ support for Obama v. Romney is concerned – independents currently break at least a little for Romney in most polls, so for PPP to have independents going so strongly the other way elicits a question in my mind.

    So, I made two points. I think both polls need to be looked at with skepticism.

    You believe they’re within the realm of statistical possibility.

    Good enough.

  34. 34

    @ 31

    This goes to my (honest) question @ 17, which I’ll ask again despite Darryl’s accusation that I’m perpetuating a stereotype:

    If the GOP works to the detriment of the unions and if Obama is a supporter of union goals, then why don’t more union members support Obama?

    Steve, since Darryl blew me off and since I’m truly trying to understand, can you give me a serious, profanity-free and putdown-free response?

  36. 36

    @ 35

    Again, Rael, yes. Answered this on Monday, I think. You’re not my priority right now.

  37. 37

    BTW – our bet ($1000 even money, I’m taking Obama to win presidency in 2012, you’re taking Romney) is a bad investment for you right now.

    You could get the same bet right now (Romney to win presidency 2012) at about 60-40 according to various oddsmakers:

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i.....log480.png

    So you could get a better return on your money there …

    But what’s money for if you can’t bet on the home team, right?

  38. 38

    Bob @ 30,

    “Think of me what you will. My question @ 17 was derived honestly.”

    It was’t the question…it was the commentary around the question that pegged you as a Limbaugh dupe.

    Seriously, do you expect anyone but a nutberger to take you seriously when you lace your question with “He’s their meal ticket, isn’t he? The anti-Walker?”

    But, I appreciate your re-asking the question in a straightforward way:

    “It is similarly to me interesting that despite so much union support for Obama over Romney, union members only support Obama by 61% vs. about 47% of the US population as a whole. I would think it is far higher.”

    The results are pretty typical for polls.

    In the 2008 presidential election households with union members went for Obama over McCain 59% to 39%

    The WI exit poll during the recall contest found similar proportions supporting Barrett (D) over Walker (R)—62% to 39% in households with union members.

    Why is this?

    First: they are communicating on someone on the phone and asking something like, “Do you or someone in your household belong to a labor union?” This doesn’t mean the respondent is a union member or supporter.

    Second: Union membership is politically heterogenous. People belong to unions first and foremost as a way of improving pay, work conditions, benefits, etc. The primary function of union is not political, despite what you may have learned at Wingnut U.

    As an analogy, I am a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I gain some good benefits from being a member, and appreciate their advocacy efforts (i.e. lobbying) to promote general aviation.

    By law, AOPA cannot advocate for or against candidates. Therefore they have a sister organization, AOPA PAC, that does candidate advocacy. I don’t contribute to any organization that endorses Sen. Jim Inhofe or Sen. Pat Roberts. So I ignore their AOPA PAC requests for donations, endorsements, etc. That doesn’t dissuade me from belonging to AOPA.

    Likewise for unions. People belong to unions for the benefits the receive by bargaining collectively. That doesn’t mean they have to contribute to, join, or pay any attention whatsoever to the candidate advocacy sister group.

    Third: Union membership is mandatory for some trades, further increasing the political heterogeneity of the membership.

  39. 39

    @ 37

    Nothing’s changed.

    It’s a bet that eventually Obama has to defend his economic record, that the economy is backsliding from 2011 levels, and that there are two more months of economic news that will reinforce that.

    There will be two debates in which Obama will look pretty silly calling Romney a rich guy while Romney is pointing out Obama’s shortcomings as the nation’s leader.

    Yeah, I know I can do better elsewhere. Sometimes it’s not about getting the best deal.

  40. 40

    Darryl @ 38

    That’s pretty much what I was looking for. Haven’t heard Roberts’ name in quite awhile.

    Not sure I agree that union membership isn’t primarily for political purposes, at least these days, since unions are under fire and the pushback against the concessions that have been and will be demanded of them will be very political in basis, I think.

    Thank you.

    It’s hard not to consider Obama a meal ticket for union members when overt disparities favoring unions occur under his administration, a notable example being UAW pensions made whole and those of nonunion members not similarly supported during the auto bailout – that was pretty glaring, even to people like Rattner. Your point concerning my choice(s) of phrase noted.

  42. 42

    @ 41

    You need to listen to that video beginning at 1:12.

    Thanks for bringing it up.

  44. 44

    Bob,

    “I believe Quinnipiac IS off in their sampling.”

    Fair enough, I took your labeling @ 24 of PPP as liberal and Quinnipiac as neutral as suggesting that PPP was “wrong.”

    (As an aside, Quinnipiac was found to perform well, almost identical to PPP, with a R+0.7 bias in Silver’s analysis.)

    But my initial response to @15 is, essentially, the pair of results is not implausible.

    “I’m wondering how they get R+5 in their sample.”

    Sampling variability. This is why I prefer to have multiple polls to make any kind of inference. Any one poll can look “off” but multiple polls will tend to converge on reality.

    “I also believe that PPP is off in their sampling insofar as their independent respondents’ support for Obama v. Romney is concerned – independents currently break at least a little for Romney in most polls, so for PPP to have independents going so strongly the other way elicits a question in my mind.”

    The finer you slice and dice the sample ther greater sampling variability you get. So the number of respondents who reported being independent was about 226. Therefore the margin of error is about 6%.

    “So, I made two points. I think both polls need to be looked at with skepticism.”

    I disagree. Both need to be viewed as the best evidence available at the moment and combined with other (hopefully newer) bits of evidence. One can be skeptical of a pollster or a particular methodology. But there is no point of being skeptical of a poll result that is statistically plausible. Generally, skepticism of “deviant” polls reflects a lack of upstanding of sampling variability.

    “You believe they’re within the realm of statistical possibility.”

    That isn’t a belief, really. It is an observation based on standard conventions of statistical inference.

  46. 46

    @ 45

    I think the difference is that in the 2004 election period the economy was in a definite upswing, one that lasted nearly four years. (’03-’07, roughly).

    Right now there has been a small semblance of recovery – recall the Dems will tell you we are creating jobs every month for, what, 28 months now? – but now we are backsliding, as productivity gains are decreasing and the unemployment rate is ticking back up.

    It’s easier to point out rough spots when the country is well into recovery.

    It’s harder to point out recovery when it isn’t really happening anymore.

    That’s the difference between 2004 and 2012.

    Nice try, tho.

  47. 47

    Darryl @ 44:

    Do you use the term ‘outlier’ to describe a poll result? If so, in what circumstance?

  48. 48

    Bob,

    “Not sure I agree that union membership isn’t primarily for political purposes, at least these days, since unions are under fire and the pushback against the concessions that have been and will be demanded of them will be very political in basis, I think.”

    Well…then this does explain your confusion about the number in your original question.

    Never fear…we’re here to help you with your deprogramming :-)

    Unions are under fire, and that may entice more members to contribute to a union’s political action committee. But the union itself cannot fund advocacy for or against candidates directly.

    That said, Unions potentially can be engaged in more political advocacy following the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions. The union can make contributions directly to independent groups (but not candidates). These decisions are recent enough they may not have changed the actual behavior of most unions (yet), which have worker/workplace issues to deal with, and already have a strong mechanism to raise funds and engage in political advocacy (via their PACs). I expect some good research on this will turn up in the political science literature soon.

    “It’s hard not to consider Obama a meal ticket for union members when overt disparities favoring unions occur under his administration, a notable example being UAW pensions made whole and those of nonunion members not similarly supported during the auto bailout – that was pretty glaring, even to people like Rattner.”

    Wait…you’ve cited one anecdote taken under extraordinarily circumstances to avert economic calamity of action that affects a minority of the members of one union as evidence that “Obama is the meal ticket to union members”?!?

    Get real.

    Here is what you’ve done: Convinced yourself that Obama is SOOOOOO pro-union that he has convinced almost all union members to support him. And then you find yourself amazed that only a modest majority of union members support him.

    Funny stuff!

  49. 49

    Bob,

    “Do you use the term ‘outlier’ to describe a poll result? If so, in what circumstance?”

    I discussed that in some detail here. I do occasionally use the word “outlier” for a poll, but not to imply that the poll should be dismissed. Rather, to mean that the result differs in a surprising way from the other polls around it.

    I have gotten suspicious about polls coming from a pollster. In April 2008, I was deeply suspicious of polls from Strategic Vision. When I get suspicious, I use statistical tools to assess whether a poll (or, more likely, a set of polls) qualifies as a “suspicious outlier” For the SV polls, I did an analysis showing a very strong “house effect.”

    A year and a half later, SV was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for failure to disclose their methods.

    At the time I pointed out:

    During the 2008 election season, I reported on just about every head-to-head general election poll produced. Throughout the year I tried to remain objective and just stick to the number. I resisted all temptation to offer critique of legitimate polls and the pollsters that conducted them.
    There was one big exception. I found a series of Strategic Vision polls in Pennsylvania to be highly suspect. I did some statistical analyses to evaluate the potential of bias in the SV polls relative to the other polls taken in the same period for PA. The analysis suggested:

    …a highly significant effect by pollster. In other worlds, Strategic Vision polls were significantly biased toward McCain.

    The next day, Nate Silver did an analysis that suggested they engaged in fraud!

    They disappeared (mostly) after that.

  50. 50

    Darryl,

    Thanks for the updates, but I think you made a mistake when you said the last analysis had Obama at 99.6%, I distinctly remember him being at 99.0% last time.

  51. 51

    I have figured out some important matters through your blog post. One other stuff I would like to convey is that there are various games on the market designed especially for toddler age small children. They consist of pattern acknowledgement, colors, wildlife, and models. These usually focus on familiarization instead of memorization. This makes little kids occupied without feeling like they are learning. Thanks

  53. 53

    51. Swtor Credits spews:
    I have figured out some important matters through your blog post. One other stuff I would like to convey is that there are various games on the market designed especially for toddler age small children. They consist of pattern acknowledgement, colors, wildlife, and models. These usually focus on familiarization instead of memorization. This makes little kids occupied without feeling like they are learning. Thanks

    08/09/2012 AT 2:39 AM

    Im thinking this post was meant for rujaxoff.

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.