Skip to main content

View Diary: Gallup no longer worries or puzzles me (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Population has nothing to do with it. (0+ / 0-)

    (well it does, but not as much as you think)

    It is turnout. turnout. turnout.  Black and Latino and youth vote will be 10%-20% less than in 2008.

    •  Sure it's turnout . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Voodoo king, TheChocolateChips

      but it's also demographics.

      There is no way that the black vote in this election is down 10-20 percent.  No way.  Latino vote share has increased, so even if overall participation is down relative to 2008 even against a candidate who advocates "self-deportation" as his immigration policy, it won't be down 10-20 percent.  Youth vote might be down relative to 2008, but relative to 2004 the increase was about 2 percent.  You are assuming that the numbers drop to 2000 levels -- and even then it would be 10 percent, not 20 percent.  

      Of course, we will find out soon enough.  

    •  Okay, I guess you are also "unskewing" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NotGeorgeWill, bridav58

      real data. Don't know were you are coming up with this declining
      vote turnout.  

      •  my link below... (0+ / 0-)

         Just look at my link below to the census showing the fact that the % of RV's showing up to vote has been very consistent for the past 3 elections going backwards from 2008 89.6%  2004 88.5% and  2000 85.5% .

          I just don't see where the 2008 electorate was that much different then the previous two elections.

    •  You know historical facts know more then you.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheChocolateChips

       In 1992 the non-whites were 13% of the electorate  ,in 2008 it was 26% . The white % of the electorate has gone down by about 3% per election so just what makes you think this year will be any different? I think Gallup is using the 2010 mid-term for it's % of it's non-white demographic using only like 20-22% versus 26% that happened in 2008,I just don't see a reversal of such a powerful trend,i.e. the decline of the white % of the electorate.

         My census data I linked to below shows that contrary to popular opinion if people are tregistered they vote,furthermore it has gone up every year since 1996 not that reverting back to a % from 2000 or 2004 would hurt the Democrats that much.

      •  About 50 percent of young voters . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bridav58

        voted in 2008 that was a 2 percent increase from 2004 and about 10 percent more than 2000.  The 50 percent ballpark seems pretty reasonable.  As far as racial demographics go, I believe Gallup has adjusted its polling to take into account higher participation rates -- I don't believe it is using 2010 as the model for a presidential election.

        •  ok thanks for the info... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NotGeorgeWill

          But they certainly were way off in 2010.

        •  actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheChocolateChips

          In the 18-24 age group it was 46.7% of total voting population in 2004, 48.5% in 2008 . I just don't see where if one uses say the 2004 model where it makes that big of a difference Then when one factors in other demographics it eases Obama having to come up with the same electorate of 2008.

            Furthermore all of Jerry's assertions about Rasmussen & Gallup neglect two issues one is the inherent problems of tracking polls &  that Rasmussen's own tracking polls are undercut by his state polling. There's no way Obama could be behind nationally while being ahead in Ohio,Florida and Virginia.

          •  Very Good Pt Re: Ohio, Florida, VA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FiredUpInCA, NotGeorgeWill

            All R leaning states vs national #s (well Virginia may be even now) if Obama is winning in those states - there's almost no way he's not up nationally.

            And regardless.... if he wins even one of those three states he is going to win the EV.

          •  Theoretically it is possible . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bridav58

            if Obama is winning his strong states in the high 50s and low 60s and Romney is running up margins in the mid to high 60 or 70s in solid GOP states -- especially a state like Texas, it would be possible for Obama to win swing states and still only win narrowly in the popular vote count (think a more extreme version of a reverse Bush v. Gore scenario).

            Not likely, but theoretically possible.

            With respect to the youth vote, if young voters who split two-to-one for Obama account for two percentage points less of the total electorate, that is equal to a difference of about a little over a half a percentage point.  In a close election that could be significant.  If you assume something closer to 2000, the difference would save over two points off of Obama's vote total.

            Once again, not likely, but that's a hypothetical where the scenario would be consequential.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site