Skip to main content

Beau Biden at GOTV rally in North Carolina on October 20, 2012.
Beau Biden attends GOTV rally in North Carolina over the weekend.
Mitt Romney's campaign is pretending to be confident:
“We’re going to win,” said one of the former Massachusetts governor’s closest advisers. “Seriously, 305 electoral votes."
The Romney camp bases their optimism on deadlocked national polling, and no doubt the Gallup outlier. Problem for them, of course, is that we don't have a national popular vote. We should. But we don't. And the Democrats continue to maintain real leads in states that matter—both in the polling and in the early vote.

But there's another factor—much of that deadlocked national polling is among likely voters. Among registered voters, most of those polls gives President Barack Obama decent advantages. Thus, the operating theory is that a significant portion of Democrats will sit out the race because of a lack of intensity.

So for example, the latest NBC/WSJ poll yesterday had the presidential race deadlocked 47-47 among likely voters, but gave Obama a comfortable 49-44 lead among registered voters.

Different pollsters have different ways to filter out those they deem unlikely to vote. But bottom line, the registered voter screens have historically been more accurate.

Of the 50 state presidential polls conducting during the final month of the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, the RV result was closer to the final outcome than the LV result in fully half of them. In just 38 percent of them was the LV screen closer to the final outcome than the RV screen. In six of the polls, incidentally, there was no difference between the RV/LV results in a poll.
Past performance isn't always an indicator of future results, of course. But the dogmatic assumption that a likely voter screen is more accurate is simply not borne out by history.

But we've got more than history to go on ...

Remember, the theory behind the RV/LV gap is that base Democrats—ethnic minorities, single women, and young voters—are less likely to vote than base Republicans. And yes, that is pretty much always the case. If those demographics voted at the same rates as older white Republicans, Texas would be Purple and Arizona Blue. But most of those non-voters aren't registered and are filtered out quickly by pollsters. The question here is whether a registered Latino or African American or millennial will show up at the polls. And to answer that question, we don't need to guess. We just need to look at places where people are voting already.

In North Carolina early voting, 18-29 turnout is up 39.7 percent compared to four years ago. At this point in 2008, 144,331 African Americans had voted early in the state, or 29.03 percent of all voters. This year, 200,766 African Americans have voted, or 30.99 percent of all voters (source). Finally, while 277,714 women had voted at this point in 2008, or 55.86 percent of the total, that number is now 359,576 or ... 55.5 percent of voters.

There simply isn't a dropoff in core Democratic support in North Carolina. It's the opposite, in fact. Same thing in Nevada, where Democrats are outperforming their voter registration numbers—46 percent of voters are Democratic, yet they account for 49 percent of the early vote (compared to 33 percent for Republicans). Again, where's the intensity gap?

Same thing in Iowa. In 2008, 46.9 percent of early voters in Iowa were Democrats. In 2012 so far, it's 47.3 percent.

Now to be clear, Republicans have made gains in their early vote totals as well compared to 2008 (it's independents who are mostly down everywhere). Part of it is a shift in focus—John McCain had no early vote operation in most states, part of it is shifting voting habits away from in-person Election Day voting, and part of it is more Republican enthusiasm than they had for McCain.

But are Democrats having trouble bringing out their own base? The early voting data is clear—they're not. In fact, they are turning out in equal to greater numbers.

So I'm having a hard time buying the overly restrictive likely voter screens, not just because of their historical accurace record, but because of what we're seeing on the ground.

So let's keep up our strong GOTV. Leave nothing on the road. Sign up with our partners at Worker's Voice to help get out the vote, no matter where you live. Seriously. Do it. Unless you're already doing GOTV for someone, click that link and plug yourself in.

Originally posted to kos on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Same thing Bush did in 2004 (12+ / 0-)

    They acted like they were winning in the final weeks and campaigned in California even. Worked on the media and it looks like the media is falling for it again.

      •  I thought was 2000? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, George3, Tennessee Dave

        And to answer your other question: yes.

        When we were ahead, people at DailyKos said to fight like we were behind. When we were behind, people at DailyKos said to give up.

        by NoFortunateSon on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:16:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  including the handwringers on this site (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PALiberal1, wishingwell, MRDFS

        After the first debate, I was one of the apopletic ones.  It was a disaster.  We saw what happened in the polls.  It was not good.  The lesson:  this year, debates have consequences.

        Fast forward to a month later:  Obama/Biden have won every debate since.  The Romney momentum stopped and reversed itself already.   Romney never broke through the firewall in the midwest, never got to the point where he was leading in states with more electoral votes, and we won't see any more movement towards Romney nationally or in any swing state polls.  Debates have consequences this year.  I'm not sure why so many on this site are not getting that.

        •  According to your theory (5+ / 0-)

          that "Debates have consequences this year," how to explain Obama's small to non existent bounce from his win in the second debate? Let's not even mention the VP debate, which only served to shore up bed wetter Democrats.

          I'm hoping Obama gets at least a small but needed bounce from the third debate, but not counting on it. Truth is, everything is solidifying, and if you want to add blame to that first debate, look at the amount of time between the first and second debate.  A consipracy? No.  Just bum luck.

          Look.  The idea that one debate undid and undoes the rest of the very strong Obama campaign is ludicrous.  What happened here is that Mitt Romney had a good night, and Obama had a bad night.

          One. Night. An important night, albeit, but I'm sick to POOP of Democrats AIDING the GOP and media meme that it was all lost that night.

          And yesiree, make no mistake about it, the Democrats ABSOLUTELY aided and abetted the GOP meme.  We freaked out all over the internet, and it did not go unnoticed.

          In comparison, Obama has CLEARLY won the last two debates and what's the republican's response to that? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They may have wobbled going into the debates, but once their guy was out there with his balls on the table, they've backed him, win or lose.

          To those who thought this election was going to be a rout based on September's numbers, I ask you, why would you presume that 4 long years of a bitterly divided country was going to resolve itself with an Obama landslide?

          No.  The republicans have come home to what they've been smacking their lips over for 4 years.  And if it wasn't the first debate that did it, it would have been something else.

          So now, let us please move beyond the debates, and into strong GOTV territory.  SO MANY on this site are such stalwart soldiers to the cause, amazing wonderful Democrats, working their asses off.

          Please give Democrats what we need, which is to BELIEVE in our strength.  No matter that first debate,

          Because the republicans sure do BELIEVE, and if we can't match them on that, we are behind.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:08:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Meh. Dems don't lose faith. (0+ / 0-)

            That's your perception. Faith in country, faith in the rightness of our positions, the soundness of our arguments, the belief in each other.

            This is far more than confidence about a single President. This is a fortitude that the corrupt Romney economic system of stripping and flipping companies - many of them mom and pop organizations where thousands lost their jobs is something we will not stand for.

            People are cattle too. Luv, Mittens Romney.

            by CupofTea on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:23:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If your POV is correct (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Delilah

              I will not have to hear one more post from some Democrat hiding under the bed, freaked out about Rasmussen polls, sure that if only Obama had performed in that first debate, we would never have had to face this tough fight.

              And btw, I just gotta say, your idea that Dems don't lose faith is certainly not supported by our response to that first debate.  Really, this is kind of unarguable.

              But hey, I don't need to be right, I'd rather be happy.  And it makes me happy when each and every Democrat at this point stands up and says, "fuck that first debate, we've moved on.  We're going forward, and we're doing a damn good job of it.  We WILL win."  

              Yep, that's what I want to hear.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:32:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One more post??? THAT'S you criteria? (0+ / 0-)

                Reality check, please! Extremism is rarely the truth. We are the reality based party. Romney is a financial speculator. The President is a pragmatist. We are all still in this together and that's a fact.

                People are cattle too. Luv, Mittens Romney.

                by CupofTea on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:41:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Fantastic post (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay

            Could not agree more.  Well said.

            I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

            by Delilah on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:49:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey Delilah, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Delilah

              how are you doing?  You're one of those I really identify with here, and wish I could meet for a cup of coffee.  One of the great benefits of the internet is that it brings people like you and me into connecting distance.  One of the let downs of the internet is that, we're still far away from each other, and unable to share a cup of coffee.

              Still, i'll take what we have.  Cheers, dear.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 07:05:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We are going to have online champagne (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StellaRay

                on election night.  We are affirming a positive outcome and so it shall be. Cheers right back to you!!

                I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

                by Delilah on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 11:11:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Campaigned in Illinois, too (0+ / 0-)

      that was in 2000.

      Bush came to Chicago in one of his final campaign trips.

    •  Which is why Obama needs to change the narrative (7+ / 0-)

      Go to North Carolina, maybe even Arizona (where a poll last week showed him winning!). Grab back the narrative of being on offense.

    •  That was (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CoExistNow, wishingwell, Delilah

      2000, and Bush actually lost that one :-p

      Proud supporter of actually prosecuting rape, even if it requires extradition!

      by zegota on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:31:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see 2004, but we are in the position of Bush in (6+ / 0-)

      that...Obama is the incumbent President.  And also remember the media in the last 2 days of that campaign, they were saying they thought Bush would lose.

      I remember Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan saying Election Day 2oo4 ...

      Kerry is going to win, Bush is going to lose. There is just too much Bush hate out there.
      And it went so far that Karen Hughes wriites in her book that she was assigned to tell President...
      Mr. President , there is a hgh probablitiy, you will lose this election.

      And we know how that turned out.  The national polls were tied but Bush had the stronger GOTV. Ths time, we have the superior GOTV and grassroots behind us.
      Bush had the GOTV last time in a tight election.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:42:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At this point in 2004... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JohnAdams999

        Bush was ahead by 2.7 pts in RCP; today Obama is behind 0.9%. Not an encouraging comparison, although I suppose it's possible that Obama could win the EC and lose the popular vote by 1%. Not sure how likely that would be though.

        •  What inflated Bush's now depresses BOs #s- Thug (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Delilah, wishingwell

          biased Ras and clones... many, many clones iwho suddenly appeared in Sept/October (most likely deliberately to affect the poll aggregates as they have).  

          What you have in both electin is within the MOE, nationally.

          But since we don't have national elections, and BO is comfortably ahead in more than enough EVs, the most likely result is pretty much what Nate sez: about 300 EV and O+2 p/v.

          But if you're really worries, go work on GOTV and stop crying here.

        •  The Repub GOTV worked the christian angle (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steve Magruder, wishingwell

          like Billy Graham is trying to do now. They hit a lot of black churches and convinced people to vote for the Christian and not their party. I know a lot of AA's who voted for Bush because of that.  My sister and her husband for one. They were pissed and ashamed later when it came out how bad Bush was. They felt duped. But for a while they were drinking the cool-aid.

          After that I remember some of the pastors from larger congregations saying they would never do that again. Billy Graham may be successful in getting some on the fence christians, but he won't be able to get the black vote for Romney like Bush did.

          My sister and her congregation are solid Obama followers in Jacksonville, FL and are outraged by Romney's sordid character.

          He's not perfect, nobody is, but he is my President. Obama 2012.

          by emcneill on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:00:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  the time (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StellaRay, wishingwell

          for concern is fucking over.

    •  A self-denying prophecy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prairie D, Steve Magruder

      When the "likely" voters are tied, it will bring in many of the "unlikely" voters--they will think their votes are more important than they would in a blowout.

      The furor over Friday's [10.5] job report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Obama that good news drives its members into a blind rage. -Paul Krugman

      by Judge Moonbox on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:51:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I seem to recall that Bush won that election (0+ / 0-)
    •  Completely different than Bush 04. (0+ / 0-)

      Except the part where the incumbent wins.

      People are cattle too. Luv, Mittens Romney.

      by CupofTea on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:12:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  305 EVs? (12+ / 0-)

    That doesn't even make sense. If he won every swing state he'd have 301 EVs. Does he think he'll win Maine or Hawaii?

  •  OT, I'm writing letters with GOTV groups n/t (4+ / 0-)
  •  The Independents are a big question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, wishingwell, CoExistNow

    Really hope the Dems and Obama voters turn up and GOTV. I think most Independents are Dems, but there's a chance a whole lot of them are Republicans too embarrassed to register that way. Does anyone know? Imagine NC Independents different from Ohio Independents, I don't know...

  •  Anybody see this... (0+ / 0-)

    tpm

     Is this the move of a winning campaign? McCain did the same sort of thing in 08.

  •  the fact is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KJG52, mdmslle, wishingwell

    at some point the polls dont matter.

    we know this is down to 5-7 states and the GOTV effort will be the thing that makes the difference.

    PA, WI, OH, FL, VA, NC, NV and NH... that's it. nothing else matters.

    I bet it someone tracks all of the events for the rest of the week, they will all be in one of the those states. Any state being ignored means a lot, either they feel it's super safe or its not worth trying to catch up.

    •  Bravo. Comment of the night for me. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jimmylutherking

      OFA is indeed the anti-LV model, the biggest and strongest organization Democrats have ever reveled in that seeks to prove they can bring their voters home to a victory.

      I worry and wonder what will happen in 2016, when there is NO OFA. Just hoping it doesn't take till then to appreciate the incredible power of the Obama campaign.  

      And yeah, it takes at least that incredible power to fight against the money, media memes, and 3O fucking years of America being asleep at the wheel.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 07:53:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a mechanical problem: GOTV = [RV] -> [LV] (10+ / 0-)

    Since Obama leads in Registered Voters , but is closer to tied in the polls' "Likely" Voters, all that needs to be done is to Get Out The Vote.  We just have to do the work to make sure RV's become V's and we've won.

  •  Why do... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stagemom, LordMike, wishingwell

    ..people go to the trouble to register to vote, then don't vote?

    I don't get that.

    I get people who don't give a shit never bothering to register.  

    This "likely vote" vs. "registered voter"  thing sounds ridiculous.

    If you once registered to vote, it means you have at least a passing knowlege of politics.  Which means you know Romney is a piece of shit.   Which means your name is on the books; all you have to do is walk down to the precinct & vote.

    I could never phone bank because the first time I heard a registered voter tell me he/she "is not in the mood to vote this time around," I would say something ugly.

    "You just gotta keep on livin man! L-I-V-I-N!" - Wooderson

    by wyvern on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:14:56 PM PDT

    •  They do vote (0+ / 0-)

      In 2008, 90% of registered voters voted, and that number has been steadily rising for the past several election cycles. Registered voters are likely voters.

      Once again, Republicans show there is no fact that they feel the need to learn. ~ Fordmandalay

      by MeMeMeMeMe on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:35:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No... (0+ / 0-)

        ...registered voters are not likely voters.

        The diary makes a distinction.

        Ergo, if 90% of RV vote, this doesn't make sense:

        So for example, the latest NBC/WSJ poll yesterday had the presidential race deadlocked 47-47 among likely voters, but gave Obama a comfortable 49-44 lead among registered voters.
        I'm horrible at math, so you tell me if 90% jells with these statistics.

         

        "You just gotta keep on livin man! L-I-V-I-N!" - Wooderson

        by wyvern on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:45:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, there's a distinction in polling (0+ / 0-)

          between LV and RV, but it is a distinction made by the pollsters. What I'm saying is that in the real world, registered voters are actually very likely to vote.

          Once again, Republicans show there is no fact that they feel the need to learn. ~ Fordmandalay

          by MeMeMeMeMe on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:40:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Registration is easy in Iowa, just answer yes when (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prairie D

      You get/ renew your driver's license.   Easy peaty.  No trouble.

      I can’t decide who’s cuter – the dead guy with the arrows in his chest, or the guy in the ditch with the seeping wound. -- Game of Thrones (Heard on Set)

      by prodigal on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:35:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They don't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      In the last 2 Presidential elections, nearly 90% of RV's voted.

      For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

      by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:36:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some states (0+ / 0-)

      Will let you register as a checkbox when you get a driver's license, renew your registration, etc. It doesn't really take any forethought.

      Proud supporter of actually prosecuting rape, even if it requires extradition!

      by zegota on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:38:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The 'likely voter' screens (0+ / 0-)

      The 'likely voter' screens are not guesses, but they are informed judgments.  That means they can be wrong.  The 'registered voter,' in contrast is a possible voter no matter what judgment is made of their answers in a poll.  The 'registered voter' remains a possible voter until election day.

      •  Actually, if u look at Gallup, the choice of 6 out (0+ / 0-)

        of 7 on their survey =LV, rather than 5 imo seems a complete guess, if not deliberate to undercount Ds.

        All you live in a Thug controlled state that redistricted to fuck Ds, ala OH, FL, PA, for example, it is quite likely you might know your polling place atm, or otherwise fail a 'knowledge' question that will be quickly corrected when the local paper comes out with its list of polling places the weekend before the election.

    •  A lot of them move or (0+ / 0-)

      They are disabled or out of town or any number of reasons.  I suspect moving is the biggest one.

      Say Sam and Dean Winchester regester to vote in Salem.  But then have to go to Dairy for an extended time and they register there.   So they vote in Dairy and not in Salem.

      Or Buffy moves in with Angel in LA but she is still registered in Sunnyvale.  Then next season, back to Sunnyvale but she is still registered in LA.

      You see the problem.

      Mrick

    •  Throwback to '50sm when hubby registered the 'litt (0+ / 0-)

      le woman'? ... and told her how to vote, 'natch.

  •  They are using same math as tax plan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bepanda, wishingwell

    to reach 305 electoral votes. Maybe they were talking about President Obama.

  •  I think (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wyvern, wishingwell, Leap Year, askew

    Obama will win by about 5 points nationally and will win all of the swing states (including North Carolina)

    it's too bad we have to put up with all of this BS during the campaign, but it should make Election Night even sweeter.

    there's just no way that Obama's base isn't turning out for this election. It's a GOP wet dream to think otherwise.

    •  For Daily Kos... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, wishingwell

      ..that is an astronomically optimistic forecast.

      "You just gotta keep on livin man! L-I-V-I-N!" - Wooderson

      by wyvern on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  18-30 year olds (0+ / 0-)

      Will the young voter turn out this year?  They did not in year 2010...

    •  But...conspiracy...voting machines... Nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prairie D

      I can’t decide who’s cuter – the dead guy with the arrows in his chest, or the guy in the ditch with the seeping wound. -- Game of Thrones (Heard on Set)

      by prodigal on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:38:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Expecting Scott (FL) & Kasich (OH) to interfere (0+ / 0-)

        with voting and vote-counting in their States to the maximum extent possible.

        Obama needs to build a lead in FL to offset the likely Scott shenanigans in FL

        ----

        Does anyone know what kinds of legal mechanisms are available to cite precedents in FL and OH involving vote theft by Republican officials in high offices?

        Could the DOJ send officials or investigators working with federal attorneys to monitor the voting behavior of FL and OH officials?  Would a court injunction be possible, based on the voting rights act; or court-mandated observation of the election?

        The one thing we know is that after the election, it's too late to do anything effective with the orientation of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2000 Bush v Gore case.

    •  I agree with you about the swing states (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYDan, wyvern, Berkeley Fred

      but I doubt that the President will win by 5 nationally, because of the South.

      There are only two real swing states where the President is legitimately behind:  Florida and North Carolina.

      In Florida, the Romney lead is razor-thin.  After Romney's disastrous foreign policy debate performance, I think you'll see seniors and Jewish voters in Florida come back towards Obama enough to get him the victory.

      In North Carolina, the reports of early voter turnout and the demographics make me very optimistic for Obama winning the state.  If Romney is ahead there, it's only by a couple of points, and that's a small enough margin to be negated by a powerful ground game.

      So I do believe that Obama will win both North Carolina and Florida, along with every other swing state.  He's always been in the lead in Ohio and his strong statements on trade, China, and the auto bailout will ensure his victory there.  The rest of the states will follow suit.  On election night, after being told for a month that their candidate was going to win, Republican voters will realize what we've known all along:  Romney is a complete fraud.

      •  That's what... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fille americaine

        ..gets me about the American electorate:

        During the summer, Obama & Democrats drove home the point Romney/Ryan would ruin SS & Medicare.  Which, of course, is true.  Hence Florida leans Obama.

        Move along into the fall & Obama has a crappy debate.  Romney lies through his ass for 90 minutes, but he comes across as a debonair Brigham Young while he's doing it.  The result?  Florida starts to lean Romney.  The fact Romney is going to cast seniors to the Wall Street banksters is forgotten.

        It's pretty ridiculous.  I have no idea what psychological approach these campaigns agree to take with voters.  Because it's glaringly obvious that facts & reality have very litte to do with winning a presidential election.

        "You just gotta keep on livin man! L-I-V-I-N!" - Wooderson

        by wyvern on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:00:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think Nate Silver's current model... (0+ / 0-)

      is more accurate.  He has it at 50-O, 48-R.  Obama will win popular vote by 2.  A win is a friggen win, though!

  •  I never bought the LV model (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    democrattotheend, ajwagner, Leap Year

    In an off year, non presidential election, the LV model makes more sense. It's the hardcore that comes out for those. But presidential elections, you have a broader base of people who come out. People who aren't really engaged in politics seem to always come out for Presidential elections by a slightly bigger margin.

    AA will be out for Obama again. I'm sensing women and Latinos will be a bit larger from the 2010 off year elections. The numbers seem to support these facts.

    The LV screen never made much sense to me in big general elections like these.

    Question...

    What do you guys think Romney campaigning in Nevada means? Not in Ohio but Nevada a day after the debate.

  •  I AM GLAD (12+ / 0-)

    some one is writing about this because there is a mind game going on with these so called polls. I am yet to find a poll that shows Romney  ahead in Ohio and he needs Ohio to win. The idea that he is winning is fallacy. I have a strong feeling that NC might surprise some people. Colorado may be gone but I am hopeful about Florida.

  •  They're basing it on votes likely to be counted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anne was here, mdmslle, lisajones

    not votes likely to be cast.

    Voter suppression is treason.

    by Troubadour on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:17:22 PM PDT

    •  yes, and EJ Dionne just said that it's time to get (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      ready for the possibility of major (R) voter suppression on election day.

      He's right, but only if "getting ready" includes taking preventive action, seeking assistance from courts or from DOJ if voter suppression efforts are detected prior to election day.

      Even one injunction, or one official appointment of vote observers will send a shot across the bow, helping to discourage vote suppression before it occurs.  If they know that they are being observed, and that evidence is being collected, then they'll be on notice that criminal acts will be prosecuted.

      •  Preparation has to be both preventative (0+ / 0-)

        and involve contingency plans in the event of another Republican coup d'etat.  Mitt Romney is super-wealthy and a member of a GOP dynasty, which means he's Inner Party - they don't hold back when Inner Party members run.  

        I know this place would dissolve into gutless whining on Election Day if Romney were falsely declared the winner, but there has to be some kind of real plan in place to deal with that situation - and we have to have quality information to go on to know whether or not it would be justified to refuse concession.  As the Wisconsin recall showed, there's no guarantee that a fix would be officially close.  These Republicans go big when they go for the take.

        Voter suppression is treason.

        by Troubadour on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:00:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  OH bought voting machines from (R) firm (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      Just announced on the Ed Show, the State of Ohio has purchased vote machines from a company, partially owned by Taggert Romney, which has made donations to the Republican Party.

      This is a matter of some concern, with the only firewall being that the voting machines had to be approved by a bipartisan board.

      However, it's not clear whether the bipartisan board's approval will be sufficient - - recall the "butterfly ballot" in FLA 2000, which was approved by a D county supervisor, and ended up costing over 20,000 votes that mistakenly went to Pat Buchanan instead of Gore.

      There needs to be follow-up on this.  At least it has been announced on the air at MS-NBC, so Taggert Romney knows that it is being monitored by some in the national media.

      The very fact that Tag Romney is a major investor in a company that manufactures voting machines is a significant matter of concern.  Is it even legally permissible?   At the very least, it is such an obvious conflict of interest and has the appearance of impropriety.  No member of the Romney family should have invested in voting machines - but they did, and now it is a matter of high concern.

  •  This is where likability comes into play... (6+ / 0-)

    I really really like Obama. He seems like a good person who is worth my time, money and effort. He cares about me, and people like me. Romney not so much. At the end of the day, you really have to hate the POTUS to tear yourself away from Honey Boo-Boo and vote Mittens.

    Hillary Sent Me. OBAMA/BIDEN '12

    by HillaryIsMyHomegirl on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:20:14 PM PDT

  •  Yes, RVS more accurate- tell it to PPP, Markos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catkin, 904Dem

    They have turned into a shit pollster. Worse than Ras.

  •  Colorado and Iowa early voting #'s: Why so bad? (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    These numbers don't look all that great. Not climbing onto the ledge again, but it's up there.

  •  Kind of makes you wonder... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glitterscale

    The real reason why they use it. Huh, Gallup? Huh Ras?

    Of the 50 state presidential polls conducting during the final month of the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, the RV result was closer to the final outcome than the LV result in fully half of them.
    To me it seems like another arm of the vote buying, consent manufacturing, voter suppression, result manipulation, election stealing machine.

    Chew on that, Diebold.

    A solar spill is just called a nice day

    by furpletron on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:21:01 PM PDT

    •  "LV" = Racist assumption minorities won't vote (7+ / 0-)
      •  Well, they are often part of that lazy 47%! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PALiberal1

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:39:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have evidence? (0+ / 0-)

        An old (2004) article lists only ARG as accounting for gender, and no pollster as adjusting for race in their likely voter screens. But that is out of date, so if you or anyone has something newer... I would be interested in seeing actual evidence.

        Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

        by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:45:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Btw (0+ / 0-)

      Did anyone see this?

      New Court Filing Reveals How the 2004 Ohio Presidential Election Was Hacked | By Bob Fritakis, The Free Press | Monday, 25 July 2011

      A solar spill is just called a nice day

      by furpletron on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:26:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oops (0+ / 0-)

        A solar spill is just called a nice day

        by furpletron on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:30:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Crooked (R) OH Secy' State is counting the votes (0+ / 0-)

        And right-wing (R) Kasich is Governor in charge of the entire State apparatus.

        If OH uses a similar method for tabulating the votes as that used in 2004, then OH can be stolen again, as it was in 2004.

        The man who was guilty of the crime was caught, and confessed in a disposition, but was killed in a plane crash shortly afterwards.  No further action was taken, so in fact, Bush was selected as President in 2004 based on a criminal act in Ohio.

        Does anyone know whether OH officials are using a system with failsafe protections against this kind of electronic hacking and vote theft?

        Another question - does anyone know if the Blackwell manipulation of the vote could occur again this year - - such as not putting enough voting machines in Dem precincts?

        Is anyone monitoring these things?  Have they put the OH State officials on notice that these will not be allowed to happen?  If there is any evidence of OH officials using these methods or similar methods, it is not too late to ask a lawyer to seek an injunction to prevent them doing so.

  •  I have been canvassing for the first time in VA... (12+ / 0-)

    And I have come across so many people who are super excited about voting for Obama ... yes, anecdotal, but true.

    I am in Alexandria ... the passion that I see here is truly encouraging. So many of my friends are transplants because of a job. We're mostly advanced degree graduates ... from blue states - and we're multiplying because this is where you attain high-paying jobs that require advanced degrees.

    I will be walking around again on Sat and Sun for the Obama campaign. Can't wait to knock on more doors and get the word out that Romney would truly be devastating for this country.

    Up and a-Tom! UP AND ATOM!

    Returned Peace Corps Volunteer 2005-2007, The Gambia ... A Liberal Defense Contractor (Wha?!) ...

    by AfricanLived on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:23:29 PM PDT

    •  Good luck! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delilah

      You have described why I have this feeling VA will go for Obama. It's more closely tied than Ohio, yet is considered a sure Romney in the press.

    •  Go fellow Alexandrian! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AfricanLived

      Yes, for a Democrat, Alexandria is the place to be-even though is expensive -and they have very good volunteers here. I will say that the last two debates have brought in more volunteers and that people are actually happy to vote for Obama again-whether it's because of health care, women's issues or just his steadiness.

       I'm very impressed with people who can knock on strangers doors-not for me.

      Just wish the folks at DailyKos would not write off VA so quick, we pulled an win for Obama last time and we might be able to do it again.

  •  Dont buy the Confidence Game BS from Rmoney (6+ / 0-)

    see this great article by John Chait:

    http://nymag.com/...

  •  We need to act like we're winning too (12+ / 0-)

    because we fucking are winning. and we'll be winning by more once polls reflect last night's great debate.

    I love this shit. I'm driving to Ohio in 2 weeks. PA this week.   This is our country and I won't let the neocons hijack it again.

    On DailyKos nothing is significant unless Obama doesn't do it.

    by glutz78 on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:25:29 PM PDT

  •  Okay, stupid question time: (0+ / 0-)

    Are "likely voters" persons who are not registered to vote?

    Or are they registered, but don't know if they plan to vote?

    Thanks in advance for your help!

    •  Unregistered voters are not called (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dutch Doctor

      Usually one of the first questions is, are you registered to vote? If not, the call ends there.

      Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

      by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:38:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unregistered Voters (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rube Goldberg

        I hate to reply to myself, but I made two typos in that title:

        "Unregistered Voters" should be an oxymoron, hopefully; and I meant to say "not surveyed" - they do get calls!

        Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

        by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:52:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Neither (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dutch Doctor, Rube Goldberg

      Likely voters are registered voters whom pollsters have decided are more likely than not to actually cast a vote. Basically, if you register as an 18-year-old student, you're a registered voter, but you probably won't be considered a likely voter (young, student, first-time voter). If you're a 85-year-old retiree that's voted in every election since you've been of legal age, you'll probably be considered a likely voter.

      Proud supporter of actually prosecuting rape, even if it requires extradition!

      by zegota on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:43:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Neither. They're registered voters who (0+ / 0-)

      are considered by the pollster as likely to vote. Different pollsters have different ways of determining this.

      The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

      by Inkin on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:47:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Likely voters are registered voters that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rube Goldberg

      the pollster thinks are most likely to vote. It is a subset of registered voters. They ask questions such as "did you vote in the last election", "do you know where your polling place is" and "how enthusiastic are you about voting" to gauge who they think is most likely to vote.

      The trouble with that is they may be missing many newly registered and younger voters, who would be more inclined to vote for Democrats.

      Obama usually shows a bigger lead among the larger pool of "registered voters" than the smaller subset of "likely voters" but in a high turnout election like this, the actual result will probably be somewhere between the two.

      I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

      by rennert on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:36:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for all of your answers... nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rennert
  •  I think these "likely voter" models are weeding (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, askew

    out a lot of minorities and young voters.

    If any national poll out there has less than 26% minorities then the poll isn't accurate. 2008 there were 26% minorities who voted.  It is expected to be 28% minorities in 2012.

    Many of these "likely voter" models have 20-22% minorities and thus are more like a 2010 electorate rather than a 2012 electorate.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:28:10 PM PDT

    •  Gallup announced a big change in polling method (0+ / 0-)

      recently (did anyone notice this news item?)

      and immediately afterwards, Romney shot into a 6% lead in Gallup among LV.

      •  No offense (0+ / 0-)

        But this is old news ; we have had no shortage of discussions on Daily Kos about that when it happened.

        I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

        by Delilah on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 07:18:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What evidence is there? (0+ / 0-)

    What evidence is there that the Likely Voter screen is based on demographics rather than a respondent's self-reported likelihood of voting?

    I assumed it was rather like the party breakdowns, where reputable pollsters don't adjust based on what they think the party makeup should be - likely voters should be people who say they're likely to vote, not an adjustment based on the demographics of an individual.

    Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:30:22 PM PDT

    •  Key word is 'assumptions' being made (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      of who is gonna show up.

      Returned Peace Corps Volunteer 2005-2007, The Gambia ... A Liberal Defense Contractor (Wha?!) ...

      by AfricanLived on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:31:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But what assumptions? (0+ / 0-)

        For instance, Gallop lists their likely voter screen as:

        For the seven questions that make up the likely voter scale, respondents get one point on the likely voter scale for each question to which they give the response listed in parentheses (with a maximum of seven points possible). See the full question wording for each question in the "Question Wording" section.

        Thought given to election (quite a lot, some)
        Know where people in neighborhood go to vote (yes)
        Voted in election precinct before (yes)
        How often vote (always, nearly always)
        Plan to vote in 2012 election (yes)
        Likelihood of voting on a 10-point scale (7-10)
        Voted in last presidential election (yes)

        None of those are based on demographic data. And I don't know of any pollster who DOES use demographic data, so I don't know why kos's article is presuming they do.

        Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

        by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:36:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That list is awful. (0+ / 0-)

          Having moved recently and being young apply the same penalty as saying you don't intend to vote. Sheesh.

          The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

          by Inkin on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:53:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Yoot Vote (0+ / 0-)

            It goes on to describe that young voters' scores are adjusted upwards for having been ineligible to vote in previous elections.

            But I would imagine that moving does have an impact on one's likelihood of voting, given that one will not know local issues and candidates as well.

            Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

            by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:04:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I mean specifically not having voted in (0+ / 0-)

              the election precinct before. You could be the most politically informed person in the state and fail that if you moved recently, even to a different part of the same town.

              The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

              by Inkin on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:14:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Statistically speaking... (0+ / 0-)

                This is where you get into the difference between statistics and anecdotes. Certainly you could be. But when you look at the complete universe of ALL people who have moved since the last election, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that having moved might be a factor in predicting one's likeliness to successfully cast a vote.

                Those who ignore the future are condemned to repeat it.

                by enigmamf on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:51:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Problem is a presidential election year doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                  look like those highly likely to vote based on past behavior. In fact, most of the people who you get in a pres cycle are people who only vote every four years, if that.

                  Second, the questions listed above, attempting to go beyond the simple "do you plan to vote" question in a quest for accuracy, may end up weighting a voter as non likely when they are absolutely likely to vote.

                  Thought given to election. (not much. i watched the debate)
                  Know where people vote. (ummm same place as last time i hope. it moves around.)

                  Voted in precinct before (whats a precinct?)

                  How often vote (every 4 years. is that "always")

                  Plan to vote (YES)

                  LIkelyhood of voting (3 if the lines are too long after work, i wont bother. my guy is gonna win my state anyway *since most voters live in noncompetitive states)

                  Voted in last presidential election (YES)

                  Is this person a likely voter or an unlikely voter?

                  Who the hell knows. It's magic alchemy.

                  Better to just go with registered voters and past history. And in presidential election years, the registered voter number is close to accurate because 90% of RVs vote.

  •  Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    Good to see the truth told loud and clear about LV polls.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:33:48 PM PDT

  •  I think Obama needs to visit AZ + NC (5+ / 0-)

    I think the President needs to come to NC and go to AZ. NC because we need to keep the state away from Pat McCrory. And AZ for Senator Carmona.

    Don't forget to register to vote here: http://netrootsradio.blogspot.com/p/register-to-vote.html

    by bepanda on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:34:33 PM PDT

  •  Is this a vote of no confidence in PPP? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PALiberal1, lisajones

    Frankly, I think you're paying too much attention to the LV screen and not enough attention to the robopollster screen. Yes, I know this dog hasn't seemed to bark yet. But look at all of SUSA's latest polling: the cell phone only universe is substantially different. And PPP, for example, captures none of that.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:35:07 PM PDT

  •  I remember 1972 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PALiberal1

    and a big McGovern ad in the New York Times Op-Ed section on the Sunday before election day claiming that the polls, which predicted that Nixon would win 60-40 were all wrong because they didn't account for likely voters.  The claim was that 9 of 10 McGovern voters were committed to voting whereas only half of Nixon voters would vote, and that therefore McGovern would win.

    Nixon received 60.7%...

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:39:37 PM PDT

    •  there's a good point here... (0+ / 0-)

      but there's a huge difference between "LV polls say a tie" and "LV polls say 60/40 blowout".  Really good GOTV is worth maybe 2-3 points, not 20 points.

      That being said, I have no idea what is up with gallup. It's just strange that it's so consistently off in the weeds from the average of the rest of the polls.

  •  Nevada governor is predicting Obama (6+ / 0-)

    wins Nevada.

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/...

    He says 1-3%.

    Jon Ralston believes that Obama will win the state 5-7%.

    President Obama, January 9, 2012: "Change is hard, but it is possible. I've Seen it. I've Lived it."

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:39:42 PM PDT

    •  When the GOP NV-Gov doesnot want to be seen (0+ / 0-)

      with R when he is in the state for two freakin days, that is a sign R is going to lose NV.  

      Also the fact he is pushing so hard in NV, is also an indication that he does not think he can pry OH loose from O, so he is trying to take O's western firewall.

  •  Glad Kos brought up the NBC/WSJ poll.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PALiberal1, MBishop1, askew

    When I saw the results of that poll on Sunday my thought were:

    1. We're ahead by 5% with RV's.

    2. Romney looks maxed out at 47%.

    3. All we need to do is turn out our base (GOTV).

    4. Team Romney should be very troubled by this poll.

    I was really amazed that the MSM looked at this poll as a dead heat without reflecting on the significant (5%) gap with the RV's.

    GOTV is key! We're going to win this damn thing!

  •  Anyone who watched Obama's stump speeches today (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYDan, thatpj, MBishop1, Delilah, askew

    in Ohio and Florida, saw how enthusiastic and fired up the crowd were. The President has never been sharper and more relaxed on the stump all year.

    Romney's got a problem, conservatives are doing their best to suppress their anger toward him after last night's debate. The base are still voting against Obama rather than for him. Kerry also energized his base after the first debate, but he didn't capitalize on it and failed to close the deal.

    btw Bush didn't win any debate in 2004, according to the snap polls, the best they did was Cheney tied Edwards. Obama and Biden won 3/4.

  •  I don't have historic numbers but in CO (0+ / 0-)

    13% of both Dem & Rep Permanent Mail In Voters have recorded votes, R's hold a numerical advantage in this category 577k to 496K while Unaffiliated's 418K almost 10% have turned in and have had their ballots recorded.

     181,000 + votes (considered Monday's numbers) 11% turnout

    1,673,413 RV who are mail in out of 3,601,102  46%

    0r 5% of all potential voters counted already.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty~Ben Franklin

    by RWN on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:41:24 PM PDT

  •  Isn't GOP underperforming Gallup of 2008? nt (0+ / 0-)

    ...as well as most of the LV screens of past elections. To have a chance, Romney needs some combination of massively poor turnout or he needs to buy a massive systemic fraud of registration.

  •  understanding the base (0+ / 0-)

    So you get it that single women are a key part of the base, why don't you insist that PPP provide marital status in your polls. It is the single biggest problem with PPP and one that you can solve.

  •  did some phonebanking here in fl today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dsmmom, askew

    to inform people about early voting on saturday and everyone I actually spoke to said they already voted. I was happy to hear that people are already doing this on their own..

    I will say though people are a little nervouse (like I am) because it's so close and romney signs are everywhere.

    "I'm not mad at them (tea party) for being loud, I'm mad at us for being silent for the last two years. Where have we been"? "it was never yes HE can, it was Yes WE can". - Van Jones

    by sillycilla on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 04:46:02 PM PDT

    •  I've been calling FL through BO's... (0+ / 0-)

      website.  Seventy percent of the numbers I call are disconnected/wrong numbers.  What's up with that?  Are they going off old phone lists?

      •  well i don't know about that. I went to the (0+ / 0-)

        campaign office and they had a different system..

        "I'm not mad at them (tea party) for being loud, I'm mad at us for being silent for the last two years. Where have we been"? "it was never yes HE can, it was Yes WE can". - Van Jones

        by sillycilla on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:39:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  MSM were using LV to justify their close election (0+ / 0-)

    narrative back in the tail end of summer, heading into convention season. CNN were notorious for it. Their RV poll had Obama up by 9 pts, but of course put emphasis on LV instead.

  •  Early voting informing LV screens (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBishop1

    I've wondered if the pollsters let the early voters inform their likely voter screens.  It would seem if you see a large percentage of say young or AA or Latino voters voting early, that might be information that could bare on enthusiasm and thereby the pollsters adjust their LV screens.  Anyone know if they do?  Thanks.

  •  Obama's campaign needs to focus hard (0+ / 0-)

    on early voting in Ohio - if their ground game can get voters, especially voters that wouldn't be considered LV in polls, they'll be in great shape to win OH.

    Those voters aren't being put in the equation and the obama campaign can make sure that at least a good portion of them vote. These are people that LV screens might be accurately taking out- meaning if there was no early vote they well not have shown up on Nov.6th, but I believe Obama's ground game can get them out early.

  •  intrade (0+ / 0-)

    Wtf is up with intrade today?  Down to 56.8!

  •  New motto for pollsters: (0+ / 0-)

    Never trust anyone under 30... who says they're going to vote.

  •  Nate likes LV Screens (0+ / 0-)

    Says Nate:

    The likely voter adjustment. Throughout the course of an election year, polls may be conducted among a variety of population samples. Some survey all American adults, some survey only registered voters, and others are based on responses from respondents deemed to be “likely voters,” as determined based on past voting behavior or present voting intentions. Sometimes, there are predictable differences between likely voter and registered voter polls. In 2010, for instance, polls of likely voters are about 4 points more favorable to the Republican candidate, on average, than those of registered voters, perhaps reflecting enthusiasm among Republican voters. And surveys conducted among likely voters are about 7 points more favorable to the Republican than those conducted among all adults, whether registered to vote or not.

    By the end of the election cycle, the majority of pollsters employ a likely voter model of some kind. Additionally, there is evidence that likely voter polls are more accurate, especially in Congressional elections. Therefore, polls of registered voters (or adults) are adjusted to be equivalent to likely voter polls; the magnitude of the adjustment is based on a regression analysis of the differences between registered voter polls and likely voter polls throughout the polling database, holding other factors like the identity of the pollster constant.

    Mrick
  •  registered voters vote (0+ / 0-)

    90% of RV's end up voting in presidential elections.  It wouldn't end up being a big problem if the poll weeds out voters from both sides roughly equally, but as the democratic party becomes more and more reliant on younger and minority voters, voters who are more likely to be screened out, and the republican party more reliant on older white voters, voters who are more likely to be kept in, the worse the LV polls will become.  If, in fact, the younger and minority RV's actually did vote significantly less than older white voters, then the LV screens would be useful, but in a high turnout presidential race, this is simply just not the case, at least to the degree we see in the current LV screens.

  •  Bus Wreck for GOP Turnout? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chitown Kev, Plu

    It seems there's been been pretty much universal consensus, even in the MSM, that in the last 2 debates Romster has tossed much of the Tea Party agenda under their magical mystery bus.

    While I realize that most of the TP'ers are somewhere between rabid and maniacal in their desire to oust POB, I'm wondering if finding out that they may not be driving the bus anymore might dampen their enthusiasm and depress their turnout.  Has anyone who digs through the cross-tabs more closely than I do seen any sign of this in recent polls, or think we might see it in upcoming polls?  

  •  Romney supporter manipulated Intrade today (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBishop1, Delilah, askew
    On Monday night, after the debate, Barack Obama was leading Romney on Intrade by around 60 percent to 40 percent. But at around 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday morning, Romney surged to 48 percent. Was this evidence that the conventional wisdom was wrong? Had Romney actually won the debate handily? Or, alternatively, was the nosedive in the stock markets putting a dent in Obama’s re-election chances?

    Neither. As economist Justin Wolfers pointed out on Twitter, the huge swing toward Romney appears to have been driven by a single trader who spent about $17,800 buying up Romney shares and pushing the Republican candidate’s chances on Intrade up to 48 percent. But the surge only lasted a few minutes before other traders whittled the price back down to what they saw as a more accurate valuation. Romney’s odds of winning are currently back at around 41 percent.

    …As Wolfers pointed out, this mysterious trader ended up overpaying by about $1,250 for shares that quickly collapsed in value. Was this just someone who made a bad trade? Or was somebody trying to influence Intrade odds in order to sway perceptions of the race? And if so, was it worth $1,250 to jolt the markets for less than 10 minutes?" ....more

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
  •  Polarization makes LV in Pres-years pretty stupid. (0+ / 0-)

    If someone has registered- esp'ly in a state where Thugs have been making it more difficult (even more than it already is for many minority and younger voters!) - it is a safe bet that the campaigns GOTV is going to get them to the polls even if they might not without encouragement (and most would anyway).

  •  Kos says: Go Team! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    singe

    Seriously, these rah-rah but otherwise empty posts from Mr. Kos are getting tiresome.  It's going to be tight election, down to the wire and the only thing that matters is showing up to vote.

    Early voters skew Democratic; absentee voters skew GOP. So those early numbers mean nothing.  Democratics are historically prone to skip voting and GOPers are not.  This time, the extra incentive of the GOP is the rabid hatred of Pres Obama and much like the Democrats 4 years ago, they are motivated to show up.  

    And much as we may hate to hear Rasmussen was the only poll that got the 2008 election right.

    So, here's what you gotta do...

    1. Vote
    2. March down the campaign office and phone bank

  •  Unlikely Voter....More likely w/early voting? (0+ / 0-)

    As we move towards wider early voting/registration time windows and it becomes more standard practice (seen as easy to do) to vote by mail, etc....it seems like getting the "unlikely" voter  to vote becomes much more likely.  If you have 2 weeks or 4 weeks to convince people to execute their vote in minority neighborhoods, that seems much more likely then trying to get them to go vote (involving an inconvenient errand  to a polling place) on a single Tuesday in November like 2000 and before.  

    I just seems like this early (& easier) voting adoption becomes more mainstream...that likely voter models will need adjustment.

    Has Nate Silver examined this changing dynamics as early voting numbers are exploding from one presidential cycle to the next?  Are the LV models capturing this changing dynamic?

    There's room at the top, they're telling you still, but first you must learn how to smile as you kill. -J Lennon

    by noelcor on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:15:12 PM PDT

  •  Please, please somebody fix the Workers' Voice (0+ / 0-)

    link.  I've mentioned this in other diaries, but when I click on it, and my info is verified, i get a donations page, not a page to sign up to work to gotv.

    Please...and if I'm wrong ...please let me know/sh

  •  Just looking at TPM's site (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeepdad, delphil, madmojo, dustb, Delilah, askew

    Since Oct. 16 (second debate) through the current date, here is the breakdown of released national polls:

    Obama leads in the following:  Reuters, IBD, YouGov, CBS, Rand, Democracy Corps, Zogby

    Romney leads in the following:  Gallup, Ras, Monmouth, PPP tracker, Gravis, Politico/GWU.

    The race is tied in the following polls:  CVoter/UPI, NBC/WSJ, ABC/WAPO tracker, PPP Weekly.

    Keep in mind that PPP tracker had Obama ahead for most of last week and ABC/WAPO had Obama ahead yesterday, so those could easily flip to the O team.

    That tally is:  Obama 7, Romney 6, Tied:  4.  I would note that Obama has good results in a range of polls.  Romney's numbers include at least 2 polls with a noted GOP lean and the wildly fluctuating Gallup tracker, which Nate Silver trashed the other day.  Romney's numbers don't look that good under the microscope/

    Prior to debate 2, Romney would have led in something like 10 of 15 polls.  In one week, Obama has turned that around.

    There are a few polls that I didn't add:  UConn (O+3) and ABC/WAPO standard (O+3). both of which were released just before debate 2.  

    Add those to the mix and Obama leads 9 to 6 with 4 ties.

    Now, keep in mind these are likely voter polls, each of which uses different screening to weed out RVs, almost all of which set the screen at an 82% turnout of registered voters or less, when the last 2 elections have seen the turnout at 88-90%.

    If you add RV only to this mix, only Gallup would post a meager 1 point lead for Romney.  All the others would produce mid single digit leads for Obama.

    So even with the deeply flawed national polls, we have seen some real movement towards Obama since the Vice Presidential debate.

    PPP seems poised to move to Obama this week in both of its surveys.  Their post-debate poll was unusually positive for the President, even among seniors and other groups that are tough for the President.

    By next Tuesday, I suspect that it will be the President who leads in close to 2/3rds of the national polls.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 05:30:21 PM PDT

  •  Likely Voter screens are wrong by construction (0+ / 0-)

    When you establish a threshold value for estimated likelihood to vote, and assume that everyone over the limit votes for certain and everyone under the limit doesn't vote at all you are biasing your poll results, overweighting those most likely to vote and underweighting those least likely to vote.  If the partisan leaning of voters is monotonically related to the probability of voting, there is some point at which the likely voter sample will have the same partisan spread as the actual vote. Unfortunately this is not necessarily the point where the likely voters have the same demographics as the actual voters. If you know the actual outcome of the election you can set the likely voter screen to match it. If you don't then you are just making shit up, with no sampling theory to support your bs.

    A proportionate voting model, in which each respondent is weighted by their predicted probability of voting does not have this problem, and voting probabilities can be scientifically estimated using survey data. The Rand poll is an example of an attempt to do this using self-reported likelihood of voting as the only predictor variable, but a more complicated model akin to the likely voter screen could be used and would be more accurate and less ad hoc than the current approach.

  •  "Get his back" is the Prez' line. (0+ / 0-)

    I've been noticing more that Mittens is co-opting Barack speak. Imitation is the highest form of Flattery.

    However, the line is "I've Got Your Back." Close, but no celebratory cigar.

    People are cattle too. Luv, Mittens Romney.

    by CupofTea on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:07:43 PM PDT

  •  Not so hard to figure out. (0+ / 0-)

    In presidential years the RV polls are a little more accurate because the noise introduced by LV screens is bigger than the small correction needed to the RV results. However, RV polls remain ~2% more D than actual counted votes. So, barring some indication of unusual effects, it's better to just take RV polls and shift R+2 to get an unbiased estimate while avoiding the noise of inaccurate LV screens.

    Do the large LV/RV polling splits indicate something weird this year? If so, they're probably wrong. The early votes in NC and IA indicate a typical big turnout year, similar to 2008 but with slightly better results for the R's, just as the RV poll results indicate.

    My guess: O wins by 1.8%, 289 EV.

    Michael Weissman UID 197542

    by docmidwest on Tue Oct 23, 2012 at 06:10:38 PM PDT

  •  The Repub predict 305 electoral votes? (0+ / 0-)

    Nate Silver gives that about a 3% possibility. It means Romney wins every single battleground state except for Nevada and Wisconsin, and that includes Pennsylvania, a state Obama is averaging 5.5 points ahead in.

     I look forward to hearing about the early voting data in Florida. I swear Obama has a better shot of winning the state than the pundits are saying, for a few factors:

     A. Charlie Crist's endorsement. Crist and DEM Kendrick Meek took 50% of the senate vote two years ago.

     B. Rick Scott's unpopularity. This summer he was the least approved GOP governor. It's reason to 46% last week, but it shows lots of independents might be having buyers remorse on the Republican brand. And he totally rebuffed Obama's plan to bring High Speed Rail jobs to the state last year.

     C. The polling is often very close to 50/50. Half of the polls (6/11) since the days after the first debate have had Obama or Romney 1 point ahead of the other. In addition, I can't get over the fact that so many polls being released are stuck calling landlines, which skew the results away from dem-leaning cell phone only voters.

     D. The Ryan plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system. Obama must hammer that home to Florida voters, it's an important difference between the candidates.

     Would I bet $$$ on Obama winning Florida, no. But count me in as one that would not be at all surprised to see Florida called for him late on Tuesday. I'd love to see Chuck Todd's face when it is, as well.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site