Maiello: Defeat the Press
Ramona: Pointers on Bad Disaster Coverage
Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game
|
Maiello: Defeat the Press Ramona: Pointers on Bad Disaster Coverage Miami Fans Mistakenly Chant "Let's Go Eat" During Playoff Game |
Blowing |
Today was a strange day of polling, like many others in 2012 -- it showed that Mitt Romney apparently leads in national polling, but is unlikely to win the Presidency. All campaign long, the national and state polls have been subtly but clearly irreconcilable. Today was more of the same, as the Obama momentum from the President's debate win Monday seemed to continue in state polls, but not in national polls. The path to the White House is clarifying further, and it runs through Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Here's what today's data set showed.
National Polls Holding Strong For Romney at Roughly +2...
There is no question that the national polling picture remains good for Governor Romney. Gallup's seven day average shows him +3, though after cresting last week at +6, that suggests that recent days are even or almost even. Rasmussen moved from Romney +4 to +3, still a large enough margin that, if accurate, would seemingly assure Romney of victory on November 6. ABC/WaPo moved from +1 Romney to +3. AP/GfK showed Romney +2, but that poll was from just before the third debate. Finally, IBD/TIPP showed Obama +2, down from +3 the day before.
But Swing State Polls Generally Cannot Be Reconciled With National Numbers
Meanwhile, in the states comprising the nation in which Mitt Romney apparently led by about 2 points, President Obama remained poised to claim re-election. In Nevada, Marist put President Obama +3, his eighth consecutive reading at +2 or better. In Colorado, PPP put President Obama +4 and Marist called it tied. In Virginia, in three polls taken after the third Presidential debate, both Rasmussen and Fox News put Romney +2, while PPP put Obama +5 (with the variability explained with respect to the white vote, which PPP sees as 41%, while FOX sees it at 34%). In Wisconsin, PPP put President Obama +6, and in Iowa, PPP put him at +2. In Pennsylvania, Rasmussen sees Obama as +5. Even in North Carolina, PPP showed the race tied, where last week Romney led by 2. Finally, the unreliable Gravis Marketing showed President Obama -1 in Florida -- the sixth poll in the last eight showing a 1 point lead either way (five with Romney +1, one with Obama +1).
Yet all of these numbers (not just the numbers from PPP, the Democratic pollster) fail to square with a Romney +2 national consensus. Consider that President Obama won last time by 7.2%. Then consider where these states were last time in relation to that national trend, and apply the same differentiating factor to a supposed Romney +2 national popular vote. You would get very different results. Colorado was +1.8 Obama in relation to the 2008 result -- so you would expect the average to put Romney +.2%, where today he was down 2%, which is 2.2% worse. President Obama ran -6.9% in relation to his 2008 national trend in North Carolina -- and thus should trail by 8.9%, where today he was tied. President Obama ran -4.4% in Florida in 2008 (winning it by 2.8%), and thus should trail there by 6.4%. Instead, today's poll from a GOP-leaning robopoller puts him -1, which six recent polls of the last eight there or better. Virginia was a 6.3% Obama win, thus .9% worse than his national trend, such that the President should trail today by 3, though he either trails by 2 or leads by 5 -- which averages to a .3% lead today, 3.3% above where he should be. Pennsylvania was a +3.1% state in 2008 (Obama won it by 10.3%, and today it should be +1.1 for Obama if Romney is up 2 nationally -- but Rasmussen shows Obama +5. President Obama's 6 point advantage in Wisconsin is 5.5% higher than it should be. Though not the subject of polling today, Ohio, a state President Obama won by 4.6%, a -2.6% performance against trend in 2008, should be a state in which President Obama trails by 4.6% today, adding that margin to a supposed Romney national lead of 2 points -- where yesterday's polls averaged to a 2.7% Obama lead.
Of swing states polled today, only Nevada and Iowa actually square with the supposed national trend. In Nevada, Obama's 12.5% win in 2008 was +5.3%, which would predict a 3.3% Obama lead if Romney leads by 2 -- and that is what we see. First, even if two states fit the Romney +2 narrative, this does not undo the fact Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania deviate greatly. Second, only Iowa really fits -- I am adamant that Obama will overperform the average of Nevada polls, as he did in 2008 and as Sen. Reid did in 2010.
It is also worth noting that two other states polled today fall in either category. New York polled +26 Obama, which is the same amount Obama won New York by in 2008, meaning the President is over performing a Romney +2 national world by a whopping 9 points. California, by contrast, polled +12 Obama, which is actually more consistent with a Romney +5 national result.
Thus, in review, today's polls show President Obama overperforming a Romney +2 world by 9 in New York, 9 in North Carolina, 5.5 in Wisconsin, 5.5 in Florida, 4 in Pennsylvania, 3.3 in Virginia, 2 in Colorado, and performing consistent with it in Iowa and Nevada, and underperforming it by 3 in California.
Hypotheses To Explain the State/National Poll Discrepancies
There are several ways of explaining the discrepancies between the national polls suggesting a roughly 2 point Romney lead, and the today's state polls. Let's consider each in turn. First, if you throw out the PPP polls, the picture is significantly different. For example, Colorado is now about where it should be (even). Virginia is now one point off where it should be, which makes sense. This means Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, and Nevada make sense, and comport with a Romney +2 world.
But tossing out PPP's data doesn't make much sense, however, for several reasons. For one thing, PPP has a better track record of accuracy at the state level than does Rasmussen. There is no reason to simply dump its polls. For another, PPP is the only pollster to show a Romney lead in Iowa in the last month (+1 last week), and showed a Romney lead in New Hampshire, below a great +8 for Obama from a good pollster (UNH). Finally, dumping PPP doesn't cure the discrepancies in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, or North Carolina.
A second explanation is that of a systematic methodological flaw in the national polls. While beyond the scope of this piece, it is strongly suggested by the consistency among the incorrectness they represent in relation to the state polls. I have often noted of Rasmussen that it seems to show better numbers for President Obama in individual states than it does nationally, which doesn't make much sense to me. Gallup's +7 in its seven day roller was so far away from all state polling then in the field as to discredit Gallup's methodology for this cycle. But the steadiness of the ABC/WaPo numbers, and their being closer to the state numbers, mean that its shift to 50/47 Romney is better evidence that Romney may lead nationally than (to me) are Rasmussen or Gallup.
This in turn suggests the third explanation -- that some of the swing states have swung more Democratic in relation to the national trend at the Presidential level (an Electoral College advantage hypothesis). It is hard to argue other than that Ohio has -- a state that was +3.5% GOP in 2000, +.4% Democratic in 2004, and +2.6% GOP in 2008, it is now polling +4.0% or more above that Romney +2 national poll consensus. Florida too is now polling as a Democratic-leaning state, unless you think President Obama leads nationally.
A fourth explanation we can call the California/Illlinois hypothesis. California in the last two polls has shown a move toward Romney more consistent with a Romney lead of larger than 2 points. For that reason, given California's vast population, President Obama's national numbers could be explained by reference to his 12 point decline there in relation to his 2008 performance. Illinois has likewise moved further against the 2008 trend away from Obama, while remaining safely in his column. Together they comprise 16% of all Americans.
What Is Actually Happening
There is some truth in each of these explanations. For one thing, PPP does have a modest Democratic lean. I do not believe that President Obama is up by 5 in Virginia, for example, and doubt that he is tied in North Carolina, though either result seems possible from a sample derived in the glow of Monday's debate. But PPP has a strong enough track record that its results deserve to be averaged with the more Romney-friendly results which also belie the supposed national Romney lead. And it is likely true that California could be exerting a modest drag on Obama's national numbers without threatening to give its electoral votes to Romney.
But the core explanation seems to be a mixture of flawed national polling, and changing dynamics in a handful of swing states. Ohio, after the auto bailout and two years of organizing on Democratic issues such as the repeal of Ohio's antiunion law, is now more like Michigan or Pennsylvania. It would not be surprising to see Ohio go for Obama by 3, while its northern and eastern neighbors did so by 5 and 6. Nevada is now a blue state, with a 5-7 point lean above the national trend. Increasing African-American and Latino registration in Florida has put that state closer to the national trend, perhaps sitting right about at even. An alliance between affluent NoVa and African-Americans there and throughout Virginia has made that state bluer, and it sits roughly at the national trend. Wisconsin appears to be performing modestly better for President Obama in relation to the supposed national trend, and thus appears close to safe. Iowa and New Hampshire are no more blue than they once were, and appear to sit on the national trend -- they appear to be jump balls.
It is hard to reconcile where that group of states is with a nation in which Mitt Romney leads by 2 points. By feel, I believe that the national popular vote is between Romney +1 and Obama +1, and that Obama leads as follows: Pennsylvania by 6, Nevada by 6, Michigan by 5, Wisconsin by 3, Ohio by 2. I believe Colorado and Iowa are ties leaning to Obama. I believe New Hampshire and Virginia are ties leaning to Romney. I believe Romney leads by 2 in Florida and 3 in North Carolina.
Today's data are fully consistent with Obama holding Ohio, Nevada, and Wisconsin, which would mean that he would win. From the lay of the polls yesterday and today, I would guesstimate a popular vote tie or that Romney leads by 1 point or less, which means that today's data seem to accord with Obama winning the electoral college with 272-287 EVs, and Romney narrowly winning the popular vote, thanks in part to irrelevant changes in the voting habits of Californians, and perhaps also Illinoisians, as the President has slipped by 12 points to a projected 13 point win there. Lacking a further Obama surge, and lacking a Romney move in Wisconsin, Nevada, or Ohio (we have seen no such breakthrough thus far), such an outcome is increasingly likely. The more likely alternative is not a Romney win in defiance of dozens of Nevada or Wisconsin polls; it is more likely an Obama popular vote win that humiliates the national pollsters. Twelve days left to see which of these odd results comes about. Interesting stuff.
By Nicholas Kulish, New York Times, May 22/23, 2013
BERLIN — Three of Europe’s most powerful countries — Britain, Germany and France — have thrown their weight behind a push for the European Union to designate the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a move that could have far-reaching consequences for the group’s fund-raising activities on the Continent.
On Wednesday, Germany signaled an about-face in its policy toward the group, with a statement saying Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle supported listing “at least the military wing” of the organization as a terrorist group. The announcement came just a day after Britain’s Foreign Office said it would...
By Richard Luscombe in Miami, guardian.co.uk, 22 May 2013
An FBI agent shot dead a man believed to be a friend of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects Tamerlan and Djokhar Tsarnaev, during a "violent confrontation" in a Florida apartment early on Wednesday.
Sources said that Ibragim Todashev, 27, "flipped out" under questioning by the federal agent and two...
Woolwich killing: meat cleaver, knife and jihadist claims filmed on mobile
By Vikram Dodd, Shiv Malik & Ben Quinn, guardian.co.uk, May 22,2013
Dramatic footage emerges of suspect after British soldier is killed in suspected terror attack
• British soldier dead in suspected terror attack in London
• Knife attack near barracks 'an eye for an eye', says suspect
• Killing in street is 'absolutely sickening' says prime minister
Also @ The Guardian:...
By Jane Mayer of the New Yorker. If you are wondering how far PBS is willing to go to placate David Koch to keep their funding? It gives you a look into the special documentry "Citizen Koch" and its fall out. The program was never aired except at Sundance. David Koch resigned from WNET on May 16th.
Always looking for the silver lining, I heard a comment yesterday, supposedly from a Republican pollster that a better ground game could add a couple of points for Obama in a particular state. How do the likely voter screens relate to the actual strength of the ground game, if at all?
All in all, the divergence of the national polls and state polls leave me with a creepy feeling.
The likely voter screens probably very modestly miss the "sporadic" voter the Obama ground game turns out, a voter more likely to have language issues, to be poor and an underresponder, or to be cell only. The question is whether they account demographically for those folks, which is tricky.
Last cycle, the likely voter screens messed up the eight closest Senate races -- and by a median of 3.5% -- all against the Dems. Add 3.5% against the median Romney national poll lead of 3, and you have Obama up .5%, which would pretty much be consistent with everything on the board right now.
One more explanation in the divergence is that those in the swing states because of the advertising had a different reaction to the Moderate Mitt than those in the non-swing states. In other words, the generally disengaged suburban mother in Atlanta saw a different person than the generally disengaged suburban mother in Columbus.
I do not think that Romney will win the popular vote, other than that, good blog.
Thanks. I presently am very mildly inclined to agree with you. But I also don't like straight up predicting against data. I did that as to Nevada, but there is a history there giving me very specific reasons. This California/Illinois thing could make the difference in explaining Obama with 272 or 281 EVs but a 1% popular vote loss.
But I think that the probability of this happening again in a 12 year span is highly unlikely, Nate actually put the probability at around 7%, which seems slightly high to me, but not high enough to actually happen again.
So in essence I am not necessarily disagreeing with the polls, I am factoring in the probability of that scenario happening again so quickly after the last time, because it generally happens roughly once every 100 years. I assume if this scenario plays out again and so quickly after the 2000 debacle, there might be some clamoring for electoral college reform. So I do believe that the EV winner will be the popular vote winner, even if it is by a narrow margin.
What I think is more interesting will be the diversity of votes going for the President and the lack of diversity of votes for the Republican, what will republicans do if they only have a clear majority of older white people? How will they recover, because clearly our demographics are not in their favor for future elections.
Well, it's actually happened before, exactly twelve years apart: 1876 (Tilden-Hayes) and 1888 (incumbent Grover Cleveland winning the popular vote but losing the White House to Benjamin Harrison).
Oh!! Well it would suck if it happened again just 12 years later, I don't look forward to that scenario at all. It would be awful, the country might go crazy if that happened.
This runs counter to probability.
The chance of getting a six dice is 1/6 whether you've just rolled 8 of them in a row or none. It's random probability. The chance of getting 9 sixes in a row is (1/6)^9, but that doesn't affect the next throw.
However, a particular election is not random probability. We already know the polls are tight, so the McGovern, Dukakis and Carter years already don't count - odds based on known polls favor a close popular vote, with relatively good odds that the electoral loser wins the popular vote. So it might be already we could say chance of this happening is 1/5 or 1/20, a not-far-fetched chance based on real world info that affects a non-random outcome, in which case an arbitrary standard - once every 12 years vs. once every 52 years- has no effect as long as we're referring to an event that already happened.
(note that even it happened once very 100 years - for which I think it's more frequent than that based on Nixon, Tilden, and our friend Dr. Cleveland - it's non-random, so there might have been a change that makes it more likely in the 2000's than 100 years ago - call it the Fox/Rush factor or the internet or the effect of guns, terrorism, religion and Cable TV)
actually, what this country needs is proportional distribution of electoral votes like NE has...but obviously, no state will change their procedures...so each election we go thru this same nonsense.
proportional voting (as well as the popular vote) would, in the atmosphere of partisanship and unease about voting procedures, open a whole can of worms. This is especially true because one party or the other tends to control and enforce the voting process in each state. From a presidential point of view, voter suppression efforts would impact places like New York and West Virginia, and not just the swing states.
Once you go proportional, there is no reason to have an Electoral College. Cumulating the numbers of Senators they elect into a state's voters' influence is not representative.
Great blog post, A-Man. I think there's one more hypothesis, which isn't the explanation in itself but may be contributing.
Part of Obama's weaker national numbers may represent hardening opposition in the deep-red states. Just as some weakening in the Blue states hurts Obama's topline number but doesn't scratch his electoral chances, increasing anger at him by GOP-leaning voters in Red states that he's never contested (Alabama, Wyoming, etc.) drive the national number down without mattering for the election.
The deepest red states, however (ID, UT, MS, AL, AK, AR), have more EVs in proportion to their popular vote and are thus an unlikely source of outsized motion against the national trend. California is the reverse, with more popular vote influence in proportion to EVs, and it has, according to two polls, moved further against Obama than has the nation as a whole since 2008.
Consider, for example, that of Gore wins 550,000 fewer votes there, but 550 more in FL, Gore wins the popular vote, Bush the electoral. This year's numbers may end up a bit like that, with OH in a cameo as FL.
Fair enough, but ratios don't really matter here, because EVs are about tipping points. There is actually zero correlation between popular-vote movement and electoral-vote movement in deep-red and deep-blue states, because the raw vote number moves and the EV number doesn't.
And with that, I agree not to argue this further.
I don't understand what you just said as a point of disagreement. I think the best way to think of it is that the states' popular votes are a group of imperfectly intercoordinated phenomena (in that they tend to move in the same direction or in the same amount as the nation shifts, but with local variation), some of which skate across tipping points.
Well, the answer lies in my stupidity, and in my hasty misreading of your original comment. So there's your explanation right there.
Rasmussen's new WI poll showing a 49-49 tie has a split of the white vote pretty much identical to that in the last two Rasmussen polls showing a narrow Obama lead.
Today's poll's motion is all a function of a beyond-implausible shift within the tiny portion of the Wisconsin electorate that is African-American. This is an excellent demonstration of how Rasmussen sometimes misconceives the portions of the electorate other than its sweet spot of poll-call-friendly, older-tending, affluent-tending Caucasians.
I would not hyperventilate about this robopoll.
I have been dissing Rasmussen for over four years; but I think or I hope there is something else relevant in the Wisconsin theatre.
I watched Rachel and the other MSNBC leaders. Back in 2011 an Obama election principal got the petitions for recall on a ground soldier plan.
He showed up again in Ohio and in Wisconsin petitioning against the anti-union legislation which worked in Ohio.
This same machination is working in Ohio and Wisconsin.
I think we win Wisconsin and Ohio based upon the continual working organization put in those states by Obamaites. The unions have allied themselves with Obama and really gives us more than a mere chance.
I am however worried all over again with this mojo crap. I cannot tell if it just media crap to get us watching returns.
Who knows?
Of course, if it goes the other way I shall kill myself.
the end
If Obama wins Ohio and Nevada, as appears very likely, then he needs only one of: (1) Wisconsin (where he hasn't trailed in six weeks in any poll); (2) Colorado (last four results +4, +2, tied, tied); (3) Iowa + NH (leads both in polling today); (4) Virginia (+5, tied, -2, -2 are last four results); (5) North Carolina (tied, -1 last two results); or (6) Florida (-5, -1 last two results, +1 last week).
The union law recall plan was a pivot point in OH. Before that, the GOP was in the ascent. After that, it was like a lightswitch. And Organizing for America was involved in that, as reported.
Thank you for this, just like Nate Silver you give me real hope here.
That union movement in Ohio just shocked me over the last two years.
And of course, the Ohio governor realized he had gone too far and he admitted it!
Anyway, you and Silver give me hope.
I still think there is more than a chance that Obama will reach 320+ Electoral votes.
This will not even have an effect upon the minority vote (minority meaning the repub voters) and that we shall see violence of one type or another in the streets.
Obama shall never be recognized as President of the United States by at least 45% of our citizenry.
I was sobered by today's issue of Gallup's tracking poll of likely voters.
Last week he'd been at 45 or 46%.But Thursday's edition (for the 7 days ending Wednesday) reported Obama at 47%. Which meant that the Wednesday sample itself chose Obama to at least that extent , probably more.
I hypothesized that Wednesday's improved % reflected a "bounce" from Monday's debate.
However today's report (7 days to Thursday) dropped to 46%. That meant that Thursday's specific result had to be a yet lower number,almost certainly 45%.
Nate Silver and others question Gallup's method of choosing "likely voters". Whatever. It still reflects a trend, that Obama's 3rd debate bounce was short lived.
Worrying.
Several thoughts.
First, Gallup's tracker, if accurate, means basically all other state polls, including Romney leaning ones, are wrong and mostly wrong outside their margins of error. Not a good place to look for trends.
Second, if you look at state polls, not such a good world -- trendwise -- for Romney.
Don't believe the hype.
Not being argumentative ,just specific.
Clearly as you and Nate say, Gallup is less accurate than the state polls.
But-trendwise- more current..And by definition more consistent since each day's assortment of state polls is just that. That diversity has other advantages but with this down side.
"Trends" in Gallup's daily tracker are not more current than new state polls. Because Gallup is on a seven day roll, a two point move in one day represents a 14 point or so swing between eight days ago (the day that fell out) and yesterday (which replac eit days ago). What is most current is yesterday's sample. State polls release that. Gallup doesn't.