ABCNews Poll – Race Remains Tight Between Romney and Obama among Likely, Registered Voters – those removed, Romne has Lead – Reading Between the Lines

Carter and Reagan after October Debate - All Tied in Polls - images newstimes.com

The polls are receiving a good deal of national attention this week, let alone the two men who are the focus of the pollsters. First there is the implications of coercion between the Obama Campaign and Department of Justice against Gallup Polling: See Washington Times Article: “Internal e-mails: Axelrod intimidated Gallup before DOJ lawsuit surfaced against polling company”. Gist: Gallup had an employee who campaigned for President Obama in 08, also was a staffer for the Obama Campaign, who in 2009, suggested that Gallup Polling was overcharging the Federal Government for field sampling. The DOJ sat on this until – Mitt Romney was polling 5 points over the President, Axelrod, the Presidents Mentor, Campaign Manager, White House adviser, etc., got a bit hot under the collar and began to blast the polling agency, Gallup also received an invitation to come to the White House and “explain” it’s methodology. When they did not change their methodology, apparently, the DOJ became very interested in the 2009 charges by the Obama Campaign Staffer and a lawsuit ensued. The Times links to the Daily Caller, who has the emails from Gallup Staffers.

Second, there is the similarity between all pollsters besides Gallup showing a deadlocked national race, with a little movement up or down depending upon the candidate. Both candidates received a nominal “bump” in the polls after each convention, not moving up by any significant margin. Unless one counts Bill Clinton, who was a positive force at the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, and would give a boost to a rock if he were speaking at a quarry. That said, from the right and the left, there are charges that the pollsters are not playing fair – and that is the norm for political pollsters – it’s about who they sample, and with random samples, the game changes in a heartbeat. These same pollsters had Carter and Reagan “too close to call” the eve of the election in 1980, and in 1984, Mondale was leading Reagan at this point in August of 1980, during the deep recline in the U.S. economy Gallup Polling had Reagan and Carter in a tie, (Good News Archives).

One can draw the conclusions that polls can be somewhat mistaken, considering that the methodology does not change, and when one understands that Reagan did not win two elections by swings states or a narrow lead in the electoral college, but by a landslide of popular vote in the majority of states - with both Mondale (1984) and Carter (1980) holding one or a handful of states – all of the polling data to date – makes perfect sense.

In the case of the 1980 election, the economy was in tatters, and it did not improve at all prior to the election. In fact there was a third party independent candidate, John Anderson, who was factored into the polling at an usually higher % than the normal 4 to 6% - yet Reagan won in a landslide. In 1984, one can understand that the economy was rocking, Reagan was extremely popular by that point, and well, Mondale was a weak candidate – yet, polls had Mondale with a lead in August, defying reason and pollster logic.

Therefore, the ups and downs and parsing of polls, especially polls that use smaller samples, have a 50-50 chance of being right – or wrong. There are pollsters that lean right and those that lean left in political ideology – there are pollsters that over sample and there are pollsters that word surveys in order to skew the outcome in one direction or the other. The logic follows that the polls would send a message to both candidate and the public: The race is tight, therefore, get out and vote, and/or donate what you have to your favorite candidate to give them the edge.

There are polls that employ a method that uses responses from registered and unregistered voters, polls that use likely voters only, and polls that use registered and likely voters. In those cases, the title of the poll may indicate a lead or a dead heat, but when one looks at the poll internal marginals, the polls is definitely showing a trend towards one candidate or the other- and that is regardless of whether or not the poll is oversampled! This is especially true of the ABC/Washignton Post Poll which gives President Obama a national convention boost of 50 to 44% over GOP Candidate Mitt Romney, or a win for the President with a 2 percent lead outside the margin of error. However, The Marginal’s (PDF here) are titled Obama Gains a Convention Boost – But Not Among Likely Voters” suggests that when one factors in registered voters who are likely to vote, the race becomes a dead heat. The poll samples: “Thirty-two percent of registered voters in this poll identify themselves as Democrats, 26 percent as Republicans and 37 percent as independents “(ABC News).

This follows the 2008 election model. However, a poll conducted by Pew Research in 2010 suggests that the electorate had shifted slightly. , with the Democrats at a 5% advantage, in voter identification (registration): 34% of registered voters identify as Democrats and 29% as Republicans, a plus 2 for the Republicans and a minus 5 for Democrats. Moreover,” non-partisans now stands at 37%, one of the highest levels in the past 20” and those that do: 40% of independents and other non-partisan voters say they lean more to the Republican Party, with 35% leaning Democrat. This model therefore suggests that as of 2010, there would be a tie mathematically with both parties at 69% support including the base and those Independent who lean towards one party or the other. This poll was taken in August, yet, in November, there was a landslide in the U.S. Congress, with an historical Republican gaining the house, and a narrowing of the Democrat Majority in the Senate. To suggest that in 2012 voter samples for the Presidential race would be comparable to 2008 samples rather than 2010 is somewhat disingenuous, and therefore, the polls are skewed from the get-go. Would that automatically give Romney a lead in the polls, obviously no – even using Pew’s model, there was a tie in August of 2010!

Reasonably, the only accurate polls are those that will never be released: the internal campaign polls, which use a huge sample comparatively (especially in national elections), and allow a candidate and their strategists to make decisions as to how to allocate funds, or which states may already be in the “proverbial bag”, therefore, using funds elsewhere where a deficit in internals would indicate the need for more advertising.

Therefore, if a polling trend makes one nervous about their candidate, they can do two things: donate and get out and vote if they hold the belief that their candidate has done/will do a better job in the office. The results will only be known when the dust settles on the morning after the election (or the night of the election, given fast returns and a pattern reminiscent of the 1980 election – which by the way – stunned the press!!).

One can hazard to guess however, if a candidate is pulling ads (not staffers) out of a state, then that state is showing internal polls that suggest the state is “safe”, rather than the “state is lost”. In total, it is not without a bit of satisfaction when one's chosen candidate is given a "lead" in a poll, no matter if that lead is inflated! It is the psychological boost given to the base and/or the leaning independent that all is "well" with their candidate. Conversely, the base and the leaners whose candidate is not in the lead are more motivated (generally) to get out and canvas, donate and support their preferred politician.

This begs the question - are there any accurate polls? Yes and no, it is the pollster who is closest at the time of the elections, uses the most accurate sample of the most current electorate and a large enough sample who will more accurately predict the outcome - unless of course, that pollster is in court.

Why is McCain so Confident? - Internal polling may be the key.

While the public relations machine for Barack Obama continues to pound away, while CNN, CBS, Zogby, Rasmussen, NBC and Fox show Obama leading in their respective polls (by varying degrees), John McCain continues to stand firm in the face of what, almost every pundit considers to be, insurmountable odds. Polls, mathematical predictors of outcome based on probability, are at issue, specifically the wide range of results shown here at Real Clear Politics. Real Clear Politics takes an average of all polls done, regardless of the sample used, and reaches a conclusion. Currently, Obama is shown to be leading nationwide by 7.6% according to this method. Some polls have been shown to be more accurate that others over the years, with the IBD/TIPPS poll having been the most accurate in 2004. Currently that poll “average” shows a virtual dead heat with 10.1% of the respondents, not sure (or refusing to answer). According to this poll, Obama is at 46.5 percent and McCain at 43.1 percent, there is a 3% margin of error, and an additional 10 points that are up for grabs.

Then there are those polls that the public and the press are not privy - the internal polls done by both campaigns. It is safe to say, at this point, the pollsters, who use a variety of formulas, questions and samples in order to achieve results are confusing due to the range of results as well as the percentage of undecideds. Therefore, one has to look at the reaction of the campaigns to try and guess what their internal polling data suggests. Both McCain and Obama are making stops in states where perhaps, their internal polls show that they need an edge. Interestingly, the VP candidates are most likely in states that are not critical - to shore up the base, as the balance is in line with that particular campaign. Both candidates ignore states that are considered “safe” one way or the other. What’s it all mean? Not one of “us” knows – literally, who will be elected on the 4th of November, not the pollsters, not the press. It will, in all likelihood, be yet another horserace. As Palin suggested, It's not over untl it's over.

Predicting the Election Outcome - Consider Massachusetts, Methods of Polling and Other Factors

Massachusetts, long touted as the “Bluest State”, should accurately be described as the “Independent State”. The fact that there is a Democrat governor and legislature is misleading – for the most part, Massachusetts elects Republican candidates when they either appeal to the “middle ground” or if the incumbent Democrat has done such a poor job that it is inconceivable that they be re-elected. Consider this interview with Dukakis, former Governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate done in 2006. In the interview Dukakis explains that the Bay state had Republican governors for 16 years, and notes: “So, don’t make the mistake of assuming that Massachusetts is totally in the Democratic column. Massachusets is a very independent state. The Bay State voted for Ronald Reagan not once, but twice, in the 80s. On the other hand, I wouldn’t spend two seconds looking at these polls and these poll numbers. I mean, at this stage of the game, this is nothing but recognition — these are nothing but recognition numbers “

I’m not certain what Dukakis means by recognition numbers, as I am no mathematician, however, that said, anyone with an ounce of sense understands that if one samples one thousand individuals, 60% democrats, 20% republicans and 20% independents, they cannot accurately reflect the entire electorate – in other words, it is pretty much misleading – why – Dukakis understands from a personal perspective as he led George H. Bush in the polls weeks before the election. (The NY Times even noted that many “Regan Backers Shift Sides” – Sound familiar?)
Let’s talk about “the October Surprise” and “Swift boating”. How much does a negative change anyone’s minds? John Kerry famously blames, of all people, Osama Bin Laden, for his loss in 2004. What was in that tape that pushed American’s to vote for Bush and not Kerry? Nothing: the tape from Bin Laden, and all the political commercials in the world, including Swift Boat ads and the infamous “Willie Horton ads against Dukakis are nothing more than political name calling – and I would hazard to bet that most individuals watch these commercials with a pre-conceived partisanship, which can be applied to the Independent voter. Independent voters lean either Republican or Democrat, occasionally changing positions, but for the most part, staying with one particular party - sometimes exclusively.
Election losses have been credited to the weather and the turn-out – what one does not consider is that the basic conservative v s. liberal mindset has not changed in this nation in the past 12 plus years. More about polling: Terrance Battleground Research this year: 62% of those surveyed consider themselves conservative or leaning conservative - this particular article describes how there are conflicts within the polls itself, as it predicts either a Democrat or Republican win. Go figure. The fact of the matter is there has not been a landslide since Ronald Regan hit the political scene. He followed a dismal Jimmy Carter, and George Bush, although “approval ratings” are low, could not possibly be compared to Jimmy Carter under any circumstance – Carter is extreme left, and, as any conservative knows, Bush will certainly side with the Democrats on a variety of issues, ranging from the Border to the Bailout.

Other factors to consider: What about baggage? That’s the key, the amount of baggage that a candidate drags with them into an election will tell the tale, regardless of the amount of cash on hand. How well is the candidate “known”, regardless of personality? The middle ground: is that candidate a moderate? Bill Clinton was a moderate, who appealed to the essential middle, to the common ground, yet both races were close, not landslides. Additionally, there are those who are still looking for someone with the ability to lead the nation in a time of terror/war. When one looks at all the variables, unless a poll accurately reflects the electorate (without leading questions), they are pointedly useless.
Recall the 2004 exit polls that had the nation convinced John Kerry would be the next president? Therefore, anyone who wants to know who the next president will be has to wait until November 5th, (or perhaps a month or two hence) – there is simply no way to predict - should one be inclined; there is a 50/50 chance they will be correct. However, if one uses the Battlegrounds conservative vs. liberal statistics, considers the historical inaccuracy of the polls, debate winners and newspaper endorsements, adds baggage, and includes those who are looking for a commander in chief that has some military background, then one can confidently choose the McCain/Palin ticket.