NH-PPP: Obama up by 12

[Invisible Obama]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/obama-up-big-in-new-hampshire.html

Obama 53%
Romney 41%

With Johnson

Obama 51%
Romney 38%
Johnson 7%

Not a bad result at all.

[Senator Clarence]

I wonder if Johnson's polling numbers will hold up...

[Jayhawker]

Of course, this is completely legitimate.

[oakvale]

Of course, this is completely legitimate.

I think PPP's a better pollster than CBS, sure...

[greenforest32]

R+1 for Romney (R-NH)

[JulioMadrid]

Where's umengus?

[Kevin]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

You mean that one poll conducted by Dartmouth you are using to justify your fairy tale world where this is a tossup election with no lean towards Obama?

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Obama will win NH. No questions asked.

[Invisible Obama]

The last poll (from UNH) for New Hampshire in the database had Obama leading by 9, 51%-42%, so this isn't far off from that poll.

[Kevin]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

You mean that one poll conducted by Dartmouth you are using to justify your fairy tale world where this is a tossup election with no lean towards Obama?

I'd type out a a much in-depth response, but I don't have the time or effort to waste on forum posters like you.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I wonder if Johnson's polling numbers will hold up...

They won't, but it seems like he's acting as a spoiler for Romney, which is strange, because given the types who seem to comprise his fanbase, I would have thought it much more likely for him to be a spoiler for Obama. However, this might be attributable to the fact that Republicans are unhappy with Romney and don't actually know what Johnson's views are.

[pbrower2a]

R+1 for Romney (R-NH)

Polls showing Romney up in New Hampshire are from when the Republicans were campaigning there and comparing him to about every evil person in political history. That is over.

Unless PPP has a wild pro-Democratic bias (I would need to see some polls from the Mountain and Deep South to verify that), Mitt Romney has a disaster in the making if he is losing three states that Dubya barely won (Iowa and New Mexico in 2004 and New Hampshire and 2000) by more than 10%.

[Vosem]

R+1 for Romney (R-NH)

Polls showing Romney up in New Hampshire are from when the Republicans were campaigning there and comparing him to about every evil person in political history. That is over.

Unless PPP has a wild pro-Democratic bias (I would need to see some polls from the Mountain and Deep South to verify that), Mitt Romney has a disaster in the making if he is losing three states that Dubya barely won (Iowa and New Mexico in 2004 and New Hampshire and 2000) by more than 10%.

PPP does not have a wild Democratic bias (their new Wisconsin poll shows Obama ahead by just 1 point, which seems incongruous with a D bias). PPP is generally a good pollster, but they are not the gold standard some posters here treat them as; occasionally they tilt left (predicting Ilya Sheyman's victory) and occasionally right (predicting Doug Hoffman's victory). The only other pollster which showed NH as anything but a very close state was UNH, which has not generally been very reliable over the years.

The simplest thing to say is that this is a fluke.

[Ray Goldfield]

This is a state trending away from the GOP in Presidential races. Romney has a lot of decent paths to 270 that don't include it.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

You mean that one poll conducted by Dartmouth you are using to justify your fairy tale world where this is a tossup election with no lean towards Obama?

I'd type out a a much in-depth response, but I don't have the time or effort to waste on forum posters like you.

You have no response because polls have been consistent about Obama leads in New Hampshire since the bottom dropped out from underneath Romney in January. You try to come off as a reasonable conservative but you're just a hack and I'm calling you out on it.

[Nagas]

I think Obama will win New Hampshire again, but he's not going to beat Romney by a larger margin than in 2008. Romney is being underpolled or Obama is being overpolled here.

[Kevin]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

You mean that one poll conducted by Dartmouth you are using to justify your fairy tale world where this is a tossup election with no lean towards Obama?

I'd type out a a much in-depth response, but I don't have the time or effort to waste on forum posters like you.

You have no response because polls have been consistent about Obama leads in New Hampshire since the bottom dropped out from underneath Romney in January. You try to come off as a reasonable conservative but you're just a hack and I'm calling you out on it.

[pbrower2a]

This is a state trending away from the GOP in Presidential races. Romney has a lot of decent paths to 270 that don't include it.

Sure... but he must win of every one of

Florida
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia

One chance in 64, which is a gamble that he can't find adequate. No single appeal or issue wins all of them.

In theory he could win Michigan or Pennsylvania as a substitute for any one of those states...but I wouldn't bet against a strong union GOTV drive.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

One chance in 64

That's really not how statistics work.

[Vosem]

Sure... but he must win of every one of

Florida
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia

One chance in 64, which is a gamble that he can't find adequate. No single appeal or issue wins all of them.

In theory he could win Michigan or Pennsylvania as a substitute for any one of those states...but I wouldn't bet against a strong union GOTV drive.
[/quote]

But that isn't one chance in 64. You have to adjust for details -- Romney is more likely than Obama to win MO, the opposite is true in NV. And in your last sentence, you forget once again that Wisconsin is clearly showing the anti-union drive is more powerful than the union drive nowadays.

[TJ in Wisco]

The biggest problem with calling it a 1/64 chance is that you're treating these states' voting as independent events when they are clearly related to each other. A candidate is more likely to carry one swing state if he's already carrying others. There is a good chance one candidate, whether it is Obama or Romney, wins all of those states. That is one of the most likely outcomes.

[The Professor]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

You mean that one poll conducted by Dartmouth you are using to justify your fairy tale world where this is a tossup election with no lean towards Obama?

I'd type out a a much in-depth response, but I don't have the time or effort to waste on forum posters like you.

You have no response because polls have been consistent about Obama leads in New Hampshire since the bottom dropped out from underneath Romney in January. You try to come off as a reasonable conservative but you're just a hack and I'm calling you out on it.

Is this how you prepare your meals? It doesn't seem very efficient. You must be a hillbilly. You should consider taking one of my cooking classes.

[Badger]

I'm skeptical that Obama's leading by that much or by any at all.

Most polls I've seen have had Romney leading(albeit narrowly) or have been a complete tossup.

^^^ this. Color me skeptical.

[pbrower2a]

Sure... but he must win of every one of

Florida
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia

One chance in 64, which is a gamble that he can't find adequate. No single appeal or issue wins all of them.

In theory he could win Michigan or Pennsylvania as a substitute for any one of those states...but I wouldn't bet against a strong union GOTV drive.

But that isn't one chance in 64. You have to adjust for details -- Romney is more likely than Obama to win MO, the opposite is true in NV. And in your last sentence, you forget once again that Wisconsin is clearly showing the anti-union drive is more powerful than the union drive nowadays.

We shall see on Wisconsin soon enough. There is no good model for predicting how a freakish off-season special election goes. The Hard Right is flooding the state with ads saying that if 'anyone but Walker' will quickly have people sorry to have so voted. When logical reasoning fail, use threats, as some fundamentalist preachers use the "Believe it or Burn (in Hell)" argument.

The "(1/2)^n" model is easy to apply to coin tosses... but of course the chance of President Obama winning any one of those states is clearly not one chance in two.  For President Obama it's

1- (1-a1)(1-a2)(1-a3).... (1-a6) for random chances with independent events with each "a" (I can't put subscripts in the model) here representing the probability of a Romney win in any particular state.  But here's one general fact:

If the chance of one of those states going for President Obama goes to near 100% then the chance of Obama winning no longer depends on what happens elsewhere. So if the chance of Barack Obama winning Virginia goes to .99 and his chance of winning Missouri completely vanishes, then a 50% chance in all other states pushes the chance of an Obama win to  99.9375%. We just might see something like that happen. Time narrows tangible possibilities in something full of random possibilities. Someone batting .213 on April 17 might still end up batting .300 at the end of the baseball season, but someone who has played regularly and is batting .271 on September 28 has practically no chance of hitting .300.

As it is President Obama now has a tangible chance of winning Texas, and Mitt Romney has a tangible chance of winning New Jersey. By late October the chance of either happening will most likely be nil.