MI: Public Policy Polling: Obama up double-digits

[realisticidealist]

New Poll: Michigan President by Public Policy Polling on 2012-07-23

Summary: D: 53%, R: 39%, I: 0%, U: 8%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[krazen1211]

Junk poll!

[OC]

Yipee

[MorningInAmerica]

Leave it to PPP to give Obama his biggest lead of any pollster in Michigan for the last 6 months.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I have to agree with Krazen on this one. No way Obama's up double here. High singles, maybe, but not double.

[ajb]

Because somebody needs to say it:

Partisan breakdown in this poll: D 32 R 28 I 40

Partisan breakdown in MI in 2008, per the exit polls: D41 R 29 I 29

So by the reasoning of many on this board, this poll is likely to underestimate Obama's lead in Michigan.

[MorningInAmerica]

You have to go all the way back to February to find a poll that comes even close to PPPs results.

[krazen1211]

Because somebody needs to say it:

Partisan breakdown in this poll: D 32 R 28 I 40

Partisan breakdown in MI in 2008, per the exit polls: D41 R 29 I 29

So by the reasoning of many on this board, this poll is likely to underestimate Obama's lead in Michigan.

Your replication of that reasoning is quite incorrect. When partisan breakdown is examined, it is typically done by using factual registration counts from the state, not some dubious other poll.

[ajb]

So the people who were disputing the NBC/WSJ poll yesterday because it had a D+11 sample were wrong, because they weren't basing their concerns on factual registration counts (which, obviously, do not exist at the national level)?

[Reds4]

Romney isn't ahead by a point like other polling is showing.. Obama likely isn't ahead by 14.. maybe Obama by 8 or so would be my guess.

[Invisible Obama]

Michigan is Likely Democratic, end of story. Detractors can't even blame an unfavorable sample for this one, because has a lot less Democrats than the actual registration numbers of the state.

[OC]

The rasmussen poll is right Obama +6.

[krazen1211]

So the people who were disputing the NBC/WSJ poll yesterday because it had a D+11 sample were wrong, because they weren't basing their concerns on factual registration counts (which, obviously, do not exist at the national level)?

Not wrong, no. They were merely looking at the registration counts of the states that do have it, and what historical partisan identification nationwide has been for decades.

[krazen1211]

Michigan is Likely Democratic, end of story. Detractors can't even blame an unfavorable sample for this one, because has a lot less Democrats than the actual registration numbers of the state.

That is amusing, given that Michigan has no partisan registration.

Facts are a tricky thing.

[mondale84]

Michigan is Likely Democratic, end of story. Detractors can't even blame an unfavorable sample for this one, because has a lot less Democrats than the actual registration numbers of the state.

That is amusing, given that Michigan has no partisan registration.

Facts are a tricky thing.

The fact is that in 2008 the party id (according to exits) was:
41% Dem
29% Rep
29% Indy

This sample shows:

32% Dem
28% Rep
40% Indy

If anything, this poll should underestimate Obama's lead which doesn't make any sense because he probably isn't up 14. Still, Obama is definitely UP and we know he's going to win the state, stop trolling and deluding yourself by only accounting for polls that the media fabricates to prop up the narrative of a close race.

[ajb]

So the people who were disputing the NBC/WSJ poll yesterday because it had a D+11 sample were wrong, because they weren't basing their concerns on factual registration counts (which, obviously, do not exist at the national level)?

Not wrong, no. They were merely looking at the registration counts of the states that do have it, and what historical partisan identification nationwide has been for decades.

Where are they getting their numbers of historical partisan identification nationwide, if not from things like exit polls?
And how are they estimating partisan id in states like Michigan that don't have partisan registration? Because it's pretty difficult to get an accurate sum when some of the numbers are complete unknowns.

[krazen1211]

So the people who were disputing the NBC/WSJ poll yesterday because it had a D+11 sample were wrong, because they weren't basing their concerns on factual registration counts (which, obviously, do not exist at the national level)?

Not wrong, no. They were merely looking at the registration counts of the states that do have it, and what historical partisan identification nationwide has been for decades.

Where are they getting their numbers of historical partisan identification nationwide, if not from things like exit polls?
And how are they estimating partisan id in states like Michigan that don't have partisan registration? Because it's pretty difficult to get an accurate sum when some of the numbers are complete unknowns.

I presume they use gallup surveys and other national surveys of the public that have historically been shown to be consistent and reliable, as opposed to, say, dubious exit polling that often times is proven wrong within minutes.



Whether you choose to believe PPP or 7 other pollsters is up to you. Certainly nobody can change your mind.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This polling firm has become laughable.

[Senator Snowstalker]

I'm not arguing that PPP is biased.

[krazen1211]

Nate Silver on Michigan/PPP
(1) No the Michigan polls don't make any sense (2) Just average them, m'kay? (3) Would be nice to get a top-shelf pollster involved there.

[Invisible Obama]

Michigan is Likely Democratic, end of story. Detractors can't even blame an unfavorable sample for this one, because has a lot less Democrats than the actual registration numbers of the state.

That is amusing, given that Michigan has no partisan registration.

Facts are a tricky thing.

That was an error, but the FACT still stands. The data I was looking at is based off the previous exit poll and my point still stands that the sample is less Democratic than it could have realistically been. The sample has less Democrats than the 2004 exit poll.

Michigan is Likely Democratic, end of debate.

[mondale84]

This polling firm has become laughable.

And your posts have always been laughable.

[ajb]

So the people who were disputing the NBC/WSJ poll yesterday because it had a D+11 sample were wrong, because they weren't basing their concerns on factual registration counts (which, obviously, do not exist at the national level)?

Not wrong, no. They were merely looking at the registration counts of the states that do have it, and what historical partisan identification nationwide has been for decades.

Where are they getting their numbers of historical partisan identification nationwide, if not from things like exit polls?
And how are they estimating partisan id in states like Michigan that don't have partisan registration? Because it's pretty difficult to get an accurate sum when some of the numbers are complete unknowns.

I presume they use gallup surveys and other national surveys of the public that have historically been shown to be consistent and reliable, as opposed to, say, dubious exit polling that often times is proven wrong within minutes.



Whether you choose to believe PPP or 7 other pollsters is up to you. Certainly nobody can change your mind.

I'm just curious to know how Gallup's partisan ID numbers have been proven reliable, when there's nothing to confirm them against.

[HockeyDude]

Doesn't PPP have a decent track record?  As in, actual numbers?  Both sides have to stop spinning everything so hardcore but all the Republicans who constantly troll here (bar a few that have been here a long time and make sense) all sound like 14 year old members of their junior high school Republican Students Club.  

That said, Obama's not up 14.  Romney's not up 1.  I think Obama is probably winning by 7 or 8.  Remember, he crushed McCain here by 17, and that was not just an anomaly.  Northern suburbs trended hard towards Obama across the Midwest. 

[pbrower2a]

This may be high for now, but it is the likely result.

Rasmussen uses a "likely voter" screen which well fits an off-year or midterm election. Debbie Stabenow would be fighting for her political life if she faced a 2010-style electorate.  

Mitt Romney hasn't lived in Michigan since he was a young adult. He has had no public office while in Michigan.

Barack Obama is a good cultural match for Michigan, a state that usually looks available to Republicans who then waste effort and money on the state before the unions begin their GOTV drive. The state is acting much as it did in 2008.

The Mitchell poll is an outlier. Average PPP and Rasmussen and you get 10% -- which I am about to accept for now.

Doesn't PPP have a decent track record?  As in, actual numbers?  Both sides have to stop spinning everything so hardcore but all the Republicans who constantly troll here (bar a few that have been here a long time and make sense) all sound like 14 year old members of their junior high school Republican Students Club.   

Yes it does. It got the 2008 and 2010 electoral results very well.

Michigan -- fringe of contention for the GOP.