Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 16, 2014, 02:28:05 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: Tender Branson, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | | |-+  MI: Public Policy Polling: Obama up double-digits
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: MI: Public Policy Polling: Obama up double-digits  (Read 990 times)
ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 872
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2012, 01:14:14 pm »
Ignore

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.
Better yet, average all the polls coming out of the state.
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 780
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2012, 01:15:42 pm »
Ignore

Nate Silver of the NYTimes use to be one of Public Policy Polling's biggest cheerleaders. He's also the guy that ranks the pollsters. He didn't sound like a cheerleader after PPPs Michigan poll release this afternoon: https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/status/228153749250662400

Logged

"...the media helped tip the scales. I didn't think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair..."

- Jake Tapper, Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News

"The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants."

 - Mark Halperin, author of 2008's 'Game Change.'
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5787


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2012, 01:17:47 pm »
Ignore

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.


Of course, when Dr. Scholl decides, we might as well end the debate. Why have an election?
Logged
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 780
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2012, 01:19:01 pm »
Ignore

Remember, he crushed McCain here by 17, and that was not just an anomaly.  Northern suburbs trended hard towards Obama across the Midwest. 

In a historical sense, it WAS just an anomaly. Republicans lost Michigan 51-48 in the 2004 Presidential election, and 51-46 in the 2000 election. So based on past trends, it would be the 17 pt victory in 2008 that is the anomaly.
Logged

"...the media helped tip the scales. I didn't think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair..."

- Jake Tapper, Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News

"The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants."

 - Mark Halperin, author of 2008's 'Game Change.'
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15012
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 4.52

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2012, 01:20:58 pm »
Ignore

Junk poll!
Logged


stegosaurus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 526
United States


P P
View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2012, 01:23:55 pm »
Ignore

I'll say this much:

This is probably closer to reality than the poll showing a lead for Romney. If I were Romney, I wouldn't invest my resources into winning Michigan.
Logged

liberty or death.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5787


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 25, 2012, 01:25:28 pm »
Ignore

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

Well, aside from the fact that they tend to be confirmed by others who do the same exercise, they match up with actual electoral results. Namely, when gallup polls shifted by 5 points from the Republican party between 2004 and 2008, the GOP, well, lost roughly 5 points in Presidential and downballot races.

Certainly consistency matters, and PPP's bizarre trend of continuously releasing outlier polls (remember Colorado +14) is, well, their business I suppose.  
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13450


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2012, 01:45:51 pm »
Ignore

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.

You spin well but you said something dumb and you should accept it and move on. When talking about national registration numbers the states are irrelevant unless you use registration statistics from all 50 to get at a national number. That is impossible of course since not all states have partisan registration. And of course looking at historical registration means looking at polls to figure out registration, something you claim was not being done.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13450


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2012, 01:52:49 pm »
Ignore

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.

Because Krazy needs to win this argument.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13450


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 25, 2012, 01:58:56 pm »
Ignore

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

Well, aside from the fact that they tend to be confirmed by others who do the same exercise, they match up with actual electoral results. Namely, when gallup polls shifted by 5 points from the Republican party between 2004 and 2008, the GOP, well, lost roughly 5 points in Presidential and downballot races.

Certainly consistency matters, and PPP's bizarre trend of continuously releasing outlier polls (remember Colorado +14) is, well, their business I suppose. 

We weren't talking about electoral results but rather registration numbers. Even if you think Gallup is more accurate than exit polling, it's still a poll. And it doesn't capture the electorate that went to the polls like exit polling does. And the main point is that most of the republicans who complain about partisan registration use exit polling to compare rather than Gallup or the states own registration numbers.

Logged
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6614
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.19, S: -8.78

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2012, 03:38:27 pm »
Ignore

Remember, he crushed McCain here by 17, and that was not just an anomaly.  Northern suburbs trended hard towards Obama across the Midwest.  

In a historical sense, it WAS just an anomaly. Republicans lost Michigan 51-48 in the 2004 Presidential election, and 51-46 in the 2000 election. So based on past trends, it would be the 17 pt victory in 2008 that is the anomaly.

You're not getting the point.  2008 was THE year for northern suburbs to finally shift big time towards the Democrats after years and years of just trending in that direction.  Look at SE Pennsylvania, NW Ohio, most of Wisconsin, Northern VA... these areas did not just swing that away as a result of a big Democratic victory.  They have been trending Dem for a long time and in 2008 they went from just trending that way to the point where they are actually important bases of support for the Democratic party.  For states like Michigan to become competitive for the GOP, those areas would not only have to return to 90s voting patterns... but actually become even more GOP friendly then they were before.  With the Republican Party taking a hard right turn and more and more influx from the cities they surround, do you really think that is likely to happen in a race that is showing to be, at the very best for Obama a 2008 repeat, and at worst a tie ball game?  

These types of trends that have been holding true for decades don't just completely reverse over the course of 4 years without a massive ideological shift in the parties, which has not happened.  

If you would like to make the argument that Romney is pulling Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc close by racking up votes in rural areas, fine... if you also want to assume that A. Romney is a better candidate for rural voters than McCain, and B. there are thousands upon thousands of votes out there for Romney to pick up, considering Obama just KILLED it in rural America in 2008.  Sorry, I don't buy either.  

I'm sorry if that means in the overall big picture it's very, very difficult for a Republican to get to 270, but it's not like that scenario has never been played out before.  
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 03:40:24 pm by AWallTEP81 »Logged



...a lettuce and cheese salad with no dressing...
MorningInAmerica
polijunkie3057
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 780
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: 0.52

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 25, 2012, 03:57:52 pm »
Ignore

Remember, he crushed McCain here by 17, and that was not just an anomaly.  Northern suburbs trended hard towards Obama across the Midwest.  

In a historical sense, it WAS just an anomaly. Republicans lost Michigan 51-48 in the 2004 Presidential election, and 51-46 in the 2000 election. So based on past trends, it would be the 17 pt victory in 2008 that is the anomaly.

You're not getting the point.  2008 was THE year for northern suburbs to finally shift big time towards the Democrats after years and years of just trending in that direction.  Look at SE Pennsylvania, NW Ohio, most of Wisconsin, Northern VA... these areas did not just swing that away as a result of a big Democratic victory.  They have been trending Dem for a long time and in 2008 they went from just trending that way to the point where they are actually important bases of support for the Democratic party.  For states like Michigan to become competitive for the GOP, those areas would not only have to return to 90s voting patterns... but actually become even more GOP friendly then they were before.  With the Republican Party taking a hard right turn and more and more influx from the cities they surround, do you really think that is likely to happen in a race that is showing to be, at the very best for Obama a 2008 repeat, and at worst a tie ball game?  

These types of trends that have been holding true for decades don't just completely reverse over the course of 4 years without a massive ideological shift in the parties, which has not happened.  

If you would like to make the argument that Romney is pulling Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc close by racking up votes in rural areas, fine... if you also want to assume that A. Romney is a better candidate for rural voters than McCain, and B. there are thousands upon thousands of votes out there for Romney to pick up, considering Obama just KILLED it in rural America in 2008.  Sorry, I don't buy either.  

I'm sorry if that means in the overall big picture it's very, very difficult for a Republican to get to 270, but it's not like that scenario has never been played out before.  

I'm getting your point, it's just that that's not what you originally said. What you originally said was "Remember, he crushed McCain here by 17, and that was not just an anomaly." It's a simple fact that, looking at recent electoral history, the 17 point victory in Michigan WAS an anomaly.
Logged

"...the media helped tip the scales. I didn't think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair..."

- Jake Tapper, Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News

"The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants."

 - Mark Halperin, author of 2008's 'Game Change.'
Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13256
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 25, 2012, 05:08:13 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, Romney is not up anything in MI... however, I think perhaps what to look to in this poll is not the range but the numbers. I easily believe Obama is at 53%, it's the Romney number that I have an issue with.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
HagridOfTheDeep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5146
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.52

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 25, 2012, 05:44:48 pm »
Ignore

This polling firm has become laughable.

And your posts have always been laughable.

Well, keep chuckling and maybe click the ignore button, friend.

But you can't talk away the RCP poll entries. Look down the list. Every single PPP poll in Michigan has a number that is completely out-of-line when compared with other pollsters.

Do I think Romney is currently winning the state? Nope. But he sure ain't losing it by double-digits, either.

I'm curious: Do you legitimately believe that PPP is publishing more honest polls than Rasmussen at this point in time?
Logged

ajb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 872
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 25, 2012, 05:55:02 pm »
Ignore

This polling firm has become laughable.

And your posts have always been laughable.

Well, keep chuckling and maybe click the ignore button, friend.

But you can't talk away the RCP poll entries. Look down the list. Every single PPP poll in Michigan has a number that is completely out-of-line when compared with other pollsters.

Do I think Romney is currently winning the state? Nope. But he sure ain't losing it by double-digits, either.

I'm curious: Do you legitimately believe that PPP is publishing more honest polls than Rasmussen at this point in time?

There's no particular reason to bring honesty into the discussion. Different pollsters make different assumptions about how to sample the public, and (partly, but not only, for that reason) they get different results.
For myself, I can live pretty happily with the idea that Obama is somewhere between one point behind Romney in Michigan, and fourteen points ahead of Romney. We'll never know the truth anyway, so why not just average them all and see what you end up with? Which, in this case, is an Obama lead of about 5-6 points in Michigan.
Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: July 25, 2012, 09:17:16 pm »
Ignore

Quote
it's very, very difficult for a Republican Romney to get to 270.

FTFY.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines