Cook: Private OH polls "ugly" for Romney

[Politico]

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

Anyone looking for evidence of a silent majority should look at Alberta 2012 elections. Wildrose frequently polled in majority territory and looked to be sailing to an easy victory on election day. On the flip of a dime or perhaps because of the very real inconsistencies and shortfalls of polling (whether it was an issue with PC supporters less likely to answer phones or more likely to answer untruthfully can be debated elsewhere), they didn't even come close to winning. Lesson learned: polls are junk and it's only the final votes that ever matter.

I've got some guys I know in Calgary, not crazy right-wing cowboys but just professional businessmen, and I can confirm this sounds about right from what I've heard.

Polling is becoming increasingly difficult in this hyper-partisan environment that is becoming dominated by cell phones and Internet phones.

Liberals are louder than ever before right now, or at least since the '70s, and that goes for all of the United States, and Canada too from what I can tell. Bottomline: Relative to liberals, moderates and conservatives know better than to speak up too much. I mean, they have better things to do than get into a [Inks] measuring contest with shrill liberals. Of course, that does not mean they will not speak up on Election Day.

[Likely Voter]

If the Breitbart tweet is true we will know fairly soon as it has major implications and would result in specific actions. If Romney's internal polls had truly shown a 10 point shift in the polls, then this would be huge news that they would want to get out to help reshape the narrative. They would want to get this info out to more mainstream media outlets. By Monday morning Politico.com should be reporting on this as they  have often reported on internal Romney polling and shifts before.

It would also be a complete realignment of the map. With information like that Team Romney should have a huge lead in NC and could stop spending there (the same way they arent spending in MO and IN). It would also put states like MI, PA, MN and NM into play, so we should also expect Romney to start spending in some or all of those states within the next week as well. These shifts in money would also be reported fairly soon.

And then of course we should also see these things reflected in the public polling as well.

Anyone here want to place bets on if all these corroborating things will come to pass in the next few days?

[Torie]

BTW, Breitbart himself is deceased, but his web site is carried on by lesser lights who follow his general approach. Kind of like those bands that tour as The Four Tops.

Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying who knows what polls are showing about Romney's bounce, but a tweet from Breitbart has as much credibility as a check from Drew Pritt.

You are really, really down on down on Breitbart aren't you?  One cannot deliver a more vicious hit than the one you just did. Ouch!  

Do you remember Drew baby from that other website, back in his TN/Arkansas incarnations?  In a bizarre way, he kind of reminds me of one of our more high profile posters. 

[J. J.]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

We should then regard Cook as such. 

J.J., it's up to you if you want to compare the reputations of Charlie Cook and Breitbart.org as equals. Knock yourself out.

Looking at the public polling, including PPP, I'd give it to Breitbart.org, though I doubt either is accurate.

[Brittain33]

Do you remember Drew baby from that other website, back in his TN/Arkansas incarnations?  In a bizarre way, he kind of reminds me of one of our more high profile posters. 

Ooh, I'd never made that connection before.

[Brittain33]

If the Breitbart tweet is true we will know fairly soon as it has major implications and would result in specific actions. If Romney's internal polls had truly shown a 10 point shift in the polls, then this would be huge news that they would want to get out to help reshape the narrative. They would want to get this info out to more mainstream media outlets. By Monday morning Politico.com should be reporting on this as they  have often reported on internal Romney polling and shifts before.

It would also be a complete realignment of the map. With information like that Team Romney should have a huge lead in NC and could stop spending there (the same way they arent spending in MO and IN). It would also put states like MI, PA, MN and NM into play, so we should also expect Romney to start spending in some or all of those states within the next week as well. These shifts in money would also be reported fairly soon.

And then of course we should also see these things reflected in the public polling as well.

Anyone here want to place bets on if all these corroborating things will come to pass in the next few days?

That's where I am. I'm open to a wide range of outcomes from Romney casting off his loser image and wouldn't even judge if the bounce is temporary or long-lived. I keep analogizing this year to 2004, and what happened then was Kerry narrowed a big lead to 2 points and then stayed 2 points behind. I should expect Romney to bounce significantly. But Obama was so solidly ahead in so many of his firewall states like Ohio, it strains credulity. Like if Gore suddenly polled +5 in NC or Colorado. It just doesn't make sense unless you're trying to do a head fake or try to gin up momentum from nothing.

[AmericanNation]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

We should then regard Cook as such.  

J.J., it's up to you if you want to compare the reputations of Charlie Cook and Breitbart.org as equals. Knock yourself out.

Were the two varying sets of internal polls taken at the same time?  Beitbart in this instance is a mere conduit. I assume that the alleged Romney internals are not made up, but were released to him.

The problem is, we don't know how to evaluate Breitbart and his sources. Maybe it was an authorized leak from the Romney campaign providing accurate numbers. Maybe the leak was from a random PR person in the Romney campaign, or maybe it was made up (Breitbart does that). Charlie Cook, love him or loathe him, has a reputation that Breitbart doesn't, because they are in the propaganda and agitation business, and have in the past released doctored and edited videos as "proof" of allegations that turned out to be 180% backward. I trust you're aware of what they did to Shirley Sherrod.

I don't know if these internal polls are accurate or not, nor do I claim insight into the state of play, but to compare Cook to Breitbart, one has to deal with:

• Cook citing polls from both sides, Breitbart only citing from one side
• Cook having a reputation to defend as being unbiased, Breitbart having a checkered history with the truth and with the goal of providing Republican talking points
• The interest both the Romney campaign, whether on high or in the trenches, plus Breitbart, to create a momentum story
• So far, the lack of corroboration from anyone more credible
• The fact that the only reason we can accept that these don't pass the smell test but not reject them out of hand is the unreliability of any numbers we'd use for comparison - while it's really hard to accept a swing of 10+ points in Romney's favor, the lack of independent polling means we can't 100% discount it

To me, this all argues against "well, it's just like Cook."

You seem really hung up on the Shirley Sherrod thing... you should know that the video was "doctored" by the NAACP not Breitbart.   

[Brittain33]

You seem really hung up on the Shirley Sherrod thing... you should know that the video was "doctored" by the NAACP not Breitbart.   

Well, yes, I'm "hung up" on it because it was a clearcut case of Breitbart behaving dishonestly toward someone who was being unequivocally good on a contentious issue, and when it was revealed that he'd misused the tape, he did not acknowledge his error but doubled down on it. The Shirely Sherrod case is an unusual one in that the moral test was clear and he failed. If you're familiar with the history of Sherrod's family and her behavior and not angry about how she was treated by Breitbart, by his Republican amplifiers, and by Obama administration officials who cut her loose, you're a morally hobbled person.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Michigan and Pennsylvania have been swing states in the past, and they will stay that way, barring a major realignment like 1980 or 1992.  And the polls seem to be shifting in Romney's direction ever since the debate as well.  And internal polling is not accurate because if you're taking a poll for a campaign, then it would seem that the results would be inherently biased toward one side.

[AmericanNation]

You seem really hung up on the Shirley Sherrod thing... you should know that the video was "doctored" by the NAACP not Breitbart.   

Well, yes, I'm "hung up" on it because it was a clearcut case of Breitbart behaving dishonestly toward someone who was being unequivocally good on a contentious issue, and when it was revealed that he'd misused the tape, he did not acknowledge his error but doubled down on it. The Shirely Sherrod case is an unusual one in that the moral test was clear and he failed. If you're familiar with the history of Sherrod's family and her behavior and not angry about how she was treated by Breitbart, by his Republican amplifiers, and by Obama administration officials who cut her loose, you're a morally hobbled person.

I'm not a huge fan or supporter of Breitbart, but there was nothing to suggest that the NAACP would edit the video to make their speaker look like a mega racist.  I can understand overlooking the possibility and thus it was reasonable to post a NAACP video as they edited it.   

[Likely Voter]

FWIW a Romney surrogate who is from OH was on Daily Rundown today talking FP but Chuck asked him about OH and he said he thought Obama peaked at 8% but was still ahead in Ohio by 2 or 3 points. If they were sitting on Romney ahead 5 point polling, I think he would have mentioned it or at least said that he thought it was a tied race or something better than acknowledging the President is ahead even after Romney's debate win

[Badger]

Charlie's just annoying because he's behind a paywall. Sabato is really awesome -- of the 'mainstream' pundits, he's probably the best out there -- and Nate Silver is pretty good too, though Silver is more interested in the mathematics than the politics and sometimes it can show.

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

Occasionally, they do (two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the California gubernatorial election 1982 and the UK parliamentary election 1992); there's just doesn't seem to be any reason to think there is one in 2012. Though, they're called 'silent' for a reason.

I don't think internal polling is accurate, and I don't think Sabato is a very good analyst.  He refuses to recognize Michigan and Pennsylvania as swing states, and he didn't think Chris Christie would get elected governor in New Jersey.  Nate Silver's models are crazy skewed toward Obama; if you are watching the polls, then it's clear that there's a 50-50 chance of either candidate winning.  Even if Obama has an edge, he does NOT have an 89% chance of winning reelection.  I personally like Michael Barons.  He may be a little too biased toward the right; he predicted in 2010 that Sharron Angle would beat Harry Reid in Nevada.  But at least he based it on polls, whereas Sabato totally disregarded the polls when he predicted Christie wouldn't win in New Jersey in '09.

I think Silver's analysis weights a bit too heavily in favor of victory based on small poll leads regardless of party. For example, when (pre-debate) polls had Romney leading by maybe a point or two on average, Silver was predicting a high 60's % chance of Romney victory. That said, I believe his calculated chances are based on who would likely win the election if held that day, not the chances that person will when on Election Day in a month, so the chances given are more understandable as they'll readily ebb and flow with changing poll numbers throughout the campaign.

EDIT: The pre-debate polls with Romney leading referred to above were for NC. Sorry.

[J. J.]

That's where I am. I'm open to a wide range of outcomes from Romney casting off his loser image and wouldn't even judge if the bounce is temporary or long-lived. I keep analogizing this year to 2004, and what happened then was Kerry narrowed a big lead to 2 points and then stayed 2 points behind. I should expect Romney to bounce significantly. But Obama was so solidly ahead in so many of his firewall states like Ohio, it strains credulity. Like if Gore suddenly polled +5 in NC or Colorado. It just doesn't make sense unless you're trying to do a head fake or try to gin up momentum from nothing.

The thing that bothers me about this statement is the idea that Obama was "solidly ahead."  We had three polls in the week before the debate.  One was a mail poll, not exactly a favored method of polling, as President Landon could have told you.  One was a university poll, that was usually running much more pro Obama that all the other polls taken at the time.

The third was PPP.  It has a good track record, and might have a slight Democratic bias, but a very slight one.  That one was showing Obama at +4.

Now, after the debate, which Romney did very well in, it seems very unlikely that his numbers would be "ugly."   That doesn't say he's winning OH, but it shouldn't show him worse off that that PPP poll, and probably would show him better off. 

[Brittain33]

J.J., I'm familiar with your point of view on Ohio and your view of that PPP poll.