Dick Morris: What Many Polls Are Missing

[Politico]

Excerpts:

1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.

[P]olling indicates a widespread lack of enthusiasm among Obama’s core demographic support due to high unemployment, disappointment with his policies and performance, and the lack of novelty in voting for a black candidate now that he has already served as president.

If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality. [Own commentary: It appears Gallup may be doing this]

2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.

But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent. In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.

An undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.

So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!

Source: http://www.dickmorris.com/why-the-polls-under-state-romney-vote/

[Politico]

Will you guys stop with this Reagan "Come From Behind" myth. The Gipper was ahead from May 1980 til Election Day. And there is no evidence that the undecided vote always breaks unanimously or anywhere close for the challenger. If that were true George W. Bush would not have won in 2004 and Bill Clinton wouldn't have won in 1996.

Bush won in 2004 because he dramatically increased turnout among his base relative to 2000. Obama is not going to get better turnout than 2008. Only a delusional Democrat would suggest such nonsense.

Furthermore, Clinton won in 1996 by triangulating (e.g., welfare reform, school uniforms, "era of Big Government is over," etc.). In addition, the economy had about 5% unemployment and gasoline cost about $1.25/gallon.

[Politico]

Politico, what is your opinion of Nate Silver as a polling analyst? Just curious.

He has a hidden agenda.

[Politico]

Dick Morris can and is amazingly wrong most of the time.  However, he is borrowing this line of thought from other people and thus he is correct.  There is absolutely no way that Obama is going to outperform his 2008 numbers and pollsters are using democratic sample sizes larger than 2008.  I also disagree with the myth of the Reagan polls.  Reagan did lead throughout much of the summer.  That has nothing to do with the belief that the polls are wrong in my view.

1st - The feeling isn't in the air.  I don't see the enthusiasm like I saw in 2008 where nearly every single person I knew outside of my family was voting for Obama.  I don't see signs, shirts and other campaign materials.  In 2008, all I saw was a sea of Obama signs.  This year I see much more enthusiasm for Romney and I know multitudes of people who voted for Obama that are either staying home or voting for Romney - and yes, this is post-convention.  I live in a heavily democratic city too.  In the recent primary, turnout was 48% on the republican side, 52% on the democratic side.  Make what you will.

2nd - If there is a groundswell it's deeply hidden as if democrats are embarrassed to reveal that they are voting for Obama.  I remember in 2008 seeing people proudly proclaim their allegiance.  It's not so this year.  I see dismay, dissappointment and anger by people who voted for him other than the most left wing.

3rd - Among conservatives, the anger at what Obama is doing is unbelievably deep and increases daily.  It's not even close to the anger that democrats had at Bush or republicans had of Clinton in the 90s.  Republicans truly feel that they will lose their country if the president wins another term.  Go watch the ending of 2016: Obama's America and that is exactly what republicans see in a second Obama term.  So put yourself in our shoes for a second, if that's what we see for the future, do you honestly believe that we're staying home?

So yes, its very logical to believe that the polls are using hilariously bad models. That's why I will take great pleasure in watching the false hope fade from democrats' eyes as the president gives his concession speech on election night.

I second this. I, too, have personal ties to NH (various areas within the 2nd congressional district along with Manchester). I also have close ties to CA (Los Angeles/Orange County), NV (Clark County) and MA (Suffolk County). I am hearing the same thing with regards to NV, albeit to a lesser extent than in NH. Unfortunately, I am abroad right now for personal reasons.

[Politico]

Politico, what is your opinion of Nate Silver as a polling analyst? Just curious.

He has a hidden agenda.

Dick Morris has NO agenda though, right!?

Dick Morris has an open agenda, not a hidden one. At least I know where things stand with the former.

[Politico]

The Libyan intervention had more to do with Atlanticism than anything else, but I guess that it's all globalism to you, brother.

Me?  No.  What bothers me is the changing story about Libya, the serial and the attacks on about 20 embassies since then.

I've generally given Obama high marks on foreign police, but he blew this latest crisis.

I just want to chime in how disappointed I am with Obama's failure to stand strong with Israel. These turn of events have completely negated his foreign policy achievements from 2009-2011 IMHO. I worry about our foreign policy being as poor as our domestic policy if Obama gets four more years. In any case, we're in big trouble if Obama gets back in.

[Politico]

The Libyan intervention had more to do with Atlanticism than anything else, but I guess that it's all globalism to you, brother.

Me?  No.  What bothers me is the changing story about Libya, the serial and the attacks on about 20 embassies since then.

I've generally given Obama high marks on foreign police, but he blew this latest crisis.

I just want to chime in how disappointed I am with Obama's failure to stand strong with Israel. These turn of events have completely negated his foreign policy achievements from 2009-2011 IMHO. I worry about our foreign policy being as poor as our domestic policy if Obama gets four more years. In any case, we're in big trouble if Obama gets back in.

What a frustratingly ridiculous thing to say, Bibi has been very complementary of his interaction with Obama. What does 'standing strong with Israel' even mean?

What is your point? Do you think you're going to change minds with baseless talking points? The only support you have is right-wing paranoia about an Obama that doesn't exist. You're more than welcome to believe it, but if he's re-elected, I'll look forward to hearing which candidate you're going to inflict your support upon next.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits on the domestic front, and sending signals that he will abandon Israel and bow to Russian demands if re-elected. That's the point. You're more than welcome to cling to 8% unemployment, $4/gallon gasoline, one trillion dollar deficits, abandoning our most important ally in the Middle East, and bowing to Russian demands, but most of the rest of America have had enough with this administration's incompetence as you will witness on Election Night.

[Politico]

There comes a time in every man's life when they should retire, and Biden is at that point. That's the problem with Biden The Buffoon. He'll just have to be forced into retirement, I guess...

[Politico]

The Libyan intervention had more to do with Atlanticism than anything else, but I guess that it's all globalism to you, brother.

Me?  No.  What bothers me is the changing story about Libya, the serial and the attacks on about 20 embassies since then.

I've generally given Obama high marks on foreign police, but he blew this latest crisis.

I just want to chime in how disappointed I am with Obama's failure to stand strong with Israel. These turn of events have completely negated his foreign policy achievements from 2009-2011 IMHO. I worry about our foreign policy being as poor as our domestic policy if Obama gets four more years. In any case, we're in big trouble if Obama gets back in.

What a frustratingly ridiculous thing to say, Bibi has been very complementary of his interaction with Obama. What does 'standing strong with Israel' even mean?

What is your point? Do you think you're going to change minds with baseless talking points? The only support you have is right-wing paranoia about an Obama that doesn't exist. You're more than welcome to believe it, but if he's re-elected, I'll look forward to hearing which candidate you're going to inflict your support upon next.

Obama is clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits on the domestic front, and sending signals that he will abandon Israel and bow to Russian demands if re-elected. That's the point. You're more than welcome to cling to 8% unemployment, $4/gallon gasoline, one trillion dollar deficits, and abandoning our most important ally in the Middle East, but most of the rest of America have had enough with this administration's incompetence as you will witness on Election Night.

Hang on... did you just basically copy and paste that from somewhere else? Do you have a stump post?

Considering how bad you are at reading 'tea leaves', I'd be deeply impressed if you could show how Israel has been abandoned?

It is not just about where we are, but where we are headed. Obama has sent strong signals of division with Israel, signalling the potential of us abandoning them in a future hour of need. On the domestic front, Obama has us headed off a fiscal cliff. We cannot run $1 trillion deficits for four more years, or we'll go bankrupt by the end of the decade (on the watch of Obama's successor, whomever it may be). This is the path that Obama has us set on. With Obama, there is no light in sight. The next four years will look like the past four years.

In contrast, Romney will right the ship and produce the right results.

[Politico]

The central achievement of the Romney Administration will be tax reform. We'll downgrade all of the marginal rates by 20% and eliminate deductions that only benefit lawyers/accountants in order to ensure tax receipts do not fall too much in the short-run. Here is a good paper on the issue: http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.pdf

Spending that can be cut or transferred onto the states will be cut or transferred onto the states. Obviously it needs to be done in such a way that we do not cause a recession.

[Politico]

The central achievement of the Romney Administration will be tax reform. We'll downgrade all of the marginal rates by 20% and eliminate deductions that only benefit lawyers/accountants in order to ensure tax receipts do not fall too much in the short-run. Here is a good paper on the issue: http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wsj08282012.pdf

Spending that can be cut or transferred onto the states will be cut or transferred onto the states. Obviously it needs to be done in such a way that we do not cause a recession.

Hey guys, an adviser to the Romney campaign with magic numbers he made up himself in a two page paper says the plan will work!

If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, by all means vote to give Obama four more years. Otherwise, you may want to reconsider...

[Politico]

I imagine that discussing the last four years with Politico would be Rashomon-esque experience.

You're clinging to 8% unemployment and one trillion dollar deficits. Go watch John Kerry's commercials from 2004. I would have called you nuts had you told me in 2004 that Democrats would be defending this economic environment in 2012.

Everybody knows that Obama inherited a bad situation, but so did Ronald Reagan in 1981. The difference between the two is that Reagan made things better whereas Obama has put the long-term future at risk without achieving promised gains in the short-term (i.e., Obama has sacrificed the future in order to reward special interest groups in the present). Like it or not, the last four years belong to Obama. If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, by all means vote to give Obama four more years...