VA: Public Policy Polling: Obama leads all Republicans

[pbrower2a]

PPP deliberately generates poll numbers that look much better for Democrats until election time gets a lot closer, then they correct the poll numbers to save face.

Remember, PPP is nothing more than a Democrat propaganda outfit. Hence the tweens here who worship it.

You are an ignoramus. 

PPP may be a Democratic firm, but its numbers tended to look better for Republicans.

 

[pbrower2a]

No Paulie, you are merely projecting again, as are the leftist tweens here.

You're an idiot.

Here's how I deal with that sort of stuff:

This user is currently ignored.

As Sir Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject".

Polling is far from perfect, and it may be better described as a snapshot of the time as prophecy. One can say this of Virginia:

1. The state is critical to the victory of any Republican nominee; in view of Colorado seeming to slop away from the GOP,  any Republican who loses Virginia must win all three of these states to have a chance to win against President Obama -- Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Those three states with 18 to 29 electoral votes are different enough that there is no easy way in which to win all three at once. Virginia isn't quite in this class of states for electoral clout.

2. This may be a surprise, but no Republican has ever won the Presidency since 1924 without winning Virginia. How long ago was that? In 1924 Virginia still had Confederate veterans not yet in their eighties.

3. As it is, President Obama looks as if he is in the position that he was in in the early part of September 2008 (soon after the Republican National Convention) in which he had enough states locked up that the Republican nominee would have to win a bunch of states best described as 50/50 propositions. Ruling out Indiana (because he wasn't going to win Indiana without also winning Ohio) and North Carolina (because he wasn't going to win North Carolina without also winning Virginia) the Republican had to win all of Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia to have a chance of winning the Presidency. The Republican nominee had six even chances of losing the election -- and one chance in 128 of winning. Those states were different enough and scattered enough that there was no special appeal that could easily satisfy majorities in all of those states, and there was no way of easily campaigning in them all.

The states in question have changed. Nevada no longer makes a difference, and the President has solidified Colorado enough to compensate for a gain of electoral votes by "red" states. So you add Arizona and North Carolina, and the prospects look about as bad for any Republican nominee.

As I see it, the eventual Republican nominee looks to be putting out one fire after another in one "must win" state after another in a grueling contest.  Such will be a grueling effort.       

 

[pbrower2a]

Here's the latest Newt vs. Obama map:

I suspect that the Survey USA poll showing President Obama beating newt Gingrich in Kansas is a misprint -- most likely a transposition error.

[pbrower2a]

What's up with Ohio again?

"Statistical tie", also known as a "50/50 chance" .

As I see it the President is in much the same situation that he was in around September 1, 2008 against John McCain -- that although he had not sealed a victory he had his opponent in the position in which of having few ways in which to win (then, basically winning all of Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada + NE-02, Ohio, and Virginia -- McCain was going to win Indiana if he won Ohio and North Carolina if he was going to win Virginia) and far more in which to lose.  Winning or losing any particular state (or Nevada and NE-02) seemed like a random event, and the states up for grabs were best described as "random events".  Those states were dissimilar enough that there was no easy approach to winning every one of them at once with some single appeal to specific statewide interests. It's not that all of those states depend heavily on oil production, farming, heavy industry, high technology, or tourism. 

In essence, Barack Obama and John McCain had  64 possible results, and only one of them (McCain winning everything) offered a chance for John McCain. Barack Obama had a 98.3% chance of winning and John McCain had a 1.7% chance of winning. If even one of those states slipped away from McCain (it was Colorado) then the only chance for him was some wild gamble -- let us say, trying to win Pennsylvania.  As it turned out, Barack Obama won  five of the six states that would have clinched (and NE-02)  and ended up winning Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Contrast 2004; the election could be decided by only one state (Ohio)... and Kerry lost the one state that would have made a difference that was available. The combination of Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado was really out of reach. Contrast also 2000; Al Gore bet everything on Florida figuring that the demographics would favor him. Maybe he should have gone for New Hampshire. But losing the two states really in reach that would have made a difference lost the election.

As I see it the Republican nominee must make big grabs of Obama voters of 2008 (that has yet to be seen) or campaign on the defensive of several states (this time Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia). Except for North Carolina and Virginia the states aren't adjacent, and those states are hardly alike in their demographics and economic realities. The Republican nominee is going to have to put out lots of smoldering fires; one week it might be Arizona and the next week it might be Ohio. Such will be a difficult way in which to campaign. Such is what I have seen from one poll to the next.

President Obama seems likely to win every state that Al Gore won in 2000... and Colorado. That won't be enough. The GOP has its share of political disasters that President Obama will be able to exploit once he starts campaigning in earnest. The one thing that anyone can count on is that the President will be a fine campaigner with a superb organization behind him.   

       

   

[pbrower2a]

"Statistical tie", also known as a "50/50 chance" .

Not how statistics work

A statistical tie is a question of the margin of error.

But that is roughly how probability works if if one can't determine the difference between a 57-43 chance and a 43-57 chance. At this stage one can't make so easy a distinction. A few days from Election Day we will see far more states that look as if they are in the margin of error clearly show which side of 50-50. 

An exact tie looks much like a 50-50 chance. Statistical ties close to even, especially if they are poll numbers bouncing around exact ties, look like 50-50 chances. When the numbers quit bouncing, then one has something other than a 50-50 chance.

In the end there are no statistical ties except absolutely-even counts. Dubya won Florida by 537 votes in 2000, and we define that as a victory for Dubya because such is how the law is set for determining who wins the election. Barack Obama ended up with a few more than 28K votes more than John McCain in Indiana, and by definition that was a win for Barack Obama even if it was a statistical tie (a 0.03% difference).

I'm only guessing that if the two nominees bounce around evenness, then one has roughly a 50-50 chance.


 

[pbrower2a]

A statistical tie is a question of the margin of error.

It's a dumb term -- just because you're not 95% sure it isn't a tie doesn't mean it should be treated as likely 50/50.

But that is roughly how probability works if if one can't determine the difference between a 57-43 chance and a 43-57 chance. At this stage one can't make so easy a distinction. A few days from Election Day we will see far more states that look as if they are in the margin of error clearly show which side of 50-50.  

That...what?  The fact that preferences are more fluid now, and likely voters more concrete, has nothing to do with this statistical calculation.

An exact tie looks much like a 50-50 chance. Statistical ties close to even, especially if they are poll numbers bouncing around exact ties, look like 50-50 chances. When the numbers quit bouncing, then one has something other than a 50-50 chance.

Again, just because we can't be more than 95% sure there isn't a tie, doesn't mean a 94% chance should be assumed to be a tie.  "Statistical tie" is a dumb, dumb term.

In the end there are no statistical ties except absolutely-even counts. Dubya won Florida by 537 votes in 2000, and we define that as a victory for Dubya because such is how the law is set for determining who wins the election. Barack Obama ended up with a few more than 28K votes more than John McCain in Indiana, and by definition that was a win for Barack Obama even if it was a statistical tie (a 0.03% difference).

I don't even understand how you're apply MoE to what's supposed to be a population, not a sample, and cannot realistically be a representative sample if you're treating it as a population (e.g., if you claim there are improperly uncounted ballots or something.)

It's a probabilistic model. What it lacks in precision it makes up for in simplicity. It shows no significance in the difference between winning 270 electoral votes and winning 370 electoral votes.  The difference between winning 268 and 270 electoral votes is what matters in the end. The point spread does not matter so much as does whether the President can have Congressional majorities.

MoE applies to an individual poll. If the President is up by 2% in even one "must-win" state against even one candidate in every poll in one state (let us say Virginia) then the Republican nominee who absolutely must win Ohio is in deep trouble no matter how well he might be doing in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia at the time. Before the campaign is really underway, a 2% lead for the President in such a state as Virginia means little. In mid-October a consistent set of small leads for the President in Ohio is much more definitive.

So far we have generally seen the President ahead in one state that the Republicans must win rather consistently. Last month it was Ohio. This month it may be Virginia.  Next month it could be Florida.   

[pbrower2a]

Colorado goes GOP, Ohio does not, if the election is today.  And that is, of course, very worrisome for Republicans like me, even though I'm a Colorado Republican.

Why do you say Colorado goes GOP?  Most of the polling has been rather in favor of Obama there, no?  On the whole the polls seem to put Ohio more GOP leaning than Colorado, if I remember correctly.

A new poll from a very good non-partisan local pollster has Obama's approval numbers at 39% in Colorado.

http://fciruli.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-approval-39.html

PPP's poll, which tilted a little to the left, had him at 45%, and had him up by 2 points.  PPP had Obama up in Ohio by, I believe, 9 points.  The only sample we have of Colorado is three PPP polls, all of which polled more Democrats than Republicans in a state where Republicans have a 5-point lead in active voter registration.  Unless Team Obama goes bananas in Colorado, he won't win the state.
[/quote]

A blog spot is not a poll. If PPP is overpolling Colorado Democrats, then that may reflect that Colorado is still hemorrhaging support for Republicans. Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia probably still have big positive gaps in favor of Democrats. President Obama is a poor match for those states and he will lose them in 2012.

Colorado is quite possibly the opposite. The state is fairly liberal in its social attitudes and its rapidly-growing Hispanic contingent of its electorate makes the state a potential disaster for Republicans in 2012.