VA: Public Policy Polling: Obama leads all Republicans

[Fuzzybigfoot]

What's up with Ohio again?

[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.   

       

   

[Alcon]

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

Not how statistics work

[Meeker]

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

Not how statistics work

Shhhhh... if you try to destroy the world he's created for himself he might turn violent.

[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.


 

[Alcon]

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.)

[opebo]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[Ebowed]

Why do you say Colorado goes GOP?

He is a Republican from Colorado.

[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.   

[colincb]

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.

Ohio is pretty much a toss-up between Romney and Obama according to 5 polls over the last 90 days. [Quinnipiac 9/28 R+2;  PPP 10/18 tie;  Quinnipiac 10/26 D+4;  PPP 10/9 D+9; and Quinnipiac 12/8 R+1].  Gingrich trailed Romney's results by 2% and 4% in the last two polls.

CO has only had one poll during the last 90 days by PPP on 12/7 with D+2 vs Romney and D+7 and at the 50% threshold vs Gingrich.  Obama led Romney in two earlier PPP polls for CO by 6-7%.

[backtored]

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.


[/quote]

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.

[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.   

[Alcon]

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.  

Do you realize that your response has nothing to do with my post?

[backtored]

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.

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.   
[/quote]

Ciruli Associates is not a "blog spot," it's a highly reputable Colorado pollster. 

And, no, the GOP has actually gained in registration since Obama took office.  As I mentioned, Republicans currently hold a 5-point active registration advantage over Democrats (and a much larger margin over unaffiliated voters).  So PPP's poll simply over-samples Democrats.  That's fine, I suppose.  But you just have to consider that when analyzing the PPP polls out of Colorado.  And if you take a Democrat-leaning poll that has Obama up only 2 and another poll with his approval numbers at only 39% in Colorado, you have a big Obama loss in Colorado.

[colincb]

A poll about approval doesn't mean too much.  Obama has to run against somebody and both Romney and Gingrich don't have high approval ratings in CO either according to the same pollster.

As far as party ID who knows. It's all a crap shoot if you ask me whether one poll in the last 4 months with results within the MOE is reasonable or not 11+ months from election day 2012. Most have it as a toss-up and I haven't seen anything in this thread or in polling to indicate it's not.

[Lambsbread]

I know i'm a little late to the party, but I enjoy the fact that Ron Paul is the GOP's second strongest candidate in VA, just slightly behind Mittens.

[memphis]

I know i'm a little late to the party, but I enjoy the fact that Ron Paul is the GOP's second strongest candidate in VA, just slightly behind Mittens.

Just wait until people find out he wants to gut the military and benefits for seniors. That's not going to play well in any state,

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I know i'm a little late to the party, but I enjoy the fact that Ron Paul is the GOP's second strongest candidate in VA, just slightly behind Mittens.

Just wait until people find out he wants to gut the military and benefits for seniors. That's not going to play well in any state,

Especially not in Virginia - watch him get gutted even more than others in places like NOVA; and Virginia Beach won't be kind either.