Quinnipiac/NYT/CBS Swing State Poll: Obama with big leads in PA, OH & FL

[krazen1211]

Florida D+9! Ohio D+ 8!

Rightttt....

GIGO. Shrug.

I already thought you would complain about the sample. But Quinnipiac asked both questions in this poll: partisan ID and how respondents are registered.

How those "likely voters" are currently registered:

FL: 42% DEM, 36% GOP, 22% IND/OTH
OH: 42% DEM, 35% GOP, 22% IND/OTH
PA: 46% DEM, 40% GOP, 14% IND/OTH

Very similar to the actual voter registration numbers in each state.

But of course you don't like the numbers ...

Well, that's interesting, because Florida is actually only 40% D by registration and most expect a dropoff for the Democrats of 2 points or so when using a likely voter screen. It's very curious to flip that in the opposite direction.

And where precisely did you get your actual voter registration for Ohio?

It doesn't really matter what "most believe". The poll tells us something different.

There is no party registration in OH, but for the other 2.

'The poll' doesn't tell us; rather, those doing the party weighting of the poll do.

Actual calls by 'the poll' show a mere 1% edge for the Democrats in the unweighted sample in Florida and a 4% edge for the Democrats in Ohio. Certainly you and others are entitled to figure that such should translate into a 6/7% edge for the Democrats, but that's on you.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Nah... the Dem advantage is too big in OH and FL.  PA... I can believe a little more. 

I'd say slim leads for Obama in both FL and OH.  +1-2 in FL and +3-4 in OH. 

[Likely Voter]

The rejection of polls you dont like and embracing of those you do thing is becoming an embarrassing cliche.

[Lief 🗽]

The rejection of polls you dont like and embracing of those you do thing is becoming an embarrassing cliche.

Yeah, if this is all this forum is going to be for the next three months then let's just close  it now. It's really tiring to come to this forum to see new polls and see nothing but complaints that the poll is trash because it doesn't conform to their notions of how the sample should be weighed.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The rejection of polls you dont like and embracing of those you do thing is becoming an embarrassing cliche.

Yeah, if this is all this forum is going to be for the next three months then let's just close  it now. It's really tiring to come to this forum to see new polls and see nothing but complaints that the poll is trash because it doesn't conform to their notions of how the sample should be weighed.

The Bawlexus legacy lives on.

[Oakvale]

Huh! I'm starting to think this election may not be decided by how Romney's dressaaaaaaaaaahhhhhge horse performs.

[Tender Branson]

Florida D+9! Ohio D+ 8!

Rightttt....

GIGO. Shrug.

I already thought you would complain about the sample. But Quinnipiac asked both questions in this poll: partisan ID and how respondents are registered.

How those "likely voters" are currently registered:

FL: 42% DEM, 36% GOP, 22% IND/OTH
OH: 42% DEM, 35% GOP, 22% IND/OTH
PA: 46% DEM, 40% GOP, 14% IND/OTH

Very similar to the actual voter registration numbers in each state.

But of course you don't like the numbers ...

Well, that's interesting, because Florida is actually only 40% D by registration and most expect a dropoff for the Democrats of 2 points or so when using a likely voter screen. It's very curious to flip that in the opposite direction.

And where precisely did you get your actual voter registration for Ohio?

It doesn't really matter what "most believe". The poll tells us something different.

There is no party registration in OH, but for the other 2.

'The poll' doesn't tell us; rather, those doing the party weighting of the poll do.

Actual calls by 'the poll' show a mere 1% edge for the Democrats in the unweighted sample in Florida and a 4% edge for the Democrats in Ohio. Certainly you and others are entitled to figure that such should translate into a 6/7% edge for the Democrats, but that's on you.

Well, I guess the folks "weighting" the polls at Quinnipiac know what they are doing.

Otherwise they wouldn't have correctly predicted the Romney+14 win in FL in the primaries and the Romney+1 win in OH. And also their FL 2008 poll was spot on, OH was only off by 2 points and PA was also spot on.

[Tender Branson]

This is also fitting for this thread (coming from Scotty Rasmussen):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

This is also fitting for this thread (coming from Scotty Rasmussen):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he's being generous to the Republicans. When was the last time Republicans actually outnumbered Democrats among the general public? It simply hasn't happened in my lifetime, so Ras is wrong when he says it has.

A party for the rich simply isn't going to have that much real support.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The rejection of polls you dont like and embracing of those you do thing is becoming an embarrassing cliche.

Believe me, I wish these numbers were true.  I think having Democrats with a +9 party ID in Florida and a +8 party ID in Ohio is a little too optimistic.  Nothing wrong with looking at the actual registration numbers and adjusting to get a clearer view of where the race is. 

[Tender Branson]

The rejection of polls you dont like and embracing of those you do thing is becoming an embarrassing cliche.

Believe me, I wish these numbers were true.  I think having Democrats with a +9 party ID in Florida and a +8 party ID in Ohio is a little too optimistic.  Nothing wrong with looking at the actual registration numbers and adjusting to get a clearer view of where the race is.  

The poll actually uses registration numbers that are similar to the current registration in the states:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156770.msg3370217#msg3370217

Party ID is just something very different, many are IDing with Independents in polls because they don't like policies of both candidates, but on election day when the exit pollster comes around they are more likely to be motivated to check a partisan label.

[MorningInAmerica]

Still... anyone want to explain how Florida is D+9 in 2012, but D+3 in 2008? Christian Heinze does a good job of pointing out theproblem with the polls. Also, for those complaining, it's not about trashing polls you don't like. It's about looking at crosstabs and using common sense. Common sense doesn't dictate that in a year with Republican enthusiasm expected to be stronger than in '08, Florida would become 7 points MORE democratic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/08/poll-shows-obama-with-solid-leads-in.html

[Likely Voter]

There is nothing wrong with analyzing polls, of course that is the what this forum should be about. And of course there are variations, outliers and house effects. All of that is natural.

Let's face it, polling is part art part science. And no one really knows what the party ID weighting is going to be in 2012 and other indicators like age, frequency of church going, etc are rarely shown, which are even more important really.

I am talking about the knee-jerk complete rejection of considering every poll with someone's prefered candidate down as "junk poll" and every poll showing a preferred candidate up being trumpeted as god's truth.   

[krazen1211]

Well, I guess the folks "weighting" the polls at Quinnipiac know what they are doing.

Otherwise they wouldn't have correctly predicted the Romney+14 win in FL in the primaries and the Romney+1 win in OH. And also their FL 2008 poll was spot on, OH was only off by 2 points and PA was also spot on.

That's a possibility. That would of course discount that they 'knew what they were doing' a mere 3 months ago when the sample was GOP + 3, and, as to be expected, Romney had a 6 point lead.

At the time, interestingly enough, those results were disputed by Democrats.

Of course on October 23, 2008, Quinnipiac released a poll showing Obama up 14 in Ohio over McCain. Thus, history shows at best that they sometimes know what they are doing.

[krazen1211]

This is also fitting for this thread (coming from Scotty Rasmussen):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he's being generous to the Republicans. When was the last time Republicans actually outnumbered Democrats among the general public? It simply hasn't happened in my lifetime, so Ras is wrong when he says it has.

A party for the rich simply isn't going to have that much real support.

According to what you just quoted, about 5 seconds ago.

[Tender Branson]

Well, I guess the folks "weighting" the polls at Quinnipiac know what they are doing.

Otherwise they wouldn't have correctly predicted the Romney+14 win in FL in the primaries and the Romney+1 win in OH. And also their FL 2008 poll was spot on, OH was only off by 2 points and PA was also spot on.

That's a possibility. That would of course discount that they 'knew what they were doing' a mere 3 months ago when the sample was GOP + 3, and, as to be expected, Romney had a 6 point lead.

At the time, interestingly enough, those results were disputed by Democrats.

Of course on October 23, 2008, Quinnipiac released a poll showing Obama up 14 in Ohio over McCain. Thus, history shows at best that they sometimes know what they are doing.

McCain was basically imploding in the first half of October 2008 ...

And there have been other polls during this period, even in OH, that had Obama up by 10+

Maybe he was really ahead by that much at this time.

[pepper11]

I guarantee neither campaign believes these numbers to be true...

[MorningInAmerica]

Harry Enten of the UK's The Guardian just tweeted this. Little perspective:
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/230747065632825344

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President von Cat]

JUNK POLL CUZ OBAMA HATES FREEDOM

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, I guess the folks "weighting" the polls at Quinnipiac know what they are doing.

Otherwise they wouldn't have correctly predicted the Romney+14 win in FL in the primaries and the Romney+1 win in OH. And also their FL 2008 poll was spot on, OH was only off by 2 points and PA was also spot on.

That's a possibility. That would of course discount that they 'knew what they were doing' a mere 3 months ago when the sample was GOP + 3, and, as to be expected, Romney had a 6 point lead.

At the time, interestingly enough, those results were disputed by Democrats.

Of course on October 23, 2008, Quinnipiac released a poll showing Obama up 14 in Ohio over McCain. Thus, history shows at best that they sometimes know what they are doing.

McCain was basically imploding in the first half of October 2008 ...

And there have been other polls during this period, even in OH, that had Obama up by 10+

Maybe he was really ahead by that much at this time.

There was also a last minute push by a Republican PAC that basically threw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama in OH and Florida and that may account for the reason why they were within the national average, unlike some other swing states.

[pbrower2a]

Basically all Quinnipiac just did was show us how Mitt Romney is performing in a 2008 electorate (D+9, D+8, D+6). I'd be interested in knowing how Romney performs in a likely 2012 electorate.

Romney probably wins with a 2010 electorate.

Nothing says that the 2012 electorate will be essentially more R than that of 2008. Expect the Obama campaign to have an effective GOTV campaign coordinated with unions. The GOP has done nothing to win over young voters. Romney increasingly looks like a bad candidate; his foreign tour was a disaster. 

It is possible to shape an election by shaping the electorate. You can be sure that the Obama campaign will be registering every possible D voter and goading each one to go to the polls. The Tea Party has achieved very little except to offend moderates and liberals. If President Obama and his people can help it far more than "likely (as a group R-leaning) voters" will be voting.

Even if States are sure things, Senate seats and many House seats are not.   

[MorningInAmerica]

Basically all Quinnipiac just did was show us how Mitt Romney is performing in a 2008 electorate (D+9, D+8, D+6). I'd be interested in knowing how Romney performs in a likely 2012 electorate.

Romney probably wins with a 2010 electorate.

Nothing says that the 2012 electorate will be essentially more R than that of 2008. Expect the Obama campaign to have an effective GOTV campaign coordinated with unions. The GOP has done nothing to win over young voters. Romney increasingly looks like a bad candidate; his foreign tour was a disaster.  

It is possible to shape an election by shaping the electorate. You can be sure that the Obama campaign will be registering every possible D voter and goading each one to go to the polls. The Tea Party has achieved very little except to offend moderates and liberals. If President Obama and his people can help it far more than "likely (as a group R-leaning) voters" will be voting.

Even if States are sure things, Senate seats and many House seats are not.    

Hear what you're saying, but it sounds like you're talking yourself into something. I don't see how anyone can believe that the 2012 electorate will be MORE Democratic than the 2008 electorate. Pure and simple.

Remember. Obama has a record now. Much unlike four years ago.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I would prefer to see these type of numbers when Sept or when the Mason Dixon polls come out, these polls are just as useless as the Rasmussen polls that showed the same thing in May, Obama leads in core btg states of OH, FL.