North Carolina PPP: Obama 49 Romney 46

[Minnesota Mike]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_080712.pdf

[MorningInAmerica]

Party ID is 45D/33R%. If this is a likely voter poll, then that's a bit skewed. Party turnout in 2008 was D+11. Hard for me to see NC having higher Dem turnout this fall then it did four falls ago (or then it ever has since exit polls were taken).

[Minnesota Mike]

Party ID is 45D/33R%. If this is a likely voter poll, then that's a bit skewed. Party turnout in 2008 was D+11. Hard for me to see NC having higher Dem turnout this fall then it did four falls ago (or then it ever has since exit polls were taken).

Actual Party Registration in NC is Dem 43 Rep 31, I see no problem with the Party ID in this poll.

[MorningInAmerica]

True, but this poll isn't of registered voters.

[pepper11]

Female + 8???  Surely there can't be that many women in NC. You would think getting gender at least close to even would be straightforward. Not with PPP.

[Miles]

Female + 8???  Surely there can't be that many women in NC. You would think getting gender at least close to even would be straightforward. Not with PPP.

2008 was 54 Female 46 Male, so...

[Minnesota Mike]

True, but this poll isn't of registered voters.

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

BTW If you want to nitpick the crosstabs you could also say the poll is to old and to white.

[Alcon]

True, but this poll isn't of registered voters.

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

BTW If you want to nitpick the crosstabs you could also say the poll is to old and to white.

I believe FiveThirtyEight is currently estimating, using historical data, about Republican +3 in LVs versus RVs.

[Minnesota Mike]

Female + 8???  Surely there can't be that many women in NC. You would think getting gender at least close to even would be straightforward. Not with PPP.

2008 was 54 Female 46 Male, so...

And Nationally it was 53 Female 47 Male.  Female +8 is reasonable and even if you adjust it down a couple of points it barely changes the top line.

[MorningInAmerica]

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

I'm pointing out that the poll assuming higher Democratic turnout than in 2008. How did you not get that out of my original post? There have been plenty of polls that indicate Democratic enthusiasm is down from 2008, not to mention that 2008 was a stand-out, record breaking year for Democrats to begin with (see the chart in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-skewed-toward-obama_648770.html). That is why I find polls that indicate higher Democratic turnout than 2008 to be a bit suspicious. Now what evidence do you have that Democratic turnout will be GREATER this fall than four years ago?

[Umengus]

True, but this poll isn't of registered voters.

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

BTW If you want to nitpick the crosstabs you could also say the poll is to old and to white.

History... lol

Adults are more D than RV, RV are more D than LV...

[Umengus]

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

I'm pointing out that the poll assuming higher Democratic turnout than in 2008. How did you not get that out of my original post? There have been plenty of polls that indicate Democratic enthusiasm is down from 2008, not to mention that 2008 was a stand-out, record breaking year for Democrats to begin with (see the chart in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-skewed-toward-obama_648770.html). That is why I find polls that indicate higher Democratic turnout than 2008 to be a bit suspicious. Now what evidence do you have that Democratic turnout will be GREATER this fall than four years ago?

a bit ? lol

[Minnesota Mike]

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

I'm pointing out that the poll assuming higher Democratic turnout than in 2008. How did you not get that out of my original post? There have been plenty of polls that indicate Democratic enthusiasm is down from 2008, not to mention that 2008 was a stand-out, record breaking year for Democrats to begin with (see the chart in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-skewed-toward-obama_648770.html). That is why I find polls that indicate higher Democratic turnout that 2008 to be a bit suspicious. Now what evidence do you have that Democratic turnout will be GREATER this fall than four years ago?

I did say significantly more Republican. A point or two one way or the other in the crosstabs is just statistical noise

[pepper11]

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

I'm pointing out that the poll assuming higher Democratic turnout than in 2008. How did you not get that out of my original post? There have been plenty of polls that indicate Democratic enthusiasm is down from 2008, not to mention that 2008 was a stand-out, record breaking year for Democrats to begin with (see the chart in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-skewed-toward-obama_648770.html). That is why I find polls that indicate higher Democratic turnout that 2008 to be a bit suspicious. Now what evidence do you have that Democratic turnout will be GREATER this fall than four years ago?

I did say significantly more Republican. A point or two one way or the other in the crosstabs is just statistical noise

Statistical noise would not always lean dem, as it does with ppp.

[MorningInAmerica]

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

I'm pointing out that the poll assuming higher Democratic turnout than in 2008. How did you not get that out of my original post? There have been plenty of polls that indicate Democratic enthusiasm is down from 2008, not to mention that 2008 was a stand-out, record breaking year for Democrats to begin with (see the chart in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-skewed-toward-obama_648770.html). That is why I find polls that indicate higher Democratic turnout that 2008 to be a bit suspicious. Now what evidence do you have that Democratic turnout will be GREATER this fall than four years ago?

I did say significantly more Republican. A point or two one way or the other in the crosstabs is just statistical noise

Possibly. But there's a big difference between PPPs D+12 and 2004s R+1 in North Carolina (when, by the way, party registration was 46% D, 34% R, same net difference as the numbers you pointed out from 2008). http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/webapps/voter_stats/results.aspx?date=01-01-2005

[Smash255]

What evidence is there that likely voters are significantly more Republican registered voters? Any difference is likely to be very slight and make little difference on the top line.

I'm pointing out that the poll assuming higher Democratic turnout than in 2008. How did you not get that out of my original post? There have been plenty of polls that indicate Democratic enthusiasm is down from 2008, not to mention that 2008 was a stand-out, record breaking year for Democrats to begin with (see the chart in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-skewed-toward-obama_648770.html). That is why I find polls that indicate higher Democratic turnout that 2008 to be a bit suspicious. Now what evidence do you have that Democratic turnout will be GREATER this fall than four years ago?

I did say significantly more Republican. A point or two one way or the other in the crosstabs is just statistical noise

Possibly. But there's a big difference between PPPs D+12 and 2004s R+1 in North Carolina (when, by the way, party registration was 46% D, 34% R, same net difference as the numbers you pointed out from 2008). http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/webapps/voter_stats/results.aspx?date=01-01-2005

In some states you will see party id's closer in line with the 2004 #'s, than the 2008 #'s.  A state like NC though I think you will see it more in line with 2008 than 2004.  While turnout advantages might be down with some groups, keep in mind you still have the transplant influx.

[ajc0918]

Well it looks like North Carolina is still a tossup, which is surprising. I expected it to be at least Romney +5.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How many times does PPP have to prove itself for some people to stop questioning its results?

[MorningInAmerica]

How many times does PPP have to prove itself for some people to stop questioning its results?

Stop questioning their results? Isn't that kind of like saying "just blindly believe"? When is that healthy to do to any polling firm? But since you asked, this is why I question PPPs results: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

Note that this article is from June 2012, just a few weeks ago, thus  much more recent than Nate Silver's July 2010 and November 2010 rankings.

[xavier110]

How many times does PPP have to prove itself for some people to stop questioning its results?

Stop questioning their results? Isn't that kind of like saying "just blindly believe"? When is that healthy to do to any polling firm? But since you asked, this is why I question PPPs results: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

Note that this article is from June 2012, just a few weeks ago, thus  much more recent than Nate Silver's July 2010 and November 2010 rankings.

But house effects are not necessarily bad things? PPP having a Democratic house effect (which is just the firm's lean in comparison to the collective polling average) works to its benefit when the polls skew too Republican--Nevada/Colorado/Illinois 2010 races, etc. In most of the competitive statewide races in 2010 the Republican lead was overstated. I don't see why this would necessarily be much different in 2012, considering PPP's solid track record especially when compared to the highly schizophrenic Rasmussen results, but we shall see.

[krazen1211]

Lol, PPP is at it again.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Lol, PPP is at it again.

Nobody with half a brain (or more) is disputing that North Carolina is a swing state. And considering this poll is within the margin of error...

[krazen1211]

Lol, PPP is at it again.

Nobody with half a brain (or more) is disputing that North Carolina is a swing state. And considering this poll is within the margin of error...

Nobody said either. It's merely an observation, based on real results in Wisconsin and PPP's polls in Iowa, Colorado, Michigan, to name a few, that PPP is putting out polls 4-5 points to the left of others consistently.

Why? You tell me.

[MorningInAmerica]

How many times does PPP have to prove itself for some people to stop questioning its results?

Stop questioning their results? Isn't that kind of like saying "just blindly believe"? When is that healthy to do to any polling firm? But since you asked, this is why I question PPPs results: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

Note that this article is from June 2012, just a few weeks ago, thus  much more recent than Nate Silver's July 2010 and November 2010 rankings.

But house effects are not necessarily bad things? PPP having a Democratic house effect (which is just the firm's lean in comparison to the collective polling average) works to its benefit when the polls skew too Republican--Nevada/Colorado/Illinois 2010 races, etc. In most of the competitive statewide races in 2010 the Republican lead was overstated. I don't see why this would necessarily be much different in 2012, considering PPP's solid track record especially when compared to the highly schizophrenic Rasmussen results, but we shall see.

This is from the actual article I posted: The philosophy of the model is simply to strip most of the house effect out of the poll. So a Public Policy Polling survey that showed Barack Obama ahead by seven points in Colorado would be treated as more like a four point lead for Mr. Obama once its house effect is accounted for.

How is that not directly applicable here?

[xavier110]

How many times does PPP have to prove itself for some people to stop questioning its results?

Stop questioning their results? Isn't that kind of like saying "just blindly believe"? When is that healthy to do to any polling firm? But since you asked, this is why I question PPPs results: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

Note that this article is from June 2012, just a few weeks ago, thus  much more recent than Nate Silver's July 2010 and November 2010 rankings.

But house effects are not necessarily bad things? PPP having a Democratic house effect (which is just the firm's lean in comparison to the collective polling average) works to its benefit when the polls skew too Republican--Nevada/Colorado/Illinois 2010 races, etc. In most of the competitive statewide races in 2010 the Republican lead was overstated. I don't see why this would necessarily be much different in 2012, considering PPP's solid track record especially when compared to the highly schizophrenic Rasmussen results, but we shall see.

This is from the actual article I posted: The philosophy of the model is simply to strip most of the house effect out of the poll. So a Public Policy Polling survey that showed Barack Obama ahead by seven points in Colorado would be treated as more like a four point lead for Mr. Obama once its house effect is accounted for.

How is that not directly applicable here?

That's only confirming that according to polling averages, PPP skews Democratic so the model treats it as such. But polling averages can be wrong, and in the most recent swing polling of 2010/2008--the polling averages often tilted too Republican and lowballed Democratic numbers.