Dick Morris: What Many Polls Are Missing

[Umengus]

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.

agree

[7,052,770]

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.

Osama Bin Laden endorsed Bush's opponent just before the 2004 election. Had that not occured, Bush, probably, would have lost.

It's pretty obvious that OBL preferred Bush in charge, since he knew that Bush wouldn't be able to kill him.  Sure enough...

[ajb]

2004 = the only time the Republicans have won the popular vote in a presidential election since 1988.
So adjusting the turnout to resemble 2004 isn't a question of a return to normal. It's saying that Republicans will match their best performance in nearly a quarter of a century.

[Badger]

Dick morris. Lol.

I love how has epic fail map above labels himself 'political analyst extraordinaire'.

EDIT: My offer still stands, Politico. Time to walk the walk....

[Yank2133]

You know things are getting bad when you start citing Dick Morris.

[nhmagic]

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.

[5280]

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.

You sir speak what I'm thinking about!

[TJ in Oregon]

Romney isn't John McCain either. I know a number of people who voted for McCain who will not vote for Romney.

[opebo]

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.

Dude I'm not going to open up some racist s**t on youtube - you know it tracks you right?

[ajb]

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.

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

[nhmagic]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

[Iosif]

All the polls are wrong, only I know the actual state of the race.

[GMantis]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

Two things:
1. If Obama's policies are so horrible, why wouldn't the Republican party be able to overturn them after the landslide defeat for the Democrats, caused by his horrible policies?
2. You dismiss far too lightly democratic opposition against Bush in 2004. For example, I don't think that any major Republicans have threatened to leave the US if Obama (and yes, I know that was mostly in jest, but it was still indicative).

[pbrower2a]

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.

Manifestly obsolete. Lack of novelty? The President is running on his record, and incumbent pols who can run on their records almost invariably win. Dubya, a really-awful President, won on his and won.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, at least you aren't using 2010 numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...but almost always until recently ahead of Romney and that is what counts. The preponderance of polls suggest that President Obama is significantly ahead. For the election to go to Romney, about everything must go his way until Election Day -- one of those a calamity involving the President.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 'undecided' vote either fails to vote or drifts ineffectively toward the eventual loser -- except during a collapse by the eventual loser.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A 100% break of the undecided toward the challenger? No.

[Mehmentum]

All the polls are wrong, only I know the actual state of the race.

WIN

[DrScholl]

When you have to make up elaborate theories about why polls are all biased and wrong, it's all just rationalization.

[mondale84]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing...

[nhmagic]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

Two things:
1. If Obama's policies are so horrible, why wouldn't the Republican party be able to overturn them after the landslide defeat for the Democrats, caused by his horrible policies?
2. You dismiss far too lightly democratic opposition against Bush in 2004. For example, I don't think that any major Republicans have threatened to leave the US if Obama (and yes, I know that was mostly in jest, but it was still indicative).

1. First, we don't have control of the senate.  Second, his policies are creating a society dependent upon government for every need.  The Julia cartoon says it best.  Once you are dependent, you don't let it go.  Once Obamacare is implemented, it will never be gotten rid of.  Say for example, that it does what we think it will do - cause a shortage of doctors, increase wait times and decrease quality of care.  The people getting free care won't give it up, even if the old level of care was better because its "free".  Every day we don't cut spending brings us closer to the tipping point of economic collapse with our national debt.  That collapse will likely unable to be surmounted.  Also, watch the end of 2016: Obama's America.
2. Where would we go?  This country is it.  There isn't another country in the world that would ever allow the level of economic and personal freedoms allowed by conservatism.  All of the rest are dictatorships or social democracies.  Plus, we love this country.  Unlike democrats, there isn't another country that shares our views and values.  That's why it's easier for democrats to say they'll move to Canada.

[afleitch]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

Two things:
1. If Obama's policies are so horrible, why wouldn't the Republican party be able to overturn them after the landslide defeat for the Democrats, caused by his horrible policies?
2. You dismiss far too lightly democratic opposition against Bush in 2004. For example, I don't think that any major Republicans have threatened to leave the US if Obama (and yes, I know that was mostly in jest, but it was still indicative).

1. First, we don't have control of the senate.  Second, his policies are creating a society dependent upon government for every need.  The Julia cartoon says it best.  Once you are dependent, you don't let it go.  Once Obamacare is implemented, it will never be gotten rid of.  Say for example, that it does what we think it will do - cause a shortage of doctors, increase wait times and decrease quality of care.  The people getting free care won't give it up, even if the old level of care was better because its "free".  Every day we don't cut spending brings us closer to the tipping point of economic collapse with our national debt.  That collapse will likely unable to be surmounted.  Also, watch the end of 2016: Obama's America.
2. Where would we go?  This country is it.  There isn't another country in the world that would ever allow the level of economic and personal freedoms allowed by conservatism.  All of the rest are dictatorships or social democracies.  Plus, we love this country.  Unlike democrats, there isn't another country that shares our views and values.  That's why it's easier for democrats to say they'll move to Canada.

So you think Canada is less free? I would be grateful if you could outline exactly why.

[GMantis]

1. First, we don't have control of the senate.

If the Obama is such a failure as you imagine him, it's not very likely that his control of the senate will extend beyond the next midterms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or maybe they will like being able to get adequate medical care which for many is very difficult today. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The policies proposed by Romney will hardly help with the US national debt either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are quite a few Eastern European countries with a flat tax rate. Though strangely many of their citizens don't seem to appreciate the freedoms they have and want to move to the social democracies of Western Europe.

[Averroës Nix]

Wait, Obama's an incompetent, ineffective buffoon and a malicious anti-colonialist sleeper agent who's deliberately destroying America?

[Chaddyr23]

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!?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wait, you're using Dick Morris to argue for something?

[Sbane]

Once again, it's just eerie to me how much this sounds like what I was thinking at this time in 2004.

I don't know any democrat who thought Bush's policies couldn't be changed or defeated even if he won a second term.  Our belief is that if Obama wins a second term, the policies that are enacted will stay permanently - developing a society that functions around cradle to grave government care that in short time gives way to an economic collapse that tips the balance of power in the world to Russia and China whilst the rest of the western world collapses into chaos. 

The democratic opposition to Bush was for a much less motivating reason.  It was primarily a combination of a feeling of delegitimacy left over from the 2000 election, anti-war protest and support for gay rights.  That's not like the opposition we have to Obama.  It wasn't the end of the country if Bush won a second term.  The country would make its typical cyclical shift between democrats and republicans every 8-12 years.  It certainly did during the 2008 election.  This year truly is different.  The feelings I described in the paragraph above are not just felt by a bubble of conservatives pushing conspiracy theories.  The view is near uniform among every single registered republican, even the republican moderates I know and many independents. 

You have no clue about the anger people felt about Bush in 2004. Hell, I still get angry thinking about it. We were fighting for the morals of the nation! We were fighting for the good name of America, a country that doesn't go around invading people just because it can.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Boy, what a sad thread.

Look.  You have to be pretty damn delusional to see a poll with your candidate behind and then proclaim, "He's winning!"  As others have pointed out, Dick Morris isn't exactly the gold standard in polling analyses.  There are also simply not enough undecided voters that will break for Romney unless Obama completely throws the race away in the debates.  The chances of that happening are, I'd say, quite slim.