NM: Public Policy Polling: Obama leads by nine

[RI]

New Poll: New Mexico President by Public Policy Polling on 2012-10-04

Summary: D: 52%, R: 43%, I: 0%, U: 5%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Reds4]

Actually a little closer than I would have expected.. huge Romney lead among Independents.

[Likely Voter]

That's a 2% Romney improvement from their poll from a month ago

[King]

Good numbers for Mitt.  New Mexico would definitely be a state where debate bounce would sway voters.  I don't think it's worth coming back for 5 EVs unless Mitt found himself sitting at 265 with a week to go and need to sway a state quickly.

[Umengus]

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

[Oakvale]

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Please, please stop.

[Umengus]

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Please, please stop.

facts are stubborn things

(and you can ignore me)

[Oakvale]

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Party id: D +22 (2008= D +16)

After analyse, this poll is completely different compared to 2008 so...

2008

Obama: D +82 R -83 I +15

2012

Obama: D +63 R -68 I -13

Please, please stop.

facts are stubborn things

(and you can ignore me)

Yes, true, I could technically put you on my ignore list, but I feel it's my duty to my fellow forum members to do my bit to get you to stop posting this crap.

[opebo]

I don't think it's worth coming back for 5 EVs unless Mitt found himself sitting at 265 with a week to go and need to sway a state quickly.

If he's in that situation he's doomed, most likely (though I doubt he'll be in that situation, as I believe he'll win handily nationally).  Sure, you can see national swings in New Mexico numbers, the swing is definitely to Romney nationally, and he'll win because of this in several racist white states (crucially OH/FL/VA), but to extrapolate that he might win a plurality Hispanic state just because of a couple point swing is, well, very unrealistic.

[Vosem]

Yes, true, I could technically put you on my ignore list, but I feel it's my duty to my fellow forum members to do my bit to get you to stop posting this crap.

Certainly not to this forum member; if weird things are happening with party ID someone should point it out.

[Oakvale]

Yes, true, I could technically put you on my ignore list, but I feel it's my duty to my fellow forum members to do my bit to get you to stop posting this crap.

Certainly not to this forum member; if weird things are happening with party ID someone should point it out.

Sigh. We've been over and over this party ID stuff time and time again. Unless you've literally got a sample that's 100% D and 0% R or something it's a total waste of time - do any pollsters other than Rasmussen even weight by party ID?

[MorningInAmerica]

Yes, true, I could technically put you on my ignore list, but I feel it's my duty to my fellow forum members to do my bit to get you to stop posting this crap.

Certainly not to this forum member; if weird things are happening with party ID someone should point it out.

Sigh. We've been over and over this party ID stuff time and time again. Unless you've literally got a sample that's 100% D and 0% R or something it's a total waste of time - do any pollsters other than Rasmussen even weight by party ID?

Oakvale, thanks, but no thanks. Party ID being irrelevant is something that has been way overstated here. Sure, it fluctuates, and can be a reflection of the top line, but you can apply political science to determine whether or not Obama is going to carry Virginia by 17 points, as NBC Marist showed earlier this year. You can also apply a bit of common sense to figure out whether or not Ohio is going to see D+10 turnout or greater, or whether Florida will be R+5 or not.  So please, how about everyone stop telling each other what we can and can't post about regarding these polls? This is a polling forum for gods sake.

Oh, and by the way, if Party ID is so irrelevant, then why do so many people talk about it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/328884/particulars-polls-michael-barone
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/328469/why-party-id-matters-and-why-pollsters-avert-their-eyes
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145463/Democratic-Party-Drops-2010-Tying-Year-Low.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/Record-High-Americans-Identify-Independents.aspx
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-tilted-toward-obama_653067.html

[Vosem]

Oh, and by the way, if Party ID is so irrelevant, then why do so many people talk about it?

Party ID is certainly relevant if you have rather unusual numbers, but this is a rather bad way to argue it...

[King]

MorninginPolljunk, it's quite simple.  The links you post prove our point.  When party id shifted to Republicans in 2010, NOBODY said the pollsters were in bed with the GOP manipulating polls. It was a sign that midterm electorate had shifted right. Guess what? It means the same thing the other direction. 

[MorningInAmerica]

MorninginPolljunk, it's quite simple.  The links you post prove our point.  When party id shifted to Republicans in 2010, NOBODY said the pollsters were in bed with the GOP manipulating polls. It was a sign that midterm electorate had shifted right. Guess what? It means the same thing the other direction.  

Wait. The point being made is that party ID is irrelevant, KingSquishyMod. I'm not exactly sure how ANY of the links I posted confirm that. Second, I'm not making the point you seem to think I'm making. I'm saying that Oakvale's (and others) requests to halt ALL talk of party ID is simply ridiculous because A) Why would any anonymous internet poster let any other anonymous internet poster tell them what they can post or talk about? B) Just like ethnicity, age, favorability, job approval, etc....party ID is a topic you should expect to hear about when discussing and analyzing polls in a internet forum. The faux outrage over discussion of how likely voters are identifying with a political party is just that - fake. It's a meme to jump on. A bandwagon to join.

PS - since you made a point that I wasn't making, I'd like to respond to that point. I agree with you that these pollsters are finding more Democratic electorates. I'm just not buying that they will look that way in 4 weeks. King, lets meet again and discuss Ohio party ID after the election. Can't wait to see if those D+10 samples really pan out.

[Likely Voter]

Party ID is not irrelevant. In fact it is an interesting measure of voter attitudes. It should be looked at like approval rating or right track/wrong track. It is not however a tool to analyze the accuracy of a poll.

[Umengus]

Party ID is not irrelevant. In fact it is an interesting measure of voter attitudes. It should be looked at like approval rating or right track/wrong track. It is not however a tool to analyze the accuracy of a poll.

the problem is there is a very strong correlation between the obama score and the D advantage in the sample. Generally: a sample with D+10 and you will have Obama +9 and so on...

COnsidering I'm pretty sure that the sample will not be D+10, I disagree with Obama +9.

For now, some (bad) pollsters show a very big democratic turnout (greater than in 2008 !). I strongly oppose that!

I remember than in 2004 (the golden age of this forum), all nationals polls were corrected by vorlon with a rational party id.

And in 2004 and 2008, Rasmussen gave the final result.

[Franzl]

Party ID is not irrelevant. In fact it is an interesting measure of voter attitudes. It should be looked at like approval rating or right track/wrong track. It is not however a tool to analyze the accuracy of a poll.

the problem is there is a very strong correlation between the obama score and the D advantage in the sample. Generally: a sample with D+10 and you will have Obama +9 and so on...

COnsidering I'm pretty sure that the sample will not be D+10, I disagree with Obama +9.

For now, some (bad) pollsters show a very big democratic turnout (greater than in 2008 !). I strongly oppose that!

Well of course you "oppose" high turnout. You support Republicans.

[Umengus]

Party ID is not irrelevant. In fact it is an interesting measure of voter attitudes. It should be looked at like approval rating or right track/wrong track. It is not however a tool to analyze the accuracy of a poll.

the problem is there is a very strong correlation between the obama score and the D advantage in the sample. Generally: a sample with D+10 and you will have Obama +9 and so on...

COnsidering I'm pretty sure that the sample will not be D+10, I disagree with Obama +9.

For now, some (bad) pollsters show a very big democratic turnout (greater than in 2008 !). I strongly oppose that!

Well of course you "oppose" high turnout. You support Republicans.

I oppose strong democratic turnout indeed. 2008 was The exception. Not the normal.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No Gary?

[TheGlobalizer]

Johnson will take mid-high single digits here, and has popularity among moderate Dems, so not sure what to do with this poll.  Obama certainly leads but turnout could shift a lot.  If Romney gets a little nicer on immigration issues (just being a pragmatist rather than an ideologue would help), NM could approach being in play.

[opebo]

...NM could approach being in play.

Oh come on.  Be serious.  Its like 45% white!

[TheGlobalizer]

...NM could approach being in play.

Oh come on.  Be serious.  Its like 45% white!

Hispanics here are not all immigrants.  Many families predate the US so they distribute more normally than other immigrant-heavy Hispanic populations.

[opebo]

...NM could approach being in play.

Oh come on.  Be serious.  Its like 45% white!

Hispanics here are not all immigrants.  Many families predate the US so they distribute more normally than other immigrant-heavy Hispanic populations.

Yeah, yeah.  No chance in NM.  I'm quite willing to believe Romney will win the election, but he'll do it solely based on whites.  That's his strategy, after all.

[TheGlobalizer]

...NM could approach being in play.

Oh come on.  Be serious.  Its like 45% white!

Hispanics here are not all immigrants.  Many families predate the US so they distribute more normally than other immigrant-heavy Hispanic populations.

Yeah, yeah.  No chance in NM.  I'm quite willing to believe Romney will win the election, but he'll do it solely based on whites.  That's his strategy, after all.

I don't disagree.  Wish he'd lay off the veiled racism, especially with his Mexican roots, since there's a very good pragmatic case for meaningful immigration reform.