MI: Public Policy Polling: "Not a Swing State"

[RI]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RI]

New Poll: Michigan President by Public Policy Polling on 2012-10-31

Summary: D: 53%, R: 45%, I: 0%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Lief 🗽]

Wow. Fantastic result!

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.  I don't think MI is a swing state. 

[Lief 🗽]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Thank God, a real MI poll

[Smid]

But... but... but... I hear Obama is buying advertising here...

[Fargobison]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.  I don't think MI is a swing state.  

I think it is a bit larger than what Silver is accounting for, they've been pretty optimistic for Obama as of late.  

That said Scott Rasmussen called Michigan a Republican fantasy, so this certainly fits that narrative.

[Sbane]

The fact that MI and PA are kind of close but not really that close are a good sign for Obama in regards to the EV/PV split. Also the weak polling for him from California and Oregon are another good sign.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Finally, a poll out of Michigan that's not a no-name with decimals in their results.  

MI and WI were fairly close in result in 2008, with MI about 3 pts better for Obama, can't see anything too unbelievable in MI O+8 and WI O+5.  

PPP is going to build a hell of a reputation for themselves after this one.  Their results are consistent and believable across the board.  

[Eraserhead]

The fact that MI and PA are kind of close but not really that close are a good sign for Obama in regards to the EV/PV split. Also the weak polling for him from California and Oregon are another good sign.

Yeah, although I'm starting to think Obama will win the popular vote too at this point.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan Survey Results

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not quite 2008, but out of reach for Romney. Republicans can have a near-tie as in 2000 nationwide when the Democratic nominee wins the state by 5. Up by 8? Democrats are winning the popular vote by about 5.

High single digits, quick call once the counties along the WI close (Central as opposed to Eastern time)  about as some suburban and urban districts call in.   

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.  I don't think MI is a swing state.  

Fairly large house effect? This isn't even a straight independent PPP Poll. It's a PPP poll for some "progressive" PAC called Health Care Action Now. The "cross tabs" include percentages, but not raw numbers. There's a reason none of these PPP/HCAN  have crept into the RCP average.

Look, at the end of the day, Obama should win Michigan. But I am shocked with the stock put in this pollster from the folks on this board given the fact that it's not an independent poll.

[J. J.]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently. 

[Seriously?]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently. 

These PPP polls are sauced. They have to be to make the client happy.

For the most part, they are at the outer range of the Obama turnout model. I know I am going to get flack from the PPP-loving peanut gallery, however, I challenge them to point me to the portion of poll methodology where PPP in this instance hasn't adjusted for Party ID.

[Lief 🗽]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently.  

Huh? PPP's NC is backed up by Elon and Civitas, two other polling firms actually based in the state. SUSA (which is horrible in NC) and Rasmussen (which is Rasmussen) disagree there. And PPP hasn't polled Missouri in almost two weeks.

[ajb]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently. 

These PPP polls are sauced. They have to be to make the client happy.

For the most part, they are at the outer range of the Obama turnout model. I know I am going to get flack from the PPP-loving peanut gallery, however, I challenge them to point me to the portion of poll methodology where PPP in this instance hasn't adjusted for Party ID.

Your syntax is a little unclear here, but I'm guessing that you're suggesting that the Party ID numbers here are too D-friendly, and could only be the result of a deliberate weighting.
One of the questions I'd have  here, is why a partisan poll would want to inflate numbers just days before an election. Wouldn't that have the effect of discouraging turnout? It seems to me that a partisan Democratic poll of Michigan right now, would actually say that Obama was ahead by 3 -- enough to make it seem like he can still win, but not so much as to breed complacency.

[Smid]

According to the "Approval+6" rule, this poll seems to be bad news for Obama - he's down five points on where he should be with a 52% approval rating... Or have I got it around the wrong way and it's under-polled Obama supporters, and he's actually five points up on what the poll says?

[Seriously?]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently. 

These PPP polls are sauced. They have to be to make the client happy.

For the most part, they are at the outer range of the Obama turnout model. I know I am going to get flack from the PPP-loving peanut gallery, however, I challenge them to point me to the portion of poll methodology where PPP in this instance hasn't adjusted for Party ID.

Your syntax is a little unclear here, but I'm guessing that you're suggesting that the Party ID numbers here are too D-friendly, and could only be the result of a deliberate weighting.
One of the questions I'd have  here, is why a partisan poll would want to inflate numbers just days before an election. Wouldn't that have the effect of discouraging turnout? It seems to me that a partisan Democratic poll of Michigan right now, would actually say that Obama was ahead by 3 -- enough to make it seem like he can still win, but not so much as to breed complacency.

Simply: To combat the narrative that this wave toward Romney is occurring in states like Michigan. The tidal wave narrative is a bad one because enough momentum can be built up where states start to snowball out of control for Obama if the perception is that the tide has turned and a Romney victory is inevitable.

Instead, you show that the wave has been knocked down to size.

Democrats don't need to ramp up turnout in Michigan. Obama should win it either way.

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.  I don't think MI is a swing state. 

What about the PPP OH polls you frequently cited, which generally skewed 4 points more R than other polls and were comparable to Rassy?

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.  I don't think MI is a swing state. 

What about the PPP OH polls you frequently cited, which generally skewed 4 points more R than other polls and were comparable to Rassy?

J.J.'s 5th Rule of Elections: The most Republican poll is accurate.

[Niemeyerite]

An 8-point lead is good news for Obama, bad for Romney. (Even if you believe PPP is a hackish pollster with a huge house effect, [insert Cliffy opinion here], [insert Dirks non-sense here]...) Romney won't win here, so he'd better spend his money in other swing states.
End of the story.

[Seriously?]

An 8-point lead is good news for Obama, bad for Romney. (Even if you believe PPP is a hackish pollster with a huge house effect, [insert Cliffy opinion here], [insert Dirks non-sense here]...) Romney won't win here, so he'd better spend his money in other swing states.
End of the story.

I never said Obama wasn't going to win in Michigan. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise.

With that said, there is a legitimate gripe against the PPP/HCAN polls in that they are polls done for a PAC and should be treated as such. That's merely my point here.