PPP- Obama 49, Romney 46 in Virginia

[Devils30]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

[Eraserhead]

Pollsters probably shouldn't be polling here right now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Pollsters probably shouldn't be polling here right now.

Ethics or practicalities?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Pollsters probably shouldn't be polling here right now.

Ethics or practicalities?

I'd say both, but not nearly to the extent of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.

[Devils30]

Virginia got a ton of rain but little lasting damage, don't think things were really affected. Sure, PPP will poll it again this weekend.

[Seriously?]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

[Eraserhead]

Pollsters probably shouldn't be polling here right now.

Ethics or practicalities?

Both.

[ajb]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

[Eraserhead]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Obama isn't the one who has to win the state.

[Devils30]

I don't think its implausible as a plan B for Obama in case Ohio goes horribly wrong.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Another state PPP hit spot on in 2008.  

I don't think VA got hit by Sandy quite as bad.  Those blizzards were pretty awful, though.  How much of that spilled over into VA?

[Seriously?]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

Take out the special sauce in this D+7 poll and this race is not even close. Yes, I know you're going to come back and claim that PPP would NEVER sauce their polls like Rasmussen does, but please find me a methodology in that release that assumes otherwise. Hint: the "cross-tabs" just show percentages. Looks like bad advocacy polling to me.

[ajb]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

Take out the special sauce in this D+7 poll and this race is not even close. Yes, I know you're going to come back and claim that PPP would NEVER sauce their polls like Rasmussen does, but please find me a methodology in that release that assumes otherwise. Hint: the "cross-tabs" just show percentages. Looks like bad advocacy polling to me.

Do you have any thoughts on why you believe PPP has "sauced" this poll, but chose not to sauce it further, as presumably you think they did with their last VA poll, one week ago, which had Obama up by 5? If they're faking results, why not be more ambitious?

[philly09]

From PPP Twitter
Key reason Obama's holding up well in Virginia- his 17 pt deficit with white voters there is less than 22 nationally:


Obama has big leads in Virginia with women (56/39), African Americans (86/11), and voters under 45 (53/41):

Romney leads in Virginia with men (56/40), seniors (52/45), and whites (56/39)

[Seriously?]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

Take out the special sauce in this D+7 poll and this race is not even close. Yes, I know you're going to come back and claim that PPP would NEVER sauce their polls like Rasmussen does, but please find me a methodology in that release that assumes otherwise. Hint: the "cross-tabs" just show percentages. Looks like bad advocacy polling to me.

Do you have any thoughts on why you believe PPP has "sauced" this poll, but chose not to sauce it further, as presumably you think they did with their last VA poll, one week ago, which had Obama up by 5? If they're faking results, why not be more ambitious?

1) They are getting paid to release this result by a third-party advocacy group, which is blindly overlooked.
2) Their cross tabs are not real crosstabs. There is no raw data count.
3) There is no methodology attached to the release other than it was poll of 600 likely voters.
4) The D+7 sample is one point greater than the 2008 exit poll in an election that has moved seven points in the opposite direction.

[ajb]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

Take out the special sauce in this D+7 poll and this race is not even close. Yes, I know you're going to come back and claim that PPP would NEVER sauce their polls like Rasmussen does, but please find me a methodology in that release that assumes otherwise. Hint: the "cross-tabs" just show percentages. Looks like bad advocacy polling to me.

Do you have any thoughts on why you believe PPP has "sauced" this poll, but chose not to sauce it further, as presumably you think they did with their last VA poll, one week ago, which had Obama up by 5? If they're faking results, why not be more ambitious?

1) They are getting paid to release this result by a third-party advocacy group, which is blindly overlooked.
2) Their cross tabs are not real crosstabs. There is no raw data count.
3) There is no methodology attached to the release other than it was poll of 600 likely voters.
4) The D+7 sample is one point greater than the 2008 exit poll in an election that has moved seven points in the opposite direction.

So, no. You don't have any thoughts on the question I asked.

[Seriously?]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

Take out the special sauce in this D+7 poll and this race is not even close. Yes, I know you're going to come back and claim that PPP would NEVER sauce their polls like Rasmussen does, but please find me a methodology in that release that assumes otherwise. Hint: the "cross-tabs" just show percentages. Looks like bad advocacy polling to me.

Do you have any thoughts on why you believe PPP has "sauced" this poll, but chose not to sauce it further, as presumably you think they did with their last VA poll, one week ago, which had Obama up by 5? If they're faking results, why not be more ambitious?

1) They are getting paid to release this result by a third-party advocacy group, which is blindly overlooked.
2) Their cross tabs are not real crosstabs. There is no raw data count.
3) There is no methodology attached to the release other than it was poll of 600 likely voters.
4) The D+7 sample is one point greater than the 2008 exit poll in an election that has moved seven points in the opposite direction.

So, no. You don't have any thoughts on the question I asked.

The 10/25 poll (and the polls before it) was done for the same PAC. These polls should be treated with the same level of skepticism of any other release by a pollster for a PAC.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-lead-in-virginia-up-to-5-points.html

[ajb]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-leads-by-3-in-virginia-1.html

Let me get this straight. PPP does a poll for a left-leaning PAC (Healthcare For America Now) and the best they can come up with is a 3-point Obama lead? How is this exactly a good thing for the Democrats on this board?

Um, because it's a lead in a state that Romney needs to win, but Obama doesn't?

Take out the special sauce in this D+7 poll and this race is not even close. Yes, I know you're going to come back and claim that PPP would NEVER sauce their polls like Rasmussen does, but please find me a methodology in that release that assumes otherwise. Hint: the "cross-tabs" just show percentages. Looks like bad advocacy polling to me.

Do you have any thoughts on why you believe PPP has "sauced" this poll, but chose not to sauce it further, as presumably you think they did with their last VA poll, one week ago, which had Obama up by 5? If they're faking results, why not be more ambitious?

1) They are getting paid to release this result by a third-party advocacy group, which is blindly overlooked.
2) Their cross tabs are not real crosstabs. There is no raw data count.
3) There is no methodology attached to the release other than it was poll of 600 likely voters.
4) The D+7 sample is one point greater than the 2008 exit poll in an election that has moved seven points in the opposite direction.

So, no. You don't have any thoughts on the question I asked.

The 10/25 poll (and the polls before it) was done for the same PAC. These polls should be treated with the same level of skepticism of any other release by a pollster for a PAC.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-lead-in-virginia-up-to-5-points.html

You're still  not getting what I'm saying. Look, when you make your point about "there are no real crosstabs," I'm guessing that you're hinting that they just made these numbers up. (That doesn't really seem like much of an argument -- the raw numbers would take an extra 30 seconds to add to the data, but whatever). In any event, you're assuming that they're faking their numbers somehow, whether by weighting incorrectly for partisan ID (and then lying about it), or by just making stuff up.
I'm fine with all of that. But, if you're going to go to all the trouble of making up a fake poll to show your guy ahead, why not be a little more ambitious? Why not, in particular, show him at least holding steady with the (presumably also fake) number you came up with just last week?

Republicans often seem to take the hardest possible path to challenging polls they don't like. With this one, it'd be perfectly easy to say, "strong momentum for Romney in the final week, even in a poll unfriendly to him." Because yeah, this poll suggests momentum towards Romney in Virginia. But instead of going that route, you want to take this much harder road, which leaves you without an explanation of why PPP is showing momentum for Romney in VA.

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In reality, a 2% shift is nothing other than statistical noise to me. It's the underlying methodology, which from this particular pollster I can legitimately question.

I do not for a second believe that PPP "made up" this poll. They likely just set it up for the result most favorable for their client.

It's plausible that VA goes D+7 in this election with certain turnout assumptions. I don't think the Dems are achieving those targets though given the early vote data from other states and the (lack of) favorable raw number turnout from the Virginia SoS where early voting is behind the '08 pace.

[J. J.]

I have to say that look at PPP in NC, and comparing it to the early voting, they appear to have a very strong Democratic house effect.  Also comparing it to the other polls in MO, there seems tp be the same effect.

PPP is a good outfit, but has had a D lean in the past.  I think it has gotten stronger.  

[ajb]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In reality, a 2% shift is nothing other than statistical noise to me. It's the underlying methodology, which from this particular pollster I can legitimately question.

I do not for a second believe that PPP "made up" this poll. They likely just set it up for the result most favorable for their client.

It's plausible that VA goes D+7 in this election with certain turnout assumptions. I don't think the Dems are achieving those targets though given the early vote data from other states and the (lack of) favorable raw number turnout from the Virginia SoS where early voting is behind the '08 pace.

Well, OK, then. Those are more plausible arguments than you were making before.
The question is, what to do with all the polls? My own preference is to average them all out -- there's evidence that that leads to a more reliable prediction of the outcome than following any one poll, no matter how good or bad. No matter how you average it, VA is awfully close. And it's still a state Romney needs, and Obama doesn't.