North Carolina PPP: Obama 49 Romney 46

[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).

[MorningInAmerica]

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

[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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[MorningInAmerica]

Absolutely, polling averages can be wrong. But I'll take polling averages over PPP. Anyone that wants can take PPP.