PPP-National: Romney leads Obama

[krazen1211]

Obama will receive close the same percentage most Democrats receive of the white vote, not everyone votes based on race, Republicans shouldn't count on that.

The approvals tell it all, only 35% approve of Romney, while Obama is at 45%. Even if you assume all of those with no opinion would magically approve of Romney, the difference wouldn't be much and we all know everyone with no opinion will approve of him.

It has nothing to do with race. In the aggregate, Democrats performed far below Dukakis levels with whites in 2010.

little history lesson krazy. Dukakis lost the white vote 59-41 in 1988. In 2010 the generic ballot gave whites a 60-40 R edge. Since when is a one point drop "Far below"?

60-37 according to CNN exit polls.

[memphis]

The full third candidate results:

43 Obama
41 Romney
9 Johnson

42 Obama
37 Romney
17 Paul

43 Obama
41 Romney
8 Bloomberg

43 Obama
37 Romney
11 Huntsman

45 Obama
31 Romney
19 Trump

42 Obama
42 Romney
7 Sanders

44 Obama
43 Romney
4 Anderson

People always get cold feet with the third parties. They say they will but all except the true fringe understand that voting third party helps the major party they like least. Which is why, for better or worse, the two party system is so entrenched.

[krazen1211]

Obama will receive close the same percentage most Democrats receive of the white vote, not everyone votes based on race, Republicans shouldn't count on that.

The approvals tell it all, only 35% approve of Romney, while Obama is at 45%. Even if you assume all of those with no opinion would magically approve of Romney, the difference wouldn't be much and we all know everyone with no opinion will approve of him.

It has nothing to do with race. In the aggregate, Democrats performed far below Dukakis levels with whites in 2010.

Thing is the Dems don't need to do much better than Dukakis with whites. It'd be nice if they did, but the 2012 electorate is not the 1988 electorate. If you take Dukakis's percentes from the 1988 exit polling with self-described whites, blacks, hispanics, and others and move them into the 2008 electorate, Dukakis is at 49% nationwide. And that was back in 2008. 2012 will continue the trend of a browner electorate. The GOP has to win more and more whites every election just to break even unless they're willing to change their policies. How long do you think this is sustainable? The GOP is headed for long term minority status that will cling to the filibuster as their only tool. The Dems would be wise to go ahead and abolish it if they are in control at the beginning of the next Congress.

It should not be surprising or difficult for a GOP President to win at least 60% of whites in 2012, and an incumbent GOP President to win 65% of whites in either 2016 or 2020.

So, sustainable for the next 3 elections at least.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Just like all the other races, whites are getting less Republican though.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Just like all the other races, whites are getting less Republican though.

Sadly, not really.

Eventually, racial polarization will decrease. Blacks will still vote 80-85% Democratic for economic reasons, but Hispanics will be at 55-60% D, whites closer to 53-47 R, Asians at 55-60% D. That point would lead to a realignment, where the Democrats would again reclaim poor and working-class whites, while Republicans would cut back into suburbia. California, Texas, and New York would all be swing states.

[pbrower2a]

Romney is beating Obama in Michigan. That's pretty much all we need to know about the Democrat's prospects right now.

One outlier poll?

EPIC has came out with two polls with Romney ahead. Detroit News and Marketing Resource Group also has Obama leading within the margin of error. Not impressive for a state Obama won by 17% in 2008.

Michigan looked close for Obama, with John McCain actually getting slight leads at points, until early September 2008. Then the unions and the minority groups started their GOTV campaigns, and Michigan became a costly disaster for Republicans. Wait until the "Obama saved two of the Big Three automakers" message hits the airwaves.

I live in Michigan. I know how Michigan politics work as I know no other state.  

I expect much the same in 2012. For Republicans, Michigan is a baited trap... and a money pit. Republicans will be temped to lavish money on Michigan that might better be spent elsewhere.

[DrScholl]

little history lesson krazy. Dukakis lost the white vote 59-41 in 1988. In 2010 the generic ballot gave whites a 60-40 R edge. Since when is a one point drop "Far below"?

Not to mention, 2010 was not an average year, it was more Republicans overall than usual.

[Nichlemn]

Obama is beating Romney in South Carolina. That's pretty much all we need to know about the GOP's prospects right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol, hack. It's not that these couldn't be true, but there is substantial evidence that they're both wrong.

[CARLHAYDEN]

PPP is one of the nation’s most inconsistent survey research organizations.  Sometimes their numbers are pretty good, and sometimes they are simply absurd.

To illustrate what I mean, take a look at their partisan distribution of registered voters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/party-id-rl_n_725932.html)

In their December 1-4, 2011 survey, they had 35% Republicans, 38% Democrats and 27% Independents/Others.  A pretty reasonable result.

However, in their October 27-30, 2011 survey, they had 28% Republicans, 37% Democrats and 34% Independents/Others.  An absurd result.

Now, some changes over time are not unreasonable, but, the idea that Republicans gained 7% in five weeks is ridiculous!

When you look beyond the partisan identification, the PPP surveys become even stranger.  In the October 27-30, 2011 poll, PPP allegedly asked “Are you very excited, somewhat excited, or not at all excited about voting in the 2012 elections?”

The results by party:

Party Id  Very excited   Somewhat excited   Not at all excited

Democrat       52 %                   30 %                         24 %
Republican     50                       27                              27

When the same question was asked on the December 1-4, 2011 poll the result was substantially different:

Democrat      43                        40                              17
Republican    57                        26                              17

Now, there is pretty much a concensus among pollsters that the turnout ratio in 2012 is likely to be less favorable for Republicans than 2010 and more favorable than in 2008.

[Tender Branson]

Carlhayden criticism ...

You forgot the fact that these subgroups for Democrats/Republicans/Independents have 5-7% margins of error.

And they are not polling the same people every week, but different ones. So, the opinions do change over a few weeks and there can be big fluctuations.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carlhayden criticism ...

You forgot the fact that these subgroups for Democrats/Republicans/Independents have 5-7% margins of error.

And they are not polling the same people every week, but different ones. So, the opinions do change over a few weeks and there can be big fluctuations.

No, I did not forget the MoE (as you incorrectly assert).

Next, polling different people should NOT result in such large fluctuations in such a sort period of time, barring some major intervening event (which did not happen).

If you believe the October 27-30 PPP poll then you must believe everyone else was wrong.

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

[Tender Branson]

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

Ask me again when we compare the accuracy of the polls after the NH primary.

(IA doesn't really count, since it's a low-turnout unpredictable caucus).

[CARLHAYDEN]

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

Ask me again when we compare the accuracy of the polls after the NH primary.

(IA doesn't really count, since it's a low-turnout unpredictable caucus).

I notice you did NOT answer my question, so I'll repeat it.

Do you really believe the numbers PPP produced in the October 27-20 survey?

[Niemeyerite]

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

Ask me again when we compare the accuracy of the polls after the NH primary.

(IA doesn't really count, since it's a low-turnout unpredictable caucus).

I notice you did NOT answer my question, so I'll repeat it.

Do you really believe the numbers PPP produced in the October 27-20 survey?

I don't know if Tender does believe that poll, but I do.

Every year we have the same story here... PPP is a propaganda polling company paid by democrats blah blah blah... Then, they prove to be the most accurate, but no matter what, some people will continue saying they're propaganda.

[Tender Branson]

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

Ask me again when we compare the accuracy of the polls after the NH primary.

(IA doesn't really count, since it's a low-turnout unpredictable caucus).

I notice you did NOT answer my question, so I'll repeat it.

Do you really believe the numbers PPP produced in the October 27-20 survey?

I don't know if Tender does believe that poll, but I do.

No, I don't believe a poll that was conducted backwards in time.

[TheGlobalizer]

National polls this early are meaningless snapshots.  Good for trending but bad for prediction.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

Ask me again when we compare the accuracy of the polls after the NH primary.

(IA doesn't really count, since it's a low-turnout unpredictable caucus).

I notice you did NOT answer my question, so I'll repeat it.

Do you really believe the numbers PPP produced in the October 27-20 survey?

I don't know if Tender does believe that poll, but I do.

No, I don't believe a poll that was conducted backwards in time.

Very funny!!!

TB,

I am going to keep asking you as long as you keep evadinjg.

Do you believe the PPP poll of October 27-30???

[Tender Branson]

You really should give up your faith in PPP.

Ask me again when we compare the accuracy of the polls after the NH primary.

(IA doesn't really count, since it's a low-turnout unpredictable caucus).

I notice you did NOT answer my question, so I'll repeat it.

Do you really believe the numbers PPP produced in the October 27-20 survey?

I don't know if Tender does believe that poll, but I do.

No, I don't believe a poll that was conducted backwards in time.

Very funny!!!

TB,

I am going to keep asking you as long as you keep evadinjg.

Do you believe the PPP poll of October 27-30???

I've already told you it could be right or not, because of the MoE.

We don't know.