Minnesota-PPP: Obama+7

[mondale84]

the party id of this poll is not so bad: D +3

It was D+4 in 2008

Problem is the oversampling of independents voters (33% in the poll and 25 % in 2008) but corrected, the result is +- the same.

Considering that the Minnesota Republican party has effectively ceased to exist, I wouldn't be surprised if Dem turnout were +5-7 on election day.

[Umengus]

the party id of this poll is not so bad: D +3

It was D+4 in 2008

Problem is the oversampling of independents voters (33% in the poll and 25 % in 2008) but corrected, the result is +- the same.

Considering that the Minnesota Republican party has effectively ceased to exist, I wouldn't be surprised if Dem turnout were +5-7 on election day.

better than 2008... I tought that 2008 was historic....

[mondale84]

the party id of this poll is not so bad: D +3

It was D+4 in 2008

Problem is the oversampling of independents voters (33% in the poll and 25 % in 2008) but corrected, the result is +- the same.

Considering that the Minnesota Republican party has effectively ceased to exist, I wouldn't be surprised if Dem turnout were +5-7 on election day.

better than 2008... I tought that 2008 was historic....

Yes, since the Minnesota Republican party was actually organized in 2010: they had a senator and a governor. Now they have nothing and they are bankrupt so they will have no field operation. That will easily mean that Dems outperform on election day.

[Niemeyerite]

the party id of this poll is not so bad: D +3

It was D+4 in 2008

Problem is the oversampling of independents voters (33% in the poll and 25 % in 2008) but corrected, the result is +- the same.

Considering that the Minnesota Republican party has effectively ceased to exist, I wouldn't be surprised if Dem turnout were +5-7 on election day.

better than 2008... I tought that 2008 was historic....

But Obama underperformed in Minnesota, and republicans had an interesting senate race to vote in. Oh, and the RNC took place in MN. And T-Paw was a loyal 'campaigner' here back in 2008.

[5280]

Surprisingly close. Figured this would be double digits.

I feel PPP has had a Republican lean the past few months. After all the SUSA poll showed Obama +10 and we know they have a terrible R bias there. I think Obama is probably ahead 10-12 right now and will probably win by ~15 on election day since he really underperformed there in 08. Plus Romney is a terrible fit for the state.

As pointed out, SUSA isn't a good pollster.  7 point for Obama on PPP is not good. 

That's not the point; the point is that SUSA is R-leaning in Minnesota and that PPP is R-leaning and this sample is R-leaning. Ergo, Obama is ahead by more than 7, probably 8-9 at the moment.

Remember, MN is a relatively inelastic state. However, trust me, once Romney completely collapses - Obama will win by 12-15.

You have got to be joking about PPP being R-leaning; it has a slight D-bias.  I would not rule out an outlier, but that raises some eyebrows.

SUSA is just a bad pollster, period.

Umm....no.

PPP had a R-bias in 2010 and they still have it. Other pollsters just have a stronger Republican bias.

How much more of a hack can you get?

[J. J.]

Can we all, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Constitutional, Green, everyone, stop accusing each other of trolling for a little bit.

Well, in this case, it is factual matter.  PPP is a good poll, but it has  a slight Democratic "house bias."  That doesn't mean it is a bad poll only that its results tend to be slightly more positive to the Democrats than reality. 

Either this poll is an outlier, one of those 1 in 20 polls that is off, or Obama is winning the state by less than 7 points.

You mean more positive than the average of polls...which is Republican-leaning...like in 2010...

No, I mean showing more strength to the Democrats, like in 2008.