Are the polls skewed?

[Likely Voter]

So the new theory of conservatives (now embraced by the Romney campaign) is that all the polls (except Rasmussen) are "skewed" and include too many Dems.  Do you buy the theory?

If you do think the polls are 'skewed' where do you think the race is now?

[Politico]

There is NO WAY that Obama will get the type of turnout he received in 2008. No way, no how. Even the most rudimentary understanding of what happened four years ago should lead one to that conclusion. Even Bill Clinton got less support in 1996 relative to 1992 when you account for depressed turnout (Clinton received about 2.5 million more votes than in 1992, but Perot received about 12 million less votes whereas Dole received about 100,000 more votes than Bush; altogether, roughly 10 million fewer people voted in 1996 relative to 1992). This environment is nowhere near as favorable to the incumbent as 1996, or even 2004 for that matter.

Simply by virtue of being the incumbent during an economic malaise, Obama is going to lose. The question is whether he will lose by an overwhelming margin like Carter in 1980 or by a close margin like Ford in 1976. At this point, the latter seems more likely by virtue of the president's likeability ratings (they are keeping him afloat, as was the case with Ford, but it is not enough in this environment once Romney gets serious).

[Marokai Backbeat]

No. It is yet another denying-reality tactic on the Right because they can't ever seem to make peace with the world as it is. We have a fictional socialist muslim dictator as President, so why not believe in fictional polls that show him being trounced by Romney as well?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The prevailing wisdom is that GOP turnout would be much higher and the electorate would look more like 2010 than 2008... but a combination of increased enthusiasm from the Democratic base and an awful GOP nominee and campaign has made the dynamic MORE Dem friendly than it was earlier this year. I doubt this is a D+7 year like 2008, nor will it be R+4 (as Rasmussen believes)...

I think there might be a touch over-sampling, but certainly not enough to shift those numbers too far from where they are.

[Sbane]

I like how even with a R+4 sample, Obama is either tied or leading. Romney should be at least winning by 4-6 points in such a sample to even have a chance on election day. Anyone who thinks there won't at least be a D+3 advantage on election day is delusional.

[nhmagic]

I like how even with a R+4 sample, Obama is either tied or leading. Romney should be at least winning by 4-6 points in such a sample to even have a chance on election day. Anyone who thinks there won't at least be a D+3 advantage on election day is delusional.

Yeah, so what evidence is there for this magical democrat turnout advantage?  This fantasy that 2 speeches that only 35 million Americans watched at the convention somehow spurred democrats into action in a way they haven't been for 3 years is ridiculous.  Man, you have to know when you're being had.  It's as bad as the admin claiming that the youtube video spurred a spontaneous attack in Libya.  And now, its proven that it was a planned attack. 

In 2008, we knew McCain would lose, we just couldn't believe it was to Obama.   We do not have that feeling this year and we are not fooling ourselves.  The drive, the dedication and resolve in our faces.  The polls said it, you believe it, but the fundamentals are just not there.  By the way: A D+3 advantage = an even election.  Thats a 1pt Romney win in Ohio based on a shift from the 2008 election.  A 2pt win for Romney in Florida, etc. 

Explain to me how democrats will enjoy a record advantage they haven't seen in generations.  What are the fundamentals?  Let's say that parts of your fantasy are correct.  Let's say that there are a lot of people who will give credit to Obama for his take on the economy.  At the same time, you have to admit there are a lot of people who are disgruntled and that it is human nature to be disgruntled.   

The whole story behind these polls is a simple word: narrative.  The media sets the narrative that it is futile for republicans to try.  Obama's gonna win.  It's over.  Etc.  It's all to depress turnout and I guarantee you the psy-op isn't working.

[Kalimantan]

As I understand it, the polls are asking people to 'self-identify' as D, R or I, not asking for their registration.

The exit polls on the other hand record registration. So it isn't surprising that they don't seem to match.

But this may be wrong, calling @Craigo

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The whole story behind these polls is a simple word: narrative.  The media sets the narrative that it is futile for republicans to try.  Obama's gonna win.  It's over.  Etc.  It's all to depress turnout and I guarantee you the psy-op isn't working.

Yep. And I'm gonna explain why the media does what it does, and I do not want to be accused of trolling because I am going to put this as delicately as possible: There are a lot of homosexuals in the media.

Disclaimer for the diehard Democrats: I support gay marriage, so don't jump all over me. I am just trying to explain why many people in the media do what they do.

Get help.

[King]

If you don't understand polls, then yeah.  Pollsters (except Rasmussen) don't do quotas.  Random samples are just that, random.  If 35-40% of random 1,000 people keep saying they self-identify as Democrats, guess what?  It's the same is if 35-40% of random 1,000 people kept saying they like turkey sandwiches, even if only 30% said they did two years ago.  Turkey sandwich eaters are not being over-polled.  Things change over time.

[DrScholl]

Yep. And I'm gonna explain why the media does what it does, and I do not want to be accused of trolling because I am going to put this as delicately and clinically as possible: There are a lot of homosexuals in the media relative to most other professions.

Disclaimer for the diehard Democrats: I support gay marriage, so don't jump all over me. I am just trying to explain why many people in the media do what they do. It's not even subtle anymore; it's blatantly obvious at this point.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Politico]

The whole story behind these polls is a simple word: narrative.  The media sets the narrative that it is futile for republicans to try.  Obama's gonna win.  It's over.  Etc.  It's all to depress turnout and I guarantee you the psy-op isn't working.

Yep. And I'm gonna explain why the media does what it does, and I do not want to be accused of trolling because I am going to put this as delicately as possible: There are a lot of homosexuals in the media.

Disclaimer for the diehard Democrats: I support gay marriage, so don't jump all over me. I am just trying to explain why many people in the media do what they do.

Get help.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

I am just trying to explain this phenomenon. If you have a better explanation, please share your theory for why the media is blatantly in Obama's corner this cycle. Even Dan Rather was not this blatant.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

[Politico]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The whole story behind these polls is a simple word: narrative.  The media sets the narrative that it is futile for republicans to try.  Obama's gonna win.  It's over.  Etc.  It's all to depress turnout and I guarantee you the psy-op isn't working.

Yep. And I'm gonna explain why the media does what it does, and I do not want to be accused of trolling because I am going to put this as delicately as possible: There are a lot of homosexuals in the media.

Disclaimer for the diehard Democrats: I support gay marriage, so don't jump all over me. I am just trying to explain why many people in the media do what they do.

Get help.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

I am just trying to explain this phenomenon. If you have a better explanation, please share your theory for why the media is blatantly in Obama's corner this cycle. Even Dan Rather was not this blatant.

The media is 'blatantly in Obama's corner' if you go in with the presupposition that Romney should have an inbuilt advantage that isn't real and then decide that the most-watched cable channel and the vast majority of political radio don't count as 'the media'. Once you account for those things, it's arguably still liberal-leaning (which isn't the same as left-leaning), but not to nearly the extent that you seem to think.

[Likely Voter]

If you all remember back in early August Obama was also going through a surge in the polling and at the time many GOPers were screaming that the polls arent accurate. Hugh Hewitt pressed Peter Brown from  Quinnipiac on this in an interview, here is the exchange....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=1c1a7295-7ce1-47e7-8074-4ce24952aceb

The irony in all of this is that Quinnipiac and other pollsters are being accused of starting with a party ID assumption and changing their poll to match, but it is actually Rasmussen who does that, by essentially throwing away what they considers excess Ds they get every night.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

[Politico]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is artificially boosting Obama's numbers, making many media members giddy as they report the news that the election is over. Consequently, in mainstream America people are growing increasingly distrustful of the media. What is being reported does not reflect reality.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

[DrScholl]

About the only polls that are skewed are internals and those are mostly skewed by using specific wording.

Party ID is fluid, one cycle someone may identify as Democrat, the next cycle may identify as an Independent. Since most pollsters don't use a specific screen, party ID can be very fluid. The thing about the Democratic base is that's is not cohesive, but a loose confederation that includes a bloc of moderates that switches identification a lot. Plus, there are plenty of those who identify as Democratic, but support Republicans and that will be picked up in any poll.

Lastly, pollsters are professionals and get paid to do what they do, putting out distorted polls doesn't serve business well. If they deliberately rigged polling and an election turned out very different than their polls said, they'd be out of business.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is boosting Obama's numbers.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

You're really getting scared aren't you?

[Wiz in Wis]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is artificially boosting Obama's numbers, making many media members giddy as they report the news that the election is over. Consequently, in mainstream America people are growing increasingly distrustful of the media. What is being reported does not reflect reality.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

Honest question... How old are you?

[Politico]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is boosting Obama's numbers.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

You're really getting scared aren't you?

Things aren't always what they seem.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is boosting Obama's numbers.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

You're really getting scared aren't you?

Things aren't always what they seem.

You're depending on it...

[TJ in Oregon]

Let's be honest, the real reason why the GOP is claiming this is because if they admit Romney is behind in the polls, then people will give up on him just because he's behind in the polls (which is happening anyway but by floating the idea the polls are skewed they minimize this). A lot of people vote based on who they think is doing well in the campaign so being behind is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Let's be honest, the real reason why the GOP is claiming this is because if they admit Romney is behind in the polls, then people will give up on him just because he's behind in the polls (which is happening anyway but by floating the idea the polls are skewed they minimize this). A lot of people vote based on who they think is doing well in the campaign so being behind is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

People root for a plucky underdog... but they hate a self-defeating loser...

[morgieb]

No. Even if they are, they don't weight for party ID like Rassy.