If Rasmussen is Correct (and he has been in the last two Presidential elections)

Then we’re looking at the Scott Walker recall night all over again.

Rasmussen Reports’s Party Affiliation for October is R +5.8.  Below is Rasmussen’s month-end party ID for each October in Presidential years. We compared that with the exit polling party ID provided by the Winston Group:

Year Rasmussen Actual
2004 D +1.5 (Dem 38.7, Rep 37.2) D +0 (Dem 38, Rep 38)
2008 D +7.1 (Dem 40.3, Rep 33.3) D +7 (Dem 40, Rep 33)
2012 R +5.8 (Dem 33.3, Rep 39.1) ?????

In the two prior Presidential election years Rasmussen essentially called the party identification and accurately captured the ground swell in favor of Democrats in 2008. Not coincidentally Rasmussen called the 2004 election within 1% and hit the bullseye in the 2008 election.  I don’t know exactly the why behind Rasmussen’s methodology but his affiliation has been consistently R +whatever but he’s been running his polls at D +whatever. I’m assuming D +2 so if we get R +2 (I refuse to even consider R +6) then it is blowout city.

And if that happens we could see a rerun of two of our favorite clips from the Scott Walker recall, delusional Democrats in disbelief and MSNBC anchors live re-enactment of the movie Scanners.

116 Comments

  1. CAChris
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith, your a Rockstar. I have been skulking around here for months, but finally got the nerve to post up, I can honestly say you and your brilliant posters here have educated me far beyond a masters degree..

  2. exe
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Your fingers to God’s ears…

    • Freddy
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The Delusional Democrats in Disbelief (Wi recall) youtube video (link above) was pulled. Anyone have a link from somewhere else? I hope Tuesday night in Wisconsin Recall II. The Dems could not believe that one. LOL!

  3. Tom
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for posting this Keith. Going to be Romney Landslide, Mitt-Mentum

  4. Tedley
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Has Ras put out an explanation for why his own poll conflicts so much with his own party ID data?

    • Utah Libertarian
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He’s polling with a D+3 or 4 model.

      • KN
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Seriously, could part of it take into account the election fraud on behalf of the Dems?

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      In the summer, Scott explained (I think to FOX News) that he would weight his polls to 39/37/24 because based on “history” Democrats have gotten between 35-39 percent of the electorate since 1992 or something. He decided to ignore his own data and instead, very generously, assume Democrats would meet the upper-limit of their historical performance.

  5. Prescient11
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith,

    I hope you’re doing ok and all is well. As well as any posters here in the Sandy area.

    Please post internals of Gallup, as I have heard that it was D +11???

    • Anonymous Conservative
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Are you sure you didn’t hear the D+11 from the CNN national poll? Because that was their party ID spread. Sounds too unreasonable to be what Gallup came up with.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        Could be, I’m just seeing random bits of info at this point.

      • AC
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        I saw a little note on Drudgereport that Gallup had a D+6, but that note has now disappeared.

  6. Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    LoL I love the “delusional Democrats in disbelief” link. I am going to have MSNBC streaming on my laptop while I watch Fox News on the TV tomorrow night just so I can point and laugh.
    ~ Brittany

    • RhodyKev
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Great idea! me too.

  7. No Tribe
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Not just the last two GE’s, also the last two mid-terms. This is the gold standard the last 4 elections.

  8. Jan
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Gallup update seems to be R49 – O48 now. Though tight, still a Romney lead. Haven’t seen internals yet..

    • Anonymous Conservative
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      When’s the last time anybody has seen the internals of Gallup? I haven’t seen any posted since about 2 weeks ago.

  9. margaret
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I read that the White House never saw the 2010 blowout coming. That they didn’t even have Boehner’s phone number to congratulate him! I think they won’t see this coming either. Republican enthusiasm off the charts.

  10. bks
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Michelle Obama is in North Carolina. Confidence or desperation? You decide.
    http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/09/the-recurring-and-misleading-focus-on.html

    –bks

    • stephanie
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Desperation definitely!

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Have to be trying to sure up some of the undercard.

      “everybody” knows NC has been done for a while.

    • valleyforge
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Trying to save Larry Kissell with black turnout perhaps.

      Your Gallup link is nonsensical. No one is saying the ballot question is skewed by party ID per se. They are saying the overall sampling is skewed – which affects virgins ballot and party ID responses – and that party ID is the obvious tell. Newport says party ID is too variable (a laugh considering how bouncy their 3-day samples usually are) but in fact party association changes very slowly and it is the samples, LV screen, and heavy demographic weighting that creates volatility. Ras has the right approach of tracking to a moving average. Even Gallup found that over a 24-day period there was an R+1 party ID advantage, a large enough sample to take the bounciness away, yet Newport thinks it is just a function of the news of the moment and can’t be used to weight results for even the following week?

      • valleyforge
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        Scratch “virgins” and insert “both the”. I’m wondering where my iPhone’s spellchecker is spending its off hours now…

    • NMVM
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sounds like John/Sarah heading to PA all over again! How ironic that Barack pisses off the Catholic church and has to send his wife to NC for the Hail Mary.

    • Mike
      Posted November 6, 2012 at 5:48 am | Permalink | Reply

      bks, for this one is BIG TIME DESPERATION……..I live in NC, and believe me this time around will rain horses before Obama wins this State again.

  11. M.White
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    We have also to remember Gallup has a 4 day tracking poll, Thurs. – Sun., so I would imagine on Thurs. and Fri. the rally around the flag and President thing affected the poll, then Sat. and Sun. may have switched back a little. If the poll had been taken Sat. – Sun. we would see a Romney leading by 3, or if it had been Sun. and Mon., because over the weekend we saw much suffering in the northeast and that may not be factored into this poll. Tomorrow’s Rasmussen poll may be more reflective of the actual outcome tomorrow night.

  12. valleyforge
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Great track for the midterms too. But explaining R+6 is tough. Could be a no-cell phone skew creeping in over time. Would still suggest we are looking at R+something though.

    • Interested Party
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You’re getting it. It’s a cell phone versus non cell phone skew. Why else would Sandy cause a bump? More people were using cell phones.

      • UncleFred
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        You can be pretty sure that Sandy wreaked havoc with the cell towers as well. Cellular service would have been pretty heavily degraded in hard hit areas. At least until the crews had were able effect repairs.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      But “cell phone” skew is mitigated since he weights his Party Identification info to race/gender/age/income.

    • NMVM
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He also uses internet polling as a low cost substitute for the cell phone only crowd. Plus, those October numbers are from 15,000+ interviews throughout the month. This is a very significant move.

  13. CAChris
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    NumbersMuncher ‏@NumbersMuncher

    Final ARG national poll has a tied race at 49%. Romney leads indies by 12. Sample is D+6 (was D+7 in 08, even in 2004/2010).

    • damien
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      the indies are home to romney…sandy bump over…josh jordan right again

  14. O'Buhbye
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Then why isn’t his EC map a blowout?

  15. CAChris
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    NumbersMuncher ‏@NumbersMuncher

    Final New Hampshire poll from ARG has a tied race @ 49%. Obama up 1 w/ indies. Romney up 10 w/ men, Obama up 8 w/ women.

  16. Pete
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It’s all coming together

  17. Haus
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Rasmussen seems to be hedging his bets when he does a D+3 poll but shows R+5 for likely turnout. Why?

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      2000

      • William Jefferson Jr.
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        Actually, his big miss in 2000 was what motivated him to actually do a monthly party id poll in the first place. It’s why he has been so close with his general election poll in 2004 and 2008.

    • Brad
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He’s sick of the ridicule from the left. Now he can say he was right in line with everyone else, even if everyone is wrong. Then he can point to his party ID poll if things go big for RR.

      • NMVM
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

        Exactly. He is always getting called out as a Republican sham. He adjusted his 2010 model at the end when he saw the R wave coming and got really close to predicting the net pickup in the house, but he still got killed by the Nate Silvers of the world for having an R biased generic ballot final poll – as if that even matters!

  18. Interested Party
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Repost

    OK. A comment on this whole polling thing for a moment.

    Forget the D weighting–its not what they do. They weight by cell versus landline use. This is something that they have to do, especially with a 9% response rate. Given that the technology is relatively new, I think there are a lot of issues with this right now in the polling community that they are not telling us.

    Heavy cell users tend to be younger, more mobile (get the pun)…ie skew democratic. So if you poll more cell users, you will get higher +D samples.

    Proof of this hypothesis?

    Sandy.

    Why did O get a Sandy bump, accounted for mostly by increasing D+ samples in the polls, especially in the Northeast? More people were on cell phones and not landlines, since the power was out for large sections of the Northeast. There is really no other reason. Looking presidential? Come on–we’ve known O for 4 years. One more disaster is not going to change even the most naive of us. There is no fundamental reason for a shift to O in the past week with a sudden increase in D turnout.

    Add this to the increased D’s making it through the early voter screens since they voted early, and you have a 3-4% spread.

    I think this has even screwed up the polling of both campaigns, and that why they both are nervous in private. Both expect a solid R win based on fundamentals, but can’t make sense of the polls.

    We’ll see in 36 hours or so.

    Also, I have to say this: remember the Walker Recall: “Democracy died tonight!”

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know.

      You’d think if the pollsters would see everything the same except for the northeast they’d make some type of adjustment.

      Not sure I buy that logic.

  19. Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Can someone help a man out with something I have wondered since I happened upon Keith’s oasis in the interwebs a couple months ago……

    RAS does this poll and it is to judge the electorate makeup at the polls, correct? He is showing R+5.8

    YET

    In his nationally polling where he is BLASTED by all the others as being a right wing, republican hack pollster….he weights his results at a Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney right wing level of D+2 to D+4?????

    WHY WHY WHY?

    • Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I know, it’s been driving me insane too. I think all the pollsters including Rasmussen are skewing their numbers to make it look tied to protect their own butts in case they are wrong.
      ~ Brittany

      • Anonymous Conservative
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        Remember the “Price is Right”? Everybody tries to get the closest without going over. Rasmussen and Gallup will both be tied for the closest if Romney wins in a landslide. If Obama somehow still wins, they can both say that they weren’t that far off the mark. Ultimately, they are suffering the same effects of low response rate, respondents lying and saying that they voted early, Shy Tory Factor, Bradley/Wilder Effect, and uncertainty over minority turnout that are plaguing all of the other pollsters. That’s my theory, in any case.

      • Kent O
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

        Nobody wants to be standing out of line when the wave comes.

        That way they can all yell “No one saw it coming”

      • Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

        granted Rassmussen’s is based on all adults not just likely voters. It appears his likely turnout is actually D+2. Where Gallup sees it R+1

        I would go out on a limb and say that a 39% turnout for Republicans is not happening and 33% for Democraps is not happening. That would be historically high for Rs and Historcially low for Ds.

        I am more along the lines of Gallup 36-35…we shall see in 29.5 hours

      • jmar
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Could the reason for the disparity between Ras’s party weighting and his Party Affiliation survey be this:

        Ras uses D=+2-4 to remain somewhat in step with the other pollsters. However, his Party Affiliation poll will enjoy the same accuracy in reflecting the actual Party ID of the voter turnout that it has in recent elections.

        When the national polls are proven horribly inaccurate on Nov 6th, there seems to be agreement here that there could be a tectonic shift in polling methodology that better accounts for the projected Party Affiliation of the electorate. On Nov 7th, the gold standard for Party Affiliation will likely be the Rasmussen model.

        Could it be that he sticks close to the conventional wisdom (/ sarc!) of the national pollsters with the D+2-4 weighting to reinforce the narrative that “all the pollsters were wrong in 2012 and methods need to change”, in order to bolster his Party Affiliation model?

        Sorry if this has been brought up before. I’m always late to the party around here.

  20. CAChris
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Check out this Josh Jordan piece.. Good read.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332549/return-independents-josh-jordan

  21. SR
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If anything, what I can take from the party affliation table is that, D’s underperform relative to their lead. guys, THIS may be the poll that matters the most. Not Gallup or Rasmussen that are subject to swings and daily events.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It is the most valuable, the last 4 elections. The only question is whether that trend continues.

  22. hillbilly
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Romney will win now

  23. CAChris
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This is going to be an interesting day… Are we going to See R+2? D+2? R+5 ?? Its all down to the D or R + 2 .. If its D+2 I still think Romney wins… If its D+ less then 2… Hes gone.. Period… I am pretty interested in the final outcome!

  24. jvnvch
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Both Rasmussen Reports and Gallup are obviously hedging their bets this year, for some reason. It seems a little strange, because their own polling obviously indicates a probable national popular vote win for Romney, but they both seem to be afraid they are wrong. Perhaps it’s the possibility of another 2000 result, with the national popular vote going one way, and the Electoral College vote going another, that frightens them. I think that’s a very, very unlikely result, personally. I see this as a Romney win in both the popular vote and the EC.

  25. M.White
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I heard Chris Stirewalt, Fox New’s.com Political Director say that Republicans always underperform in polling, they are not as likely to complete the voter screenings, Republicans always outperform on election day, he said you can expect whatever number Romney has in the polls, tomorrow he will add at least a point or two to his number in the polls based on those two historical and factual statements in each state and nationally. Michael Barone was on at the same time and he comfirmed that and that is why he is predicting Romney to win!

    • Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s true, because Republicans on the whole are, well, conservative. We don’t pick up numbers we don’t know and don’t like being bothered at home – but we show up on election day.
      ~ Brittany

    • zang
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The thing I’ve been reading lately is that undecideds broke hard in favor of Kerry in 2004. This wasn’t necessarily reflect in public polls simply because the public polls were underestimating Bush’s actual poll numbers .. We shall see.

      • UncleFred
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

        At least in Ohio Kerry did win independents, but the Rove turnout machine caused the Republican base and Bush leaners to turnout in such force that they overwhelmed Kerry’s advantage among independents. I would not expect Obama’s GOTV effort to out perform the Romney effort by much if at all.

  26. CAChris
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Looks like Gallup is 4 day track.. So if R is leading +1 LV even with the tail end of the Sandy bump, looking very interesting!

  27. zang
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It seems that every single national poll is converging at an essentially tied race – except Pew, which now appears to be an outlier. Even the vaunted (haha) Nate Silver acknowledges that if Romney wins the national popular vote by 1% or more, he is likely to win the electoral college.

    I am wondering if both Gallup and Rasmussen was being a bit cowardly and walking back their Romney numbers for fear that they’ll be wrong and out on a limb by themselves. If ALL pollsters are wrong on the national number, then can make up excuses like a late surge, undecideds, etc.

  28. zang
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I will say that the early voting patterns so far point to a tight national race, not the blow out Romney win that we are hoping for – unless it is true that Obama has cannibalized his voters in EV….

    • valleyforge
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Agreed. EV shows about net 5 point improvement which puts Romney in position to win but requires an even bigger swing on Tuesday itself. Unless Indys have already broken heavily in early voting. Can’t know til tomorrow.

  29. NMVM
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Word of caution (and ultimately optimism, actually) – these numbers are for all adults, not likely voters. See the previous article for these numbers:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

    What’s interesting is that his LV model actually looks like an average of 04/08 (roughly D+4 or D+2, tough to tell until he releases the next full week cross tabs) even while his all adults numbers show a much bigger R year than 2004! Strangely, his LV model relative to these numbers may actually reflect an enthusiasm gap for Democrats! How likely is that? My guess is that he averaged 04/08 to keep his LV numbers stable and credible, but he may now be just beginning to see the wave for what it really is.

    Guys – this could be HUGE

    • Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I am not a polling expert so 5.8% advantage is not correct for likely voters? What is the number for likely voters?

      • NMVM
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        It could be EVEN HIGHER for LVs. Superior Republican turnout rates typically make the actual electorate more slightly more R than the adult population at large.

    • Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Was the party affiliation data that rasmussen predicted for the previous elections at the top of this article for likely voters or all adults?

      • NMVM
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

        Do you know the actual RDI breakdown in the 2010 midterms? I think it was even between Rs and Ds but I forget the specifics. His all adults number for October 2010 was D+3.

    • EpiphoneKnight
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      All adults has always favored Obama more than other screenings. Rasmussen has admitted this many times.

  30. exe
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I, for one, am quite nervous about the result tomorrow. I understand the discussion on this board and I am with RR 100% (I was one of the yahoos standing outside for 7 hours yesterday to shake Mitt’s hand in PA). It’s just hard for me to accept that there is a vast conspiracy that all these pollsters are in on. The RAS D+2 versus surveyed R+6 is especially troubling to me. Do they all know something about turnout tomorrow that we are overlooking?

    • Jon
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s not a conspiracy, but rather a failure in methods. On average polls get a decent response rate. This cycle it is down to 9%, which can’t be extrapolated correctly unless you use boot strapping techniques, which none of the polls seem to use.

      • Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        I read somewhere that one polling place called 35,000 numbers to get 1100 responses.
        ~ Brittany

      • exe
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        But if the pollster is intelligent & responsible and recognizes the skew within their data, why are they refusing to adjust in order to be more accurate? I understand that the RDI is an output of their models, not an input, but this trending of the sampling from somewhat R leaning to D leaning in the past few days is troubling as well.

        The post-mortem on this election may be more interesting that the prognostication.

      • Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        Read above a few comments. ALL the pollsters are going to say things are tied to save their butts in case any of them is wrong.
        ~ Brittany

      • Freddy
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        Jon – I think it is also $$$$. The pollsters and TV newsmedia, newspapers, web sites banner ads, et al make big $$$$ on these elections. They want to extract the last dollars from these campaigns. Romney and Obama probably raised $1.3 billion. Obama got so much media help in 2008 because he raised $700 million – most of it illegally – and told the media – you want a piece of this pie. They lined up like flies for that $700 million.

        California thought they would plug part of their budget hole with taxes from Facebook employees stock sales. They budgeted for it!! It is all about the $$$. These elections are big business. The pollsters get paid per poll. The longer it goes on – the more money they make.

    • Dogfish
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Understandable, we are all nervous because there is so much at stake… but consider this….. At the end of the election/race it is always the loser that is name-calling and going negative.

      Look at Obama and you see the name-calling and negative ads…. Romney is talking about the future and expanding the map.

      Romney wins!

      • Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. At the CO rally, Romney was laying out what he was about to do as President. It wasn’t campaign promises, it was obvious he had sat down and figured out exactly what he was going to do to repeal Obamacare, get jobs going, etc. because he knew he was going to be President and was getting ready to do his job.
        ~ Brittany

    • CAChris
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Its not a conspiracy, its a difference in their opinion of the electorate. They believe the electorate looks more like 2008 then it does 2010.. Its all opinion.. Polls are like hand grenades.. You only have to get close to hit your target.. Gallup and Rass are sampling still based on a larger D+2/4/6 electorate. Its all noise right now, they are forecasting a close race, with a slight R win, but if Romney does a landslide, they can lean on the big I+10-20 as the swing, easy to say the I’s and dem crossovers were the key.

      • Brad
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

        Like the analogy!

      • Ron
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        I think this is correct. Nobody’s talking about 2010 but that midterm election sent a message that Obama refused to hear. Those people are still riled up. Right now the Dems can’t make headway in taking back the House. –Why? It should be obvious that at the district level people are unhappy with Obama. Redistricting alone can’t account for the dismal Democrat showing. Something else is behind their dismal performance. Right now Obama’s huffing and puffing to get the early vote out and it’s a heavy lift even with all his money and all the incumbent advantages and star power. It’s all he can do to get respectable crowds at rallies.

        Enthusiasm is the result of two factors:1) a desire for change after a lousy economy coupled with a liberal agenda that few Americans wanted and 2) charisma of a candidate. Obama is a symbol of the status quo and has lost his magic. Ergo his campaign lacks enthusiasm. Clearly Romney represents change–and the debates brightened his image. It’s now a battle between a political machine and a grassroots movement.

  31. Jon
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve been tracking and basing my prediction on this for weeks now.

    I will shave my head with this result. I have the PV at 50.5 to 48.9 at D+2 currently, but this would mean a +5 swing in Romney. I can’t believe if that is true.

  32. Anonymous Conservative
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Everybody please read this, it’s pretty short but sweet.

    Quote:

    For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

    But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.

    After being so right for so long about presidential elections–the pollsters’ findings had closely agreed with the voting results for most of the past 30 years–how could the surveys have been so wrong?

    Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/31/remembering-1980-are-the-polls-missing-something/#ixzz2BNOmlXYJ

    • EpiphoneKnight
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. People bring up 1980 a lot without sources. Excellent job.

  33. Kent O
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Okay, I have post this somewhere and talking to my friends is a little too weird because they tend to go off one deep end or another.

    I am having trouble getting excited about this. I mean REALLY BELIEVING.

    I see things like party ID. I see things like US playing on THEIR turf. I see things like Barone’s article which talks about polling. I see the whole argument on “Cannibalized” voters.

    My most common thought is a 295 EV win for Romney (NH, IA, CO, OH, VA)

    I can easily see this going to a 332 EV for Romney. (Add in NV, PA, WI, ME-2)

    When I’m delusional from lack of sleep and hitting REFRESH on battlegroundwatch, I occasionally even dream of a 355 EV map (including OR and MI).

    But I can’t commit. I’ve been kicked in the gut a few too many times by politics (1998, 2006, 2008). In those moments I see us at 248, or worse, 266 and just short in NH or CO.

    Not sure what kind of feedback I’m looking for, but just needed to post it somewhere. If I was a doctor, I’d be prescribing myself something that would let me sleep until Wednesday.

    • Anonymous Conservative
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m feeling exactly the same as you. The thing that made me feel best was the article I just posted above. Yesterday I talked to a fellow conservative who was much older than me who told me he hasn’t felt this anxious about an election since 1980. Now I understand why. Can you imagine being told that Reagan / Carter was neck-and-neck for months leading up to November 1980? That appears to be the only election in the past 70 years that was completely missed by most pollsters. I see many similarities between Obama and Carter, as well as between Reagan and Romney. I’m hoping that Tuesday night will confirm the similarities in polling between this one and that one as well.

      If we are all wrong, it will admittedly be devastating. But I’m clinging to hope that we are about to witness 1980 all over again. http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1980-electoral-map.gif

      • Kent O
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

        I should add that I think we will know if it’s a wave pretty early.

        I’ll be looking at the margins in Florida.

        If it’s going to be a wave election then Florida will be along the lines of +4 / +5 for Romney.

        If Florida is a nail-biter then I doubt we have a wave.

      • Anonymous Conservative
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        @Kent O – I’m also going to look at New Hampshire. If that one gets called early for Romney, than that will signal that the wave is on.

        By the way, if Romney wins NH, OH, VA, NC, and FL (all on the East Coast), then he gets 270 EV even if he loses all other battleground states. I think he’ll get VA, NC, and FL even if he loses. NH could be the canary in the coalmine for Obama if it gets called early for Romney.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        VA closes at 7 PM EST.

        if that is called early witha good margin for Romney, watch out.

        If they have to wait very long to call VA – watch out as well.

      • lotmini
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        u will have a feel of wave/no wave by 7pm. IN and KY close at 7. If RR are above 57% in KY, they are doing better than Bush 00, the margin in IN will tell u how far O has fallen. And if RR are up 60-40 in KY, its better or atleast even with 04. If RR show a 60-40 win in KY and O has fallen to 44% or less in IN, it is 2010 turnout.

      • stuckinmass
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        I’ll be looking at VT, CT and NJ, if they go red, it’s 1980 all over again!

        Realistically it will be much closer. I think Obama appears more likeable to people than Carter did in 80, and Romney doesn’t have as much charm and charisma that Reagan did. That plus the electorate is much more polarized than it was in 80.

      • stuckinmass
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

        I checked with swingometer. It would take a 27 point swing over 2008 to get to the approximate 1980 numbers. Obama winning only NY, VT, HI, DC and RI

        If RAS is right about R+5.4 electorate, that’s a 12 point swing. It would need a lot of DEM crossovers and a huge Indie advantage. Nice to dream but it won’t get there.

      • Anonymous Conservative
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

        @stuckinmass – I agree that 1980 is way too optimistic. The demographics alone won’t allow for it. However, if the electorate is really R+5.8, then I think we’ll see states that aren’t even in the picture flip – like OR, NM, and maybe even NJ.

      • Anonymous Conservative
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        @stuckinmass – I don’t think swingometer is correct. I put in 7.0 for the swing, which would equate to an even D/R electorate, and swingometer said that Obama would still win 272 to 266. In fact, I had to put in a minimum of 9.2 point swing to get a Romney victory, the equivalent of a R+2.2 electorate. I guarantee you that if the electorate is R+2.2, Mitt will win more than 275 EV like what that site predicts.

        BTW, I’m assuming you are referring to this site: http://unlikelyvoter.com/swingometer/electoral-college-swingometer/

      • stuckinmass
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        yes.. Their model is simplistic.. everything state shifts proportionally, which is probably not the case. it’s also hard to predict the swing. If you do D+0, that doesn’t take into account Dems who decided to vote for Romney, which may add a couple pts to the swing, also the lead among indies would further add to the swing

      • Colvinus
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

        I don’t think anybody realistically believe 1980 will happen all over again, literally. But in terms of modern-day elections, a big Romney wave would basically be the equivalent of Reagan’s 1980 victory. The electorate and the political climate just don’t make 1980-type blowouts possible anymore. If Obama was outed as a Martian who was planning to take over the Earth and use humans as cattle feed on his home planet, he would still win California, Massachusetts, New York, etc.

      • UncleFred
        Posted November 6, 2012 at 11:07 am | Permalink

        I lived through Reagan Carter. Conservatives never believed the public polling. It was completely inconsistent with what we witnessed in our every day lives. I was working in a deep blue state that year and water cooler conversations with liberals revealed that even they had deep reservations about Carter. So we weren’t surprised by Reagan’s win.

        That said there are a couple of points that we need to keep in mind about the “Reagan Landslide”.

        1: Anderson did very very well in a number of blue states, especially in the east. The only reasonable interpretation is that many fomer Carter voters, split their ticket and voted for Anderson at the top of the ticker and then Democrat the rest of the way. This allowed Reagan to win a number of eastern states he otherwise would have lost.

        2: Back in 1980 the networks were still very very hot to scoop each other and call the election asap. Shortly after the polls closed in the East, all the networks called the national race for Reagan in a landslide. Many many Democrat voters in the mountain and pacific time zones (and probably a lesser number in central) simply never bothered to vote and the trend just rolled down the tickets there.

        With no major third party alternative, Obama is going to hold on to his voters. So a repeat of the Reagan blow out is probably impossible. However I still believe Romney will win by at least 3-4 pts.

    • Dogfish
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This makes me think of those therapy/encounter sessions you see on TV where all the participants are suffering from the same malady.

      I too have been ‘hitting REFRESH on battlegroundwatch’.. a couple hundred times a day, in between going to RCP, Rasmussen, Gallup, and Townhall.

      I am pretty sure Romney is going to win, but everytime I get comfortable with that, I see something that causes me to think maybe I am not looking at it objectively.

      Hurry Wednesday

    • Ron
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You’re not alone. The whole country feels this way. Nobody knows the future–not even the candidates. But we have certain advantages. The country is in economic doldrums. People want change. Obama’s not at 50%. Romney’s favorables are good. Republicans are more enthused. OH usually comes through for the GOP. PA, MN, WI–and even MI–are in play.

      What will be will be. I’ll deal with tomorrow when I get to it. I keep remembering Barone’s point that the midterm popular vote for the House are usually mimicked in presidential popular votes. Here’s the history:

      1998, House–49%-48% percent Republican.
      2000, popular vote president–48%-48%.

      2002, House–51%-46% Republican.
      2004, the popular vote president–51%-48% Republican.

      2006, House–53%-45% Democratic.
      2008, the popular vote president 53%-46% Democratic.

      In 2010 the popular vote for the House was 52%-45%, Republican. What should that tell us–especially since the message never got through the first time in 2010.

  34. TPK
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This is the largest R advantage for any election year since Rasmussen started doing this poll – even larger than 2010! As I think I mentioned in a comment a couple weeks ago, when compared with actual election numbers on who showed up to vote, this poll tends to favor Democrats by an extra 2-4 points.

    Frank Newport from Gallup says that, in his experience, Party ID is a poor indicator of voting. I think that was traditionally the case for most of Gallup’s existence, but things have been changing starting with the 2000 election. Our electorate has become polarized to the point where party ID is starting to resemble a form of tribalism. In 2000, the electoral map went from being relatively fluid to almost a static, World War I-style battlefield with trench lines between rural “Red” states and urban “Blue” states and a cratered No Man’s Land of swing states in between.

    This has been going on for 12 years now, so it feels normal even though it is actually a state of affairs unprecedented in post-War American politics. People today seem to think the idea of Romney gaining more than 300 electoral votes is an unthinkable landslide, when such a margin would be considered incredibly close by the standards of most post-War elections. Consider the following:

    The elections that saw the winner receive about 300 electoral votes were Truman in ’48, Kennedy in ’60, and Nixon in ’68 – all famously close elections.

    Of the 15 presidential elections since 1950, nearly half, seven elections, saw the winner receive over 400 electoral votes.

    Since World War 2, the average winner of a Presidential election received 388.75 electoral votes.

    I think it has become clear that someone like Newport who applies the assumptions of 1950-2000 to today’s elections hasn’t been really looking at the big picture in modern politics.

    • Kent O
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I noticed this when I paged through electoral maps with my daughter.

      We found a website that had them all. So we started in 1776 and moved forward and I was surprised at how many were BIG wins. It’s only 1996, 2000, 2004 that were relatively close.

      I had expected 1984 to be a blowout, but was surprised at how big the 1980 blowout was as well.

      • Ron
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

        I think in part these early big wins were the result of different nomination systems. The old system of old pros in smoke-filled rooms had a better feel for what kind of candidate could appeal nationally. The modern nominating process tends to bog down with inappropriate candidates who may be popular only within the party itself and have scant appeal in states beyond the party’s narrow purview. In some ways the old approach was better–though less democratic.

    • Svigor
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Indeed. Fluid voting (“voting one’s conscience”) is a white thing. As America browns, non-whites bring their “tribal” voting patterns, and whites start to slowly catch on to the new ball game being played.

  35. Flowersfriend
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Poor Kent! Hang in there. My gut says we’re gonna win! The Bible says (speaking of Israel) “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you”. There is no bigger friend to Israel than Romney and there is no love lost with Obama and Israel. I think Mitt is fixing to reap the rewards of his loyalty!

  36. Flowersfriend
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks TPK! That is really enlightening and explains some of the reasoning behind pollsters methodology.

  37. NMVM
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Guys, the reason all of these numbers look like they favor Democrats by 2-4 points is because they do! These numbers are for all adults. When you narrow all adults to voters, Rs usually get a boost of 2-4 points. If there is an extraordinary enthusiasm advantage, it can be at the high end of this range! If these numbers are correct, then D+2,3,4 (roughly the current Ras model) looks silly and even R+3 looks conservative. I just hope these numbers are as accurate as they have been in the past (04,06,08,10)

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      True. Republicans are more committed voters, which is why we do better in “likely voter” polls than in polls of “registered voters” or “adults.” Since Ras’s Party ID numbers are of adults then there should be a Dem skew, though slight. The reason why 2008 was on the money was because Republicans were unmotivated to vote.

  38. damien
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    my 20 year old daughter was looking at obama but that lame lena durham ad changed her mind quick…cant get her to romney so she is going to stay home…ill keep working on it

  39. tay
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Gonna watch msnbc to see if Matthews gnaws off his leg.

  40. Rick
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The angst that I see on this website about tomorrow is “deja vu” related to the June Walker recall election….I remember listening to the polling news on my car radio on the day before the election that described a too-close-to-call race. The talk was about late night results, cheating in Madison and Milwaukee, R and D attorneys on-call, endless recounts etc.

    On election day, the polling was all off and Walker won be a landslide. The election was called by the media 1 hour after the polls closed.

    Tomorrow is going to be a Wisconsin 2.0…record R turnout and a landslide for R/R.

    The question is…can we grab the Senate also??

  41. Anonymous Conservative
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If the electorate will truly be R+5.8, then this is what I predict the map will look like: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html?map=HI_1,AK_5,FL_6,NH_7,MI_7,VT_2,ME_3,ME2_7,RI_3,NY_3,PA_7,NJ_7,DE_3,MD_2,VA_6,WV_5,OH_6,IN_6,IL_2,CT_3,WI_7,NC_5,DC_1,MA_3,TN_5,AR_5,MO_5,GA_5,SC_5,KY_5,AL_5,LA_5,MS_5,IA_6,MN_7,OK_5,TX_5,NM_7,KS_5,NE_5,NE2_5,SD_5,ND_5,WY_5,MT_5,CO_6,ID_5,UT_5,AZ_5,NV_7,OR_7,WA_3,CA_3

    This is best-possible-case scenario for Romney, IMO, and very unlikely to actually happen. But it’s nice to dream.

    • Rick
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yikes…now that would be amazing. Believe it or not, IL and MA could flip.

    • lotmini
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      romney internals leaked…up in ohio, fl, nc va a lock…..tie in PA and WI!

      • lotmini
        Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        Rove on hannity now,,,mentioning internals…

    • Svigor
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Try something like this for those long links next time, so you don’t mess up the page:

      http://tinyurl.com

  42. Skeptical in Texas
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    How can Rasmussen have R+5.8 but Romney only up by 1? Add in that Indys are breaking for Romney and Rasmussen ought to have Romeny up by 5-7.

2 Trackbacks

  1. […] Read the whole story at BattlegroundWatch  […]

  2. […] Rasmussen is even close in this result, tomorrow is going to be a really bad day for Democrats (and he has been very good at this before). This is a historical level for GOP partisan ID, and is much higher than seen in the 2010 blow […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: