About the new Gallup Poll showing Obama ahead NATIONALLY among likely voters by 2% and ahead by a somewhat higher percentage among registered voters (in the "expanded" model):
I'll be writing more about Gallup's so-called "expanded" model, which contains some major flaws. The expanded model looks for a very high turnout among the "new" Democratic voters. We heard the same thing in 2004, where there was high Democratic turnout -- which was offset by extremely high Republican turnout.
We also heard in 2004 (from Gallup and others) that 8 out-of-9 Independent voters were breaking for Kerry, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
In 2004, Gallup also said Bush would win PA; he didn't; and that Kerry would win OH, which he didn't.The expanded model over-represents votes in a number of states that Obama is already going to win, including DC (not a state), California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan. It doesn't matter in terms of electoral vote whether he wins those states 51-49 or 90-10.
Also, the "expanded" model doesn't include the Bradley Effect, which means Obama polls better than he does on election day (as happened in the PA Primary). Ironically, Obama's own internal polls (showing PA as close) are probably a better model than Gallup's.
On "likely voters": In past elections, between one-in-four and one-in-five "likely voters" did not vote. Among registered voters, the ratio of non-voters is significantly higher. I believe Barack Obama probably will win a majority of the votes cast in the U.S. However, because he's getting a disproportionate number of those votes in states McCain is NOT contesting, the Republican candidate conceivably could win a majority of the electoral votes.
That's a major reason for Obama's panicked return to Pittsburgh, which is the wrong city for him to visit, since he's already going to win the 'Burgh. McCain and Palin are going to the right places (including Beaver County, Hershey, and State College).
Note: If John Kerry had gotten 150,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won a majority of electoral votes. Yet countrywide, Bush still would have won by 2.9 million ballots.
If John McCain wins FL, OH, and PA, he will be the next President of the United States. Keep your eye on Zogby, which hit the 2000 race dead-center.
Showing posts with label John Kerry 2004. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry 2004. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Obama's "Lead": Beware of Pollsters!
Sharon Caliendo, formerly from Ohio, now in Oklahoma and a Republican activist there, sent me the following link from YouTube -- it's an Ohio GOP ad, and Sharon says it makes her proud of her home state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkytVjgn-Uc Other states, please take notice . . .
"Don't always take at face value what pollsters tell you."
One point to remember about Barack Hussein Obama is that he "polls" better (usually by 3 points or more) than he does on the day of the balloting. You may (vaguely) remember that in the Pennsylvania Primary (balloting on April 22) the MSM was saying that the race was tightening, and they even used their favorite phrase "too close to call." I predicted just before the Primary that Sen. Clinton would win by about 10%. She carried PA by 9.2% -- actually by a margin of nearly 15% outside Philadelphia County.
The results were similar in Ohio, where we were also told the Clinton-Obama race was "too close to call" and that Obama "was closing strong." Actually, he almost NEVER closes strongly. The undecided and the unsure (at least those who vote) almost always go for Obama's opponent.
The real situation in an election depends on the Likely Voters (those who vote with some regularity in elections). Obama tends to do well with "registered voters," a good portion of whom do NOT vote. (In fact, a significant portion of Likely Voters also don't vote -- about two out of ten or more -- but that's another story.) Almost everywhere, voters who are -- or lean -- Republican are more likely to vote than Democrats.
Also, on election day there are "exit polls" that tend to be presented as Gospel, but that can be very misleading. If you doubt that, just ask "President Kerry," who won all the (early) exit polls on election day in 2004. Why does that happen? Because voters favoring the Republican candidate in a national (or other other federal) election tend to vote LATER than those favoring the Democratic candidate. That situation happens always -- in every election.
Also in 2004, some national polls (Zogby was one) said that last-minute-deciding Independents were "break eight-to-one" for Kerry. Again, "President Kerry" could only have wished that were true, which it was not. GWB won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, and the Independents generally vote for Bush. Pollsters are really bad at determining what late-deciding Independents are doing.
In 2004, Gallup responded to public pressures (from the MSM and Democrats) that accused it of including too many Republicans in their surveys. Gallup in fact changed its "gold-standard" polling template. It ended up predicting that Bush would carry PA -- and Kerry would carry Ohio. I said at the time that Gallup seemed to have mixed up the two states.
In fact, Bush carried OH narrowly -- and Kerry did the same in PA. Gallup also suggested that Kerry might win FL. In fact, he lost it by 300,000-plus votes.
Independents are less likely to vote than either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, some people who claim to be "Independents" are in fact uninterested in politics.
On my HillarySupportersforMccain site, I have an essay entitled, "Why The Democratic Party Doesn't Exist Anymore." I hope you'll visit.
Bulletin: There's growing evidence that Bill Clinton is NOT going to back Barack Obama. See my Monday column on: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. I've titled the column, "Bill, Hillary MUST Denounce Obama." See also the following link: http://purplepeoplevote.com/2008/08/04/clinton-remarks-bolster-mccains-claims-that-the-race-card-was-played/ John McCain has said, "I'd rather lose the presidency than lose a war.""Don't always take at face value what pollsters tell you."
One point to remember about Barack Hussein Obama is that he "polls" better (usually by 3 points or more) than he does on the day of the balloting. You may (vaguely) remember that in the Pennsylvania Primary (balloting on April 22) the MSM was saying that the race was tightening, and they even used their favorite phrase "too close to call." I predicted just before the Primary that Sen. Clinton would win by about 10%. She carried PA by 9.2% -- actually by a margin of nearly 15% outside Philadelphia County.
The results were similar in Ohio, where we were also told the Clinton-Obama race was "too close to call" and that Obama "was closing strong." Actually, he almost NEVER closes strongly. The undecided and the unsure (at least those who vote) almost always go for Obama's opponent.
The real situation in an election depends on the Likely Voters (those who vote with some regularity in elections). Obama tends to do well with "registered voters," a good portion of whom do NOT vote. (In fact, a significant portion of Likely Voters also don't vote -- about two out of ten or more -- but that's another story.) Almost everywhere, voters who are -- or lean -- Republican are more likely to vote than Democrats.
Also, on election day there are "exit polls" that tend to be presented as Gospel, but that can be very misleading. If you doubt that, just ask "President Kerry," who won all the (early) exit polls on election day in 2004. Why does that happen? Because voters favoring the Republican candidate in a national (or other other federal) election tend to vote LATER than those favoring the Democratic candidate. That situation happens always -- in every election.
Also in 2004, some national polls (Zogby was one) said that last-minute-deciding Independents were "break eight-to-one" for Kerry. Again, "President Kerry" could only have wished that were true, which it was not. GWB won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, and the Independents generally vote for Bush. Pollsters are really bad at determining what late-deciding Independents are doing.
In 2004, Gallup responded to public pressures (from the MSM and Democrats) that accused it of including too many Republicans in their surveys. Gallup in fact changed its "gold-standard" polling template. It ended up predicting that Bush would carry PA -- and Kerry would carry Ohio. I said at the time that Gallup seemed to have mixed up the two states.
In fact, Bush carried OH narrowly -- and Kerry did the same in PA. Gallup also suggested that Kerry might win FL. In fact, he lost it by 300,000-plus votes.
Independents are less likely to vote than either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, some people who claim to be "Independents" are in fact uninterested in politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
