The latest crop of opinion polls has generally brought good news for Democrats. The Real Clear Politics average of all the national polls has given President Obama a slight lead, after this poll of polls had shown him trailing since Mitt Romney’s post-Denver debate comeback changed the race. Even more important, polls of likely voters in the battleground states have given the president leads in most of them. This caused New York Times blogger Nate Silver to double down on his forecast predicting an Obama win. According to Silver, Obama now has an 83.7 percent likelihood of prevailing on Tuesday.
We’ll leave aside the arguments about Silver’s odds-making, which depicts what even most liberals concede is an extremely close election as a near certain Obama win. Suffice it to say, as I wrote on Thursday, Silver’s belief that Obama had a field goal lead with 3 minutes left in the game (which he may now think is more like a 4-point lead with 2 minutes left) is based on a belief that the polls he trusts are accurate. On Saturday, however, he returned to the question that has to be haunting his readers: what if these polls aren’t accurate? While he admits the possibility, he thinks it unlikely that so many surveys could be in error. That seems logical, even persuasive. But the problem with that assumption is the same as it has been for the past month. Most of the polls showing Obama ahead either nationally or in some states reflect a common bias: their sample reflects a picture of the electorate that resembles the 2008 Democratic advantage. But this year we expect the gap in party identification to be smaller. In short, unless the Democrats match or exceed the massive “hope and change” surge of four years ago, then what Silver and the Democrats who look to his column for encouragement fear will be true: all the pro-Obama state polls are going to turn out to be quite wrong.
Silver sums up this equation quite succinctly:
I do not mean to imply that the polls are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. But there is the chance that they could be biased in either direction. If they are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor, then Mr. Romney could still win; the race is close enough. If they are biased in Mr. Romney’s favor, then Mr. Obama will win by a wider-than-expected margin, but since Mr. Obama is the favorite anyway, this will not change who sleeps in the White House on Jan. 20.
My argument, rather, is this: we’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.
Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking. …
But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.
That 16 percent chance that Silver talks about though is far more potent than the forlorn hope he implies. Quite simply, if Democrats do not have the near 10-point lead in partisan affiliation that many polls show — which mirrors the 2008 results — then the polls that show the president leading are a misreading of a race, which is either tied or actually trending in Romney’s favor.
This is a possibility that Silver and those who look to him for comfort try not to think about, but which looms large in the final days of the race. The president may have gained some ground as coverage of Hurricane Sandy diverted the public from the election and allowed Obama (with an assist from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie) to appear in control of events. But it strains credulity to believe even that advantage can conjure up a Democratic turnout that would rival that of 2008.
That’s why the polls not only could be wrong, but are likely to be wrong. Silver may be right and our expectations of a more even partisan split may not materialize. But if that isn’t the case, then November 6, 2012 will prove to be the Waterloo not only for President Obama but also for the pollsters who are predicting victory for him.
Chris Christie is a jackass. At the very least, he should have invited Romney to tour the damage, too. It is unbelievable that he granted Obama a big gift on the eve of the election. There are plenty of ways he could have done things differently. The fact that he was emotional, or appreciated the President's help or whatever are no excuse. Amazing how Obama gets lucky with bad events he can capitalize on (and dunce's like Christie to make it even easier) coming at just the right time. Lord help us.
Why can't everyone jump in and do everything they can to sabotage the presidency of Barack Obama? Why do you think America doesn't realize what Republicans are doing to undermine Obama's presidency? That is why nobody is too mad that he hasn't gotten more done. News flash…..that was the Republican plan and Mitch McConnel didn't mince words when he said it. So we should blame Obama because McConnel is a sore loser?
At least you admit he hasn't got much done. And, well, you know, McConell is a senator. The Democrats control the Senate. And they also controlled the House, like by a lot, you know, for two years. So, yeah, Obama didn't get a lot done because of Mitch. nBetter get some better excuses, dude.
25% of NJ Transit railcars were flooded where they were stored, but the Feds are loaning railcars to NJ. nThe PATH tunnels under the Hudson are still flooded. nNJ has more people without electricity today than New York. n nGov. Christie knew he needed to make nice with Obama, and it would have been a disaster to offer Romney a tour of such devastation. Romney already took a hit for his relief drive in Ohio. n nas for all these polls? I read two different analysies of TeamObama's demographic targets last night, linked at RCPolitics. nIf Obama does win, it will be because college-educated women really do fear the Akin-Santorum wing of the GOP.
"It would have been a disaster to offer Romney a tour of such devastation"–Really? You mean Obama would not have given federal aid if Christie did what usually happens in presidential races and treat both candidates with respect? Are you aware that Gov. Romney is entitled to national security briefings and a Secret Service detail? Foreign leaders often will meet with the opposing candidate, like Cameron in England and Netanyahu in Israel. But Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey can't meet with Romney because Obama will be pissed and deny federal aid? n nIf so, that is an enormous scandal and Christie should have called it out. n nAt the very least, he did not need to do a photo opp with Obama, praise and him and make it so, so easy for him.
that a President with a dismal economic record should be at 50% tends to argue why not 50% plus? n nRomney has counted on readings such as Mr. Tobin's of the below top-line data of public polls with skepticism on the party affiliation and/or on stronger internals than are public and/or the theory that the 1-2% needed to break even-stevens will go to him in a Reagan 1980 surge. So being 50% on election eve was, by this logic, his comfort zone. And so the cautious up-with–people end game, most strikingly on display in the third debate and built-upon in the stumps afterwards.
Amen.
Of interest is an article through Google Archives – December 1980 in which George Gallup explained to the press what had happened as most polls, including Gallup had Carter and Reagan tied – simply put, Gallup said that the polls were modeled on the 1976 electorate, and did not take into account the change in voter trends which took place in 1978 – the end result, Carter had the college vote, the African American Vote and the party faithful vote – while Reagan had the rest of the nation. One might suggest that History is repeating itself, and all indicators, including Gallup's own annual state by state presidential approval rankings support an upset of historic proportions, this was true in 2010, in 2011 and yes, again in 2012 – with 50% or better approval in 10 states. Take into account that there are even attorney's coming into MA – (MassLawyersWeeklly) to watch the polls, is…..indicative of Romeny's strong pull with independents – which is 50% plus of the MA electorate. As to Christie, he may carry weight in NJ, but as to the rest of the planet, not so much, and NYC is a disaster – still – and those undecided voters, made up their mind two weeks ago – of course, having been there, done that in 1980 – it was easy to see the potential for this to occur (when Carter policies came back to live beginning in 2009). – it is the methodology – for example. A heavily Dem. District in MA, polled by an independent firm for a Congressional race, used 2010 voter models and the result: Romney-Obama tied, prior to the national debates. Of course the Dem's may have the 8 points they need somewhere but the match does not add up.
I still cannot believe Obama could be re-elected. I still expect we will all be surprised by a landslide 400 electoral votes for Romney. BUT, all of the cheating and criminal activities the Dems have already been caught pulling could add up. The polls do not consider the voting dead and thrown away ballots in Republican precincts and extra ballots filled out for Obama and "found" later, the voting machines that only make mistakes in Obama's direction, the state election officials that harass True the Vote and allow only Democrat election signs and Democrat campaigners inside polling locations under the guise of passing out water to those waiting in line — not one of those crooked votes is in a poll!
The 2010 election was about stopping Obama. The 2012 election is about firing Obama. Let's get out the vote for Romney in Florida, Ohio, VA, PA, Wisconsin, and Iowa!
What is Silver's answer to this very strong point against him that threatens his entire analysis: that 2008 was an outlier year especially for predicating 2012 modelling? I haven't seen any concrete confrontation by him with this argument. Did he ever take it on?