So they say that Mitt leads with 'likely' voters but Obama leads big with 'Actual Voters'

[WI_DEM]

I get a big kick out of the fact that some in the MSM make a big deal saying that Mitt leads with 'likely voters' as compared with 'registered voters' and yet I have heard very little so far about Obama's leading with 'actual voters' when poll after poll comes out where 'early voting' has been going on showing huge margins among early voters for Obama! In Survey USA, PPP & other polls of Ohio they show as many as 21% of people have already voted and Obama is crushing the Mittster 64-35. In Iowa over a third of voters have cast votes and Obama is up 2-1 among those who say they have already voted. In North Carolina the first day of early voting had a decided blue color to it with their statistics. In Wisconsin 66% of early voters have given their votes to Obama. New Jersey for Survey USA showed early voters (about 20%) going 68-29 for Obama.

I keep hearing that there is an enthusiasm gap between Dems and Republicans and yet the very pollsters who proclaim that Republicans are so much more enthused to vote show in their surveys that the people actually voting early and in much bigger numbers are Democrats.

[demwing]

1. I keep saying the same thing

pollsters have ZERO clue what a likely voter looks like.

There will be a surprise in the southwest on election night. Either a red state flips blue, or nearly does.

[grantcart]

3. There is a reason for this.

Pollsters can only base their conclusions on past patterns.

There is no precedent for this election.

Number of cell phones, different.

Number of young people will turn out this time, different.

And so on.

They don't know who is really going to vote.

Silver is right about one thing. The President's numbers are solid and probably a little under reported.

Romney is at his highest. He can only go down. The reason for this is that there is a lot of things that a lot of people don't know about him. If they learn more about Romney his numbers can only go down, not up.

[teabaggersarestupid]

4. Did Silver really say that?

"Silver is right about one thing. The President's numbers are solid and probably a little under reported."

[grantcart]

9. He did a statistical analysis that showed that incumbent Presidents are always underreported

Its simply really.

People are basically risk adverse and ultimately will always make a preference for a known brand that they have some question on rather than a new brand that have one serious question about.

There is nothing new that the Republicans can come up with against Obama. They have been running against him at full speed for 4 years.

All that has to happen for any incumbent is to end the election with doubt about the other guy.

Ford was down 18 points and barely lost.

Clinton was mired in personal disgrace, won. Bush not popular won.

If you ask people in a poll they are more likely to voice an opinion of ambiguity while on election day when it comes right down to it you have to have a reason to change. Hating a guy because of his race is not enough of a reason and grows weaker every year.

So on the one hand you have 40% that will never vote for a Democrat. You have about 42% who will never vote for a Republican and you have about 5% that will shift towards an incumbent (47%). That leaves 11% to be fought over. The President only needs 4 out of 11 to win.

[teabaggersarestupid]

10. Interesting

Do you know if this is factored into his forecast? Or is it Nate's opinion that the odds of Obama winning are actually higher due to what you mention above?

[Maximumnegro]

13. Quit worrying. 90%

of Registered voters vote. Look up past stats. The whole "registered voters may not vote" meme is false. Just look it up. Each election RV percentage increases. We are 90%. I don't need to say who that benefits...

[demwing]

18. In the recent past, only about 70% of registerred voters vote for President

between 1980 - 2004 it was 72% on average. I don't see 2008.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

[progressivebydesign]

2. The MSM and the right wing pollsters are blowing smoke. My peeps are WAY more motivated this time.

It's crazy how much more enthusiasm I'm seeing this time. Much more... that whole "likely voter" thing is such a joke. Look at the pics of the early voting, those people are NOT what (R)assmussen and Gallup would consider likely voters, and there they are.. voting.

I've head so many stories from friends lately about their Christian friends who voted for McCain, who are now voting for the President. People don't like Romney, they don't trust him, and anyone who tells us that women and the majority of voters DO, are lying or cooking the polls to sell a narrative

[ethellamyers]

12. I agree about the enthusiasm

I've been canvassing for a month now in Colorado and I'm seeing LOTS of democrat enthusiasm. Today was the first time for GOTV and people were so happy to tell me that they had already sent their ballots.

For myself, I've given a lot more $$ and time than I did 4 years ago.

[DonViejo]

5. TPM has been running a good analysis also...

Republicans Boast Early Vote Gains — But So Do Democrats

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/republicans-boast-early-vote-gains----but-so-do-democrats.php?ref=fpa

[teabaggersarestupid]

6. I agree

And Nate Silver says typical enthusiasm advantage of 1-2% for Republicans. But this election it's like 5 or 6%. In that CNN Florida poll, it was 9% in favor of Republicans! How the fuck is this possible? Republicans are always enthusiastic so that would imply a lower turnout for Dems. Why would Dems turn out 3-7% less than normal?

[budkin]

7. Likely voters are way more "unlikely" in Pres Elections

Dems will win GOTV

[pointsoflight]

8. Regardless, what is all means is that if we GOTV, we win going away.

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Difference is the Amount of Voter Suppression They Intend to Do

Last edited Sun Oct 21, 2012, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

They intend to prevent millions of Democrats from voting. Gallup is incorporating this voter suppression into their LV model, since to be a "likely voter" they have to actually let you vote.

In those places where the courts have stopped them from requiring IDs to vote, they threaten to arrest people for "voting illegally". The burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution, but when all you've got to represent you is a public defender, if that, it may not matter. The bottom line is that those who don't have IDs might still get sent to prison for exercising their right to vote. That will surely frighten off a few people, especially if they have a heavy police presence at the polls, and even more if they make arrests there.

They are also destroying registration forms and purging voter rolls, all in defiance of the law.

The Gallup "Likely Voter" model may give us a clue into the scope of their voter suppression operation.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

14. That's the rethug plan. nt

[davidn3600]

15. Democrats usually do vote early...happened in 2004 and 2008

For some odd reason Republicans usually wait.

McCain actually won based on the voters who voted on election day.

[LisaL]

17. While that's true, we can compare 2012 to 2008 numbers, and if

proportion of democrats to republicans looks similar (and we won the state), we should be in good shape.

[Mutiny In Heaven]

19. 2004 was a mixed picture.

Kerry DID lead in some states, but Bush had a projected 51-47% advantage nationwide at a similar time of year. That's certainly slimmer than most polls are projecting Obama's to be.

[dsc]

16. I can only speak for NC in this regard

but here the incentive for early voting is for those of us who live in cities and thus tend to be Democrats. Most small counties have only one early voting site (their board of elections) and don't have very crowded polls so those voters face a long drive to vote if they vote early and not much of a line if they vote on the day of the election. In big counties we tend to have more early voting places and longer lines on election day and thus we have in my case a shorter drive to vote and avoiding a line. It makes rational sense for Democrats to be voting early and for Republicans not to be under that scenario.

[Ztolkins]

20. Doesn't this just mean Dems are voting now?

[quaker bill]

21. Having been polled many times now

perhaps the dems are just saying they are "interested" in voting rather than "very interested" or "sure" as opposed to "very sure". They are going to do it, but don't use the most dramatic term to describe it.

I am quite sure I will vote as I have never missed an election, so I am either "sure" or "very sure", as there is no doubt. Both are correct answers.