Looking at these spreads between LVs and RVs -- It looks like BS

[bigtree]

Sam Stein ?@samsteinhp

RT @mpoindc: NBC/WSJ: Romney 47, Obama 47 among likely voters. RVs: Obama 49, Romney 44 (10/17-20, +/- 3.43 for LVs, +/- 3.1 for RVs)


Sam Stein ?@samsteinhp

enthusiasm gap RT @jonathanweisman: CNN/ORC Fla poll. Likely voters, 48 Obama, 49 Romney. Registered Voters, 50 Obama, 43 Romney.


That's not voter 'enthusiasm; it's more likely pollster enthusiasm.

[berni_mccoy]

1. Agreed. The pollsters have no idea how to measure LV.

[bigtree]

2. look at that Fla. poll

. . . there's something absolutely fraudulent about that spread. Don't differences like that raise any red flags for pollsters? Apparently not --- they always have an excuse.

[berni_mccoy]

9. Most LV Models don't count a newly registered voter as a likely voter.

I think that is where most of the error is.

[On the Road]

15. Oh, Really?

That would explain it then. Seems very curious -- why would someone register and and then not vote?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. It seems they want to fixate on the 2010 election

for who they think are "likely". I know alot of folks see this going back to 2000. But it seems that people really began waking up after 2004 and the 2006 election went beyond expectations, where Democrats retook Congress, culminating in what happened in 2008.-

The current GOTV effort is many times higher than 2010 or even 2000, 2004, 2006, or 2008.

[bigtree]

4. and we're kicking Romney's ass in registration numbers in most (if not all) key states

NC is a good example of that.

They may well be stuck in the past, and technology and attitudes may well have moved us into a more participatory era.

[berni_mccoy]

8. Most LV Models don't count a newly registered voter as a likely voter.

I think that is where most of the error is.

[bigtree]

10. that explains a lot, Bernie (to my uneducated mind)

that adds up perfectly

[unc70]

11. Miss same day registrations completely

Those voters aren't even in the RV totals until after they have already voted

[RagAss]

5. So all of these folks went to Register in FL....and now they are not going to vote??

BULLSHIT !

[ProSense]

6. Also, NBC has been showing

likely voter trending down for the President. He was up 5 points in early September, up 3 points in late September, and is now tied.

The race was expected to tighten, but look at the registered voter trend, the President in...

August was +4
Early September +6
Late September +7
Today's +5

Mitt hasn't made any gains among RVs, his number has been 44 through all these polls.

[bigtree]

7. that's a great point about Romney gains among RVs being flat

. . . and Democrats are kicking ass in registrations, compared to republicans. There has to be a lot of presumptive psychology going on to come up with these numbers. There's every reason for Obama supporters to question these LV models which are so obviously degrading registered Democrats and elevating republicans beyond their actual efforts in this campaign.

[ProSense]

16. Obama was +7 among RVs in the CNN Florida poll that

had Romney up 1 point among LVs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251157059

[berni_mccoy]

13. That is good news. Thanks ProSense!

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I think ...

We are confusing definitions here:

Registered voters is the class of people eligible and sined up to vote; whereas, Likely Voters is the class of people unlikely to face voter suppression efforts.

See?

[Zambero]

14. How about those AV's (Actual Voters)?

Thus far early voters in swing states have cast ballots for President Obama by a wide margin. As far as pollsters go, are votes already cast weighed more heavily than presumptive future votes that are categorized as being "likely"? And is the imbalance favoring President Obama in early voting data evidence of an enthusiasm gap that the Romney campaign is up against? (one can hope this is the case!). If Romney's ground game cannot make up the difference, the victory margin for the President may be larger than any of the polls predict.

[OldDem2012]

18. I get the sense the pollsters aren't counting the people who have already voted.

[OldDem2012]

17. I've been saying this since they made the switch from RV to LV after the first debate....

...the numbers being reported just didn't make any sense.

[Jennicut]

19. In 2008, the turnout was 89.6% of RV's.

The trend has gone up since 2000.

In 1996, 82.3% of people registered to vote voted.

In 2000, 85.5% of people registered to vote voted.

In 2004, 88.5% of people registered to vote voted.

In 2008, 89.6% of people registered to vote voted.

Daily Kos has a great post about this here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/19/1147230/-Attention-pollwatchers-Rembember-this-fact

Also, "Of the 50 state presidential polls conducting during the final month of the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, the RV result was closer to the final outcome than the LV result in fully half of them. In just 38 percent of them was the LV screen closer to the final outcome than the RV screen. In six of the polls, incidentally, there was no difference between the RV/LV results in a poll." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/14/1143653/-On-elections-and-likely-voters

[Dawson Leery]

21. GOTV = Obama +5.

[ProSense]

20. Check out this NBC News Tweet

4h NBC News ?@NBCNews
RT @chucktodd In this same poll at this same point in time in 2004, we had Bush-Kerry tied at 48%. #NBCPolitics

https://twitter.com/NBCNews

Now details:

Bush/Kerry 2004 & Obama/Romney 2012

by rennert

NBC/WSJ today has a poll out that shows President Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 47% among likely voters. Among the larger universe of registered voters, Obama leads by 5, 49% to 44%.

How does this compare to the last incumbent's reelection campaign in 2004?

Well, luckily we can do an apples to apples comparison because there was an NBC/WSJ poll released on Oct. 20, 2004.

That poll showed President Bush and John Kerry tied at 48% (almost exactly mirroring today's poll).

In that poll, just as in today's, the incumbent led among registered voters.

But there are differences:

In the 2004 poll, Bush led among registered voters by 2 pts, 48% to Kerry's 46%.

In today's poll, Obama leads among registered voters by 5 pts, 49% to Romney's 44%.

Bush ended up winning reelection by 1.5%, slightly less than his registered voter lead of 2%.

(This also proves that the race does not necessarily break to the challenger).

If (and it's a big "if&quot this election follows that template, Obama would win reelection by about 3-4%. But I won't even be that optimistic. Let's assume there's a 2 point tilt towards Republicans because of "enthusiasm". Obama would still win by 1-2%, matching Nate Silver's prediction all along that this race would settle down to Obama +2%.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/21/1147869/-Bush-Kerry-2004-Obama-Romney-2012

[bigtree]

22. saw that, Pro Sense

I'd think that we have a incumbent advantage, like Bush did.