« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Quinnipiac this morning hits a new level in loaded agenda polling

These new poll releases by Quinnipiac that came out would indicate it is all but over for Mitt Romney.  But, look deeper:

Florida — 36D/27R/33I (D+9)

Ohio — 35D/26R/35I (D+9)

Pennsylvania — 39D/28R/27I (D+11)

Guys, there is no way that the electorate is going to break down like that on election night.  The national tracking polls of Rasmussen and Gallup would show Obama with a double digit lead nationally if these polls from Quinnipiac were accurate.  In case you don’t know, Quinnipiac conducts polls for CBS News and the New York Times.  That should tell you something.  These agenda pollsters are starting to get taken to task on their bologna.  Here was Quinnipiac’s director’s response to their methodology:

But the real loser in this debate was Doug Schwartz, director of Quinnipiac Polling. In addition to childishly dismissing the complaints as sour grapes by Republicans, Schwartz indicts himself in explaining the controversy:

Schwartz, whose institute conducts polls in battleground states for CBS News and The New York Times, asserts that pollsters who weight according to party identification could miss the sorts of important shifts in the electorate that could be determinative.

“A good example for why pollsters shouldn’t weight by party ID is if you look at the 2008 presidential election and compared it to the 2004 presidential election, there was a 7-point change in the party ID gap,” Schwartz said. Democrats and Republicans represented equal portions of the 2004 electorate, according to exit polls. But, in 2008, the percentage of the electorate identifying as Democrats increased by 2 percentage points, to 39 percent, while Republicans dropped 5 points, to 32 percent.

Asked specifically about GOP complaints regarding the party-ID composition of public surveys, Schwartz said: “They’re the ones trailing in our swing-state polls.” “There are more people who want to identify with the Democratic Party right now than the Republican Party,” he added.

I guess if you concentrate your polling in urban areas like Cleveland or Philadelphia, you would get poll results like this.

By the way, in 2008 the electorate turnout was D+3 in Florida, D+8 in Ohio, and D+7 in Pennsylvania.  In other words, Quinnipiac is expecting the turnout of the electorate to be better for Obama in 2012 than in 2008, significantly in some states.  These polls would verify if the GOP just decided to sit at home this election.  I am sure this is exactly what the Obama campaign would like.  These pollsters are forgetting that aside from there being a huge registration upsurge in 2008, a lot of GOP voters stayed home in 2008 as well.  Do you plan on staying home on Election Night this November?

Update:  (Hat tip to the people over at Hedgehog Report) This morning, Rasmussen has the race tied at 46-46 and Romney is up 48-46 when leaners are factored in.  This indicates movement to Romney in Rasmussen’s three day tracking poll.  Gallup will probably show the same as well today.

COMMENTS

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “Rasmussen has the race tied at 46-46 and Romney is up 48-46 when leaners are factored in.”

    Then its a tied race. I trust Gallup and Ras and the rest are cr*p. PPP is normally good, but you cannot trust the ‘pollaganda’ factor, which PPP *clearly* engaged in when they made a fake Akin-McCaskill poll in August.

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      PPP’s two largest clients are DKos and SEIU – even Silver admits you have to adjust their numbers. PPP isn’t a political hack because SEIU and DKos are their largest clients; DKos and SEIU use them because they are political hacks.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    Good stuff RQ. I just put up a similar take on this as well.

    What I want to know is why conservative commentators on the talking heads shows aren’t HAMMERING this across the board. It’s rampant on virtually all the polls.

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      Jay Cost is and Sean Trende even admitted on his twitter feed that Cost had a point. That Florida mix is believable if Alabama suddenly annexed the Florida Panhandle.
      I suspect as well that Obama’s Florida turnout is going to be affected by the mess in the Middle East and no pollster is actually touching that issue for Obama.

  • Bill S

    There are more people who want to identify with the Democratic Party right now than the Republican Party,” he added.

    Unadulterated bull****.

    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      I’d of asked Schwartz the following:
      1. Do you really believe in a D+9 turnout in Florida where Republicans have won the last 4 gubernatorial races?
      2. Isn’t D+9 only possible if Alabama suddenly annexed the Florida panhandle?
      3. Obama’s current clown show in the Middle East and isolation of Israel is going to actually help his Jewish turnout in Florida vs 2008?
      4. If you adjusted your turnout to R+1 (a more historic Florida turnout), wouldn’t you be showing a Romney win?
      5. Wouldn’t it be more predictive to report the polling like D+3 = X; D+0 = Y, R+1=Z and then admit you don’t know where the turnout would be.
      10/10/2008 – CBS/NY Times = Obama +14; GWU/Battleground 10/8/2008 = Obama +13; ABC WaPo 10/8/2008= Obama+10. Final: Obama +7. This is not new, what is new is Republicans pointing it out.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The race is still close today, but I think, on November 6, judging from Chicago’s antics, Romney would have established a solid lead in the battlegrounds.

    They see the direction of America themselves.

  • Ausonius

    Proof of Quinnipiac’s bias and inaccuracy: here is an excerpt of their Fearless Leader, Peter Brown, trying to defend his biased methods on the Hugh Hewitt Show:

    Giving Democrats a 9-point advantage in the polling:

    HH: But that’s, again, I don’t believe that, because today, Democrats
    wouldn’t turn out by a nine point advantage. I don’t think anyone
    believes today, if you held the election today, do you think Democrats
    would turn out nine percentage points higher than Republicans?

    PB: If the election were today, yeah. What we found is obviously a large Democratic advantage.

    HH: I mean, you really think that’s true? I mean, as a professional,
    you believe that Democrats have a nine point turnout advantage in
    Florida?

    PB: Our record has been very good. You know, Hugh, I…

    HH: That’s not responsive. It’s just a question. Do you personally,
    Peter, believe that Democrats enjoy a nine point turnout advantage right
    now?

    PB: What I believe is what we found.

    HH: Geez, I just, and an eight point in Ohio? I’m from Ohio.
    Democrats haven’t had an eight point advantage in Ohio since before the
    Civil War. I mean, that just never happens, but Peter, I appreciate your
    coming on. I’m not persuaded that Quinnipiac Polls haven’t hurt
    themselves today, but I appreciate your willingness to come on and talk
    about it.

    See:

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=1c1a7295-7ce1-47e7-8074-4ce24952aceb

  • Matt8

    I propose a new metric: “news to noise level”. Anything less than 1 is suspect. Many of the polls are >>1, in my opinion.

  • Pingback: Leola Kresha

  • Pingback: Claud Sabino