# Is it too early to say Romney has lost? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 18, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066 "2012-09-18T13:26:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 66
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1302 "2012-11-01T05:57:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 1. Based on past experience, those who think that the polls are wrong are in for a long election eve. At least since the days of Truman. > > 2. You seem to be suffering under a misapprehension. The polls don’t measure party registration: they measure party affiliation. Those are different beasts, and the latter routinely fluctuates on a weekly basis. I pointed this out several weeks ago IIRC. Here’s how [Gallup frames the question](http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx): In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? They are NOT asking what party the respondent is registered under. > > Here’s a 2006 Gallup discussion on why it is not advisable to re-weight the results by party ID. [Gallup Position on "Weighting" an Entire Sample to Reflect a Target Distribution of Party Identification](http://www.gallup.com/poll/20938/Gallup-Position-Weighting-Entire-Sample-Reflect-Target.aspx) > > 1. My argument for Romney is simpler. Nate Silver puts the popular vote 50.5 - 48.6 in Obama’s favor. That’s not a decisive margin. Romney certainly is not the favorite, but it shouldn’t be hard to come up with a litany of excuses on either side to move the needle by 2 points. That’s what I also can’t quite understand. I would have thought that a straight forward “who are you supporting” is going to be the most accurate indicator. For anything else 1. Isn’t it self evident that if you are voting Obama, you will tend to consider yourself a democrat and vice versa? 2. If you are NOT voting according to your registration (either for president or down ticket), aren’t you more likely to call yourself independent? 3. What are people more likely to be confused about - who they are voting for or who they are registered with? (in relation to people being wrongly resigtered as Repub) In short, I’d follow the polls rather than registrations. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1303 "2012-11-01T06:24:36Z")
That Karl Rove article is a masterpiece of cherrypicking. He goes to great lengths discussing the national polls which supposedly show Romney in the lead (though right now even that is debatable) while ignoring the Ohio polls which show a much clearer Obama lead. If you believe the polls are rubbish let’s at least be consistent. I am not sure about his sources for early voting data. This is what the [WaPo](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/31/democrats-set-to-win-early-vote-but-gop-outperforms-2008/)says about Ohio: > [@](#): > > Ohio, as usual, is harder to measure, since the state doesn’t have traditional party registration. Polling last week showed Obama winning the early vote by between 26 and 30 points. A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows his advantage at 26 points and an automated SurveyUSA poll shows that margin is down to 16. A late Friday poll from CNN showed Obama winning by 21 among people who already voted or planned to vote early If the state doesn’t have traditional registration where is Rove getting his numbers from? In any case it’s not showing Romney leading in the early voting. It’s showing a smaller Obama lead than 2008 but still very healthy at 54-46. Romney will have to win big on election day to make up for that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1304 "2012-11-01T09:20:08Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Okay. I’m not so sure how many times I’ve gone over this-- with real, hard data-- only to have the same people return with “but look at what the polls say!”. I _know_. It’s ridiculous how some of us refuse to ignore the polls, despite their historical record of accuracy. > [@](#): > > Your entire argument hinges on the idea that multiple pollsters can’t be wrong, which is a fallacy upon fallacies. Not that they can’t be wrong, just that it’s unlikely that they’re wrong. You haven’t convinced me yet (Party registration and self-ID are not the same!). > [@](#): > > There is good reason to suspect that the polls are wrong; because whereas state polls show an increasing Democratic electorate (even moreso than 2008), state level registration data shows **the exact opposite trend** , with Democratic affiliation down and Republican affiliation up. \ It’s possible you’re right. I don’t know why you’re so convinced, though, considering the polls. If you’re right, all it means is that the polls are wildly off. But they could be off in any direction- they could be undercounting the # of Republicans and independents who support Obama, for example, just as they could be overcounting the # of Democrats. It sounds like wishful thinking to me… but we’ll see on Nov 6. I’ll put my money on people with records of accuracy. > [@](#): > > (And why are you mentioning history since you ignored one of my earlier posts about history and how Obama would need to buck numerous trends to win?) And Romney wouldn’t need to buck the trends against him in the polls? You make me laugh. I could be wrong. Nate could be wrong, and the polls could be wrong. Intrade could be wrong. So could you, obviously. I’m not going to just take your word for it, because we’ll find out in 5 days. But considering that the pollsters and Nate have addressed this topic before, and seem to be taking it into account, I think it’s more likely that they’re right and you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1305 "2012-11-01T12:12:31Z")
So either the few big national trackers are producing results that are (unintentionally) biased to Romney, or, as a group, the much larger number of state polls are systematically biased to Obama. Is there a plausible mechanism for either? Nationally the potential source for bias is within the demographic correction being off. Do state polls “correct” for regional demography as much? If so what datasets do they use? Are they systematically doing it in the same way and is that way more or less likely accurately reflecting the likely voter pool compared to the methods of the national trackers? If not is that a potential source of error or an avoidance of one at this point? Because if it is true that if the numbers from the states are systematically biased by some error they all share against Romney by much more than 2 points then this race is likely his. As per the recent 538 analysis the past record is that national polls are more often biased than the states polls overall, but past results are no assurance of future results … A few more days and we know. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1306 "2012-11-01T12:19:38Z")
**OMG** is making the [same argument](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-blumenthal/unskewed-polls_b_1924293.html) that some Democrats made in the days before the election in 2004- that the polls innacurately represented (oversampled/overestimated) the number of Republicans, showing a Bush advantage. But the polling averages were right in 2004, and these partisans were wrong. I think it’s more likely than not that the polling averages are right in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1307 "2012-11-01T13:10:13Z")
Yes, the argument parroted by **OMG** and his ilk are silly. But there was not the disconnect between the national polling (Gallup and Rasmussen) and the state polling datasets in 2008. In fact that year the national data (see the recent 538 article for the table) had no bias while the state data had a small one. In 2004 the state data was less biased than the national polls but also by a similarly small amount. You have to go back to 2000 to get a significant discrepancy between the datasets, the states data doing better by 2 points then. And yes in 1996 the national data was much more biased than the state data was, being off by over 5 points compared to the nearly dead on of the state data. Does disparate performance in 1996 and 2000 really meaningfully predict performance in 2012? Are the sorts of potential systemic errors made then likely to be the same sorts of systemic errors that could be made now? Agreed arguing that firms should be correcting for voter ID is a silly position, but there _can_ be other systemic approach factors that the state pollers share that create some error. I am not resting easy quite yet. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1308 "2012-11-01T13:14:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Yes, the argument parroted by **OMG** and his ilk are silly. But there was not the disconnect between the national polling (Gallup and Rasmussen) and the state polling datasets in 2008. In fact that year the national data (see the recent 538 article for the table) had no bias while the state data had a small one. In 2004 the state data was less biased than the national polls but also by a similarly small amount. You have to go back to 2000 to get a significant discrepancy between the datasets, the states data doing better by 2 points then. And yes in 1996 the national data was much more biased than the state data was, being off by over 5 points compared to the nearly dead on of the state data. > > Does disparate performance in 1996 and 2000 really meaningfully predict performance in 2012? Are the sorts of potential systemic errors made then likely to be the same sorts of systemic errors that could be made now? Agreed arguing that firms should be correcting for voter ID is a silly position, but there _can_ be other systemic approach factors that the state pollers share that create some error. > > I am not resting easy quite yet. I’m not resting easy. But there’s not really a disconnect between the national and state polling- unless you disregard most of the national polling. The [national polling averages](http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12) show a very tight race- within 1 point or so- while the state polling shows consistent leads of various sizes for Obama in most of the swing states. These do not conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1309 "2012-11-01T13:15:07Z")
Two bits of good economic news for the President: [Hiring jumps in October, according to ADP; initial claims fall](http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/01/news/economy/adp-jobs-initial-claims/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1310 "2012-11-01T13:24:49Z")
Here’s a very specific 2004 example on party ID and polling (starting from arguments in [this article](http://www.wfae.org/post/do-historic-voting-patterns-forecast-2012-election)) In 2004, in the presidential election in North Carolina, [pre-election polling](http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/polls.php?fips=37) showed George Bush leading John Kerry about 52-44 (with 3-4% undecided). These polls (see [here](http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/NC041025presgovsen.pdf) and [here](http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/NC041101presgovsen.pdf) for the two SurveyUSA polls closest to the election), showed an approximately even D/R split in voter self-identification (40D/38R/21I and 39D/39R/21I in the two linked polls). However, actual _voter registration_ in NC (summarized [here](http://www.wfae.org/post/do-historic-voting-patterns-forecast-2012-election); go here for the raw numbers) showed a significant Democratic edge at 47D/34R/19I. Why the party ID difference between the polling and registration? One possible reason would be that the polls, for some unknown reason, over-sampled Republicans; thus, Kerry’s actual results in North Carolina should be much better that the polling showed, and Bush’s results worse. Alas, the [actual results on election day](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_North_Carolina,_2004) were Bush 56/Kerry 44, meaning Bush actually did a little _better_ than what one would predict from the aggregate polls, despite the clear Democratic advantage in party registration. Alternatively, it’s possible that Democrats were more likely to stay home on election day. However, the [actual breakdown in \*\*registered party affiliation \*\*among those who voted](http://www.wfae.org/post/do-historic-voting-patterns-forecast-2012-election) was 47D/37R/16I, fairly close to the overall breakdown among registered voters (at 47D/34R/19I). But what’s the most interesting is that [CNN did some exit polling](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NC/P/00/epolls.0.html) in North Carolina in 2004. The exit poll shows Bush winning 56% to 43% (very close to the actual result), but _also_ shows party self-identification of those polled. This was 39D/40R/21I, almost exactly matching the party \*\*self-identification \*\*from the pre-election polls, and nowhere near the breakdown of registered voters. The conclusion here is that there were a significant number of people who were \*\*registered \*\* with one party, but \*\*self-identified \*\*with another. The application of this 2004 example to the 2012 election is left as an exercise for the reader. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1311 "2012-11-01T14:49:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s impossible to know how well a storm has been handled before federal help arrives, which takes 72 hours under the best of circumstances. So, about this claim again…what’s it based on? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1312 "2012-11-01T14:56:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not resting easy. But there’s not really a disconnect between the national and state polling- unless you disregard most of the national polling. The [national polling averages](http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12) show a very tight race- within 1 point or so- while the state polling shows consistent leads of various sizes for Obama in most of the swing states. These do not conflict. And today’s 538 update reinforces your point. > [@](#): > > With a lead of about 2.5 percentage points in the tipping-point states, Mr. Obama could underperform his state polls by a point or two and still win. > > Conversely, Mr. Romney has few chances to win unless the state polls are systematically wrong. > > I don’t mean for this to sound dismissive; the polling error could quite easily be correlated across the different states, and the national polls are one reason to be suspicious of the state polls. > > But we’re at the point now where Mr. Obama may be a modest favorite even if the national polls are right. Two weeks ago, when Mr. Obama appeared to trail Mr. Romney by a point or so in the national polls, that would not have been the case. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1313 "2012-11-01T15:09:15Z")
The best you can say about the embarrassing lies about Chrysler and GM and abortion are that they’re the final desperate act of a craven campaign that knows it is fucked. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1314 "2012-11-01T15:21:18Z")
Anyway, this morning’s aggregate of national polls on Real Clear Politics has the national race at a tie. Which is going Obama’s way, since Romney’s small lead has been steadily coming down. ETA to add cite: [RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1315 "2012-11-01T15:24:00Z")
And Nate Silver says: [put up or shut up.](http://news.yahoo.com/nate-silver-joe-scarborough-wanna-bet-113615600.html) (I like the related article: “People who are bad at math are so mad at Nate Silver”) ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1316 "2012-11-01T15:26:57Z")
[Cracked](http://www.cracked.com/article_18847_6-things-you-wont-believe-can-brainwash-you-election-day_p2.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=News&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=companion) sez people are going to vote for Romney because of the hurricane. (Item #2, scroll down.) It’s all Obama’s fault! ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1317 "2012-11-01T15:29:16Z")
The requirement to register with a party varies from state to state. Even in states that do require an affiliation with a party at registration, the only possible meaning it can have afterward is limiting primary voting to the party of registration. In New York, e.g., if you register as a Republican you can only vote in Republican primaries. The registration form requires you to pick one of the following options: > [@](#): > > Democratic party > Republican party > Conservative party > Working Families party > Independence party > Green party > Other > I do not wish to enroll in a party If you pick “I do not wish to enroll in a party” you are legally considered to be a Blank not an independent. Notice that there are both an Independence Party and a Conservative Party among the third party options. Registering as one of them does not necessarily mean you are conservative or independent any more than registering as a Democrat means you’re a liberal. Once you’re registered, you’re set for life if you want. If you don’t care about voting in primaries - which is the majority of voters - then whatever you put as your party 20, 40, 60 years ago is what you stay no matter how you vote in any main election or what your beliefs are. Other states are even less strict. They allow any registered voter to vote in any primary. Are party registrations and voting behaviors and political affiliations positively correlated? Of course they are. But the correlation is not 1 or anywhere close to it. That’s why Gallup and others ask the question as of _ **today** _. There is no reason to assume that party registration plays any part in any individual’s current behavior. And the same for bengangmo’s " Isn’t it self evident that if you are voting Obama, you will tend to consider yourself a democrat and vice versa?" No, it’s the opposite of self-evident. It may not be true at all. Some people who consider themselves independents will vote for Obama. Some people who consider themselves members of third parties will vote for Obama. Some people who consider themselves Republicans will vote for Obama. (And some people who consider themselves Democrats will not vote for Obama.) Voting behavior switches from election to election as people convince themselves that - in this particular instance - a vote has to be cast that varies from what they consider to be their core beliefs. In this particular instance… That’s what polls try to measure, that’s what forecasters try to predict. The only sure way to be wrong is to do nothing but measure past behavior or what box you happened to check 50 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1318 "2012-11-01T15:30:49Z")
Why do pollsters even ask about party affiliation? It seems that the only relevant question is: who are you going to vote for? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1319 "2012-11-01T15:42:20Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > Why do pollsters even ask about party affiliation? It seems that the only relevant question is: who are you going to vote for? Because they are taking small random samples and then attempting to draw wider conclusions from those small samples. If your sample size is 500 and 498 of them are Democrats you are going to get different results than if you have a good random mix…and you are going to be able to draw wider conclusions from your poll results than polling those 498 Democrats and asking who they are going to vote for in this election. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1320 "2012-11-01T15:45:59Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Because they are taking small random samples and then attempting to draw wider conclusions from those small samples. If your sample size is 500 and 498 of them are Democrats you are going to get different results than if you have a good random mix…and you are going to be able to draw wider conclusions from your poll results than polling those 498 Democrats and asking who they are going to vote for in this election. Hmmm…I see. But if you call 500 people at random and hit 498 Democrats, your random phone number generator needs some work. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066/1321 "2012-11-01T15:46:27Z")
It’s a reasonable question to ask, as long as people don’t fall in to the trap of thinking it’s immutable or comparing it to registration numbers. I might still be a registered Republican for all I know, but haven’t voted for the GOP presidential candidate since 2000. Getting 498 out of 500 Democrats is obviously a bad sample, but seeing the D/R/I share vary by 5% or less is perfectly typical, and not something you really want to be weighting against. If you do, you are in danger of missing reality. Race, age, and gender are completely different, as folks don’t generally change those attributes between elections. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-too-early-to-say-romney-has-lost/635066.md?page=67)