Am I to take your word for it?
At any rate, the RCP average, right now, shows a dead tie between Obama and Romney in the national polls. So I guess Romney’s gonna win by 8-10 points, right? 
I hereby nominate this post for a Starvie Award.
Do we STILL think Republicans are overpolling Democrats? Cuz if so, Romney is going to blow Obama out of the water.
And this is why everyone calls him “Mr. Sunshine”.
By my non-expert calculations, between 2 - 3 points.
.Gotta love that Republican math.
In 2008, Obama won the election by 7 percentage points, 53 - 46, and won Independents by 8 points, 52 - 44. The turnout model for 2008 was D+7 at 39D/32R/29I.
Today, in 2012, Obama is losing Independents by between 4 and 18 points, depending on the poll, with most polls showing Obama losing Independents by around 8 or so points. That’s about a 16 point swing from 2008. Factor in the fact that, unlike 2008 when Democrats held a huge enthusiasm advantage over Republicans, Republicans today have the enthusiasm gap over Democrats and you get a situation where you’re likely to see, at best, a D+3/D+4 turnout. If we see something like a 39D/35R/26I turnout, which I think is likely, that equates to about a 2 - 3 point victory for Romney.
Now what do you think is wrong with my math?
It’s like taking the census by eyeballing how the curves will extend over the next decade instead of counting people.
There is a method to measure self-ID. It’s called polling. Should we be skeptical of unexpected results? Of course. Should we therefore just guess? No, that’s silly. Ignoring the science because you get an unexpected result is the same scientific ignorance as your party’s denial of evolution and global warming.
And that argument was wrong the first time it was used.
Nothing is wrong with your math. What’s wrong has been pointed out to you several times already: your calculation assumes that party identification is fixed.
Not that this has anything to do with the subject, which is by what margin the corrected-for-party-ID polls would say Romney is ahead by now.
But just for shits and giggles, I’m kinda wondering what you mean by ‘calculations’ here. Because they usually involve arithmetic and stuff, and can be checked. Care to show your work? Or maybe this is some Republican definition of ‘calculate’ that I’ve been unfamiliar with up to this point.
He did show his work. 
Weird polls this past weekend by Gallup and PPP among a few others that show Romney up four, with a big jump in his favor on Sunday in particular. It’s kind of puzzling; I can’t think of anything that happened then, and it seems strange for past events to catch up like that. The timing seems wrong somehow.
Could be statistical noise. We’ll know in the next week or so.
I’ve been wondering about that myself. Since the debate, Romney has gained 5-10 points in some polls. That’s an enormous movement. We can probably go to war and the polls wouldn’t move 10 points. Sure, Romney had a decent debate performance, but nothing that should move the polls this far. I haven’t done any statistical analysis to see where the numbers are moving to/from, but it seems odd. I’d point to statistical noise, too, if the other polls weren’t following along.
There’s an easy way to reduce statistical noise, which is to take an average of each poll’s trend. On average, each poll has shown about a 4-point bump for Romney. Everything else–including concern about individual results and attempts assign causation to the overall trend–is not scientific.
Throughout the summers there were similar outliers. CBS/NYT had Romney +5 in Colorado in mid-summer. Magellan had Romney +10 in FL before the conventions.
The fact of continuing outliers after the debate is relevant in our feeble human minds that attempt to paint narratives in the randomness, but the cold calculations aren’t changed.
While I’m happy you want to keep throwing out this straw man, it’s just as much a straw man now as it was on page 1. No one said anything about party ID being fixed. I’m looking at three things; registration data within any given state, historical voter turnout and the enthusiasm gap. You look at… a poll. Now which should I believe? That we’re going to see a Democratic turnout exceeding that of 2008 even though Republican registration is up while Democratic enthusiasm is down or a poll with a ridiculous turnout model that assumes Obama is going to beat or exceed his 2008 turnout even though he’s lost a significant amount of support from 2008? Hmmm… Hard choice there.
Would you care to try again?
(BTW> On page 1 I quoted a PPP poll of Florida with a laughable split. In their more recent poll, they have a split of 41D/37R/22I, which just so happens to match voter registration in Florida. Imagine how the closer to election season we get, the closer their polls start to mirror the partisan split of each state…)
Gah. It should read.
(And yes that’s probably a run on sentence.)
Why do you think Republican turnout will be better and Independent turnout worse in 2012 as compared to 2008 when the meta has been “Republicans are going Independent?”