That’s what we’re referring to, self-identification. Has support for the Democratic Party increased to levels even greater than 2008, so that independents would be flocking to the party? That too, is big news, if it’s happening.
Romney is still tied or ahead with independents. Obama could win this election without winning the independent vote. Would not that also be unprecedented in recent times? When did that last happen?
You’re eliding two differences here, at least. Dopers/pollsters and winning/margin.
I’m willing to predict that Obama wins based on the current polls. I am not willing to predict that his margin matches the current margin. Why is any of that relevant to whether pollsters really believe in the accuracy of their current snapshot of the race?
“Near tie” is the weasel phrase here. A 51-49 race is a near tie. But a stable 51-49 lead means the odds of winning are much higher than 51%.
I don’t agree with that premise. Nor do I agree with the premise that the media has declared the race is over. What they’ve said is that Obama has a clear lead that will be difficult for Romney to overcome, which is true regardless of whether you think the result will be a 5-point victory or a 2-point victory.
Fair enough. Just so long as we all agree that his current lead is likely to shrink assuming no campaign altering events. Obviously he could win by even more, but if he does it will be because of independents abandoning Romney, not a surge of new Democratic voters. At least, that seems unlikely.
Again, you need more than “it’s unprecedented” to say the data is wrong. Do you have any evidence that the polling methodology is bad (not counting any possible “surprising” results)?
The polls say that self-identification for the Democratic Party has increased. So either it has actually increased, or the polls are wrong. And it should be noted that if a significant number of 2008 independents now call themselves Democrats, then it would make perfect sense that Obama could still have a big lead and be losing the “independent vote”.
Why is it likely to shrink? Sure, it might, but why is it more likely to shrink then expand (based on no campaign altering events)?
I think there’s definitely room for reasonable debate over whether the phenomenon being captured by the polls right now will be lasting. But I understand most of the conservative theories to be about why the phenomenon isn’t actually happening, which is very different.
I think it’s a reasonable hypothesis that democratic enthusiasm from the convention and the 47% remarks are what is driving the spike in democratic-ID and job approval for Obama. It follows from that hypothesis that the effect is likely to degrade over time, based on what we know about the effect of conventions and gaffes.
But that is not the only reasonable hypothesis. Another is that voters have made up their minds about how much to blame Obama for the economy. Or have become more optimistic about the economy. Or have made up their minds about Romney being out of touch.
THat’s my point, I’m saying it can be right and unprecedented. But no one wants to predict that this will hold up. Being that this is the case, we can safely assume that it won’t.
I think it’s more a case that the media are using the polls to push a narrative in a way I haven’t seen in the past. They are pretty much calling the election now, talking about how Romney’s path to victory is impossibly narrow, as if there’s no way he’ll make up the lost ground.
What I’m seeing is the media accepting the results of the polls as something that can be extrapolated to Nov. 6, but when you bring up the internals that generate the results, they back off. It should be plain why this would annoy Romney supporters.
See, this is where you are wrong, I think. Can you find a single 4-year cycle where the non-white vote share didn’t increase? This is simple demographics.
In 1992 white voters were 87% of the electorate. In 1996 white voters were 83%. 80% in 2000. 77% in 2004. Finally, it was 74% in 2008. It could easily be as low as 72% this year, perhaps lower.
Again, you’re conflating two concepts: that the polls suggest Obama is very likely to win (true, regardless of whether you think they are accurately predicting the margin) and that the internals of the polls accurately predict the party breakdown on election day (maybe so, maybe not).
To the extent the media is reporting that Obama is very like to win based on what we know, that’s accurate (though I think you’re vastly overstating the extent to which the media is doing this, as conservatives tend to wildly underestimate the prominence of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post, talk radio, etc.).
You’re seem to be making the mistake that “I don’t know” means “no”. See three-way logic.
Whistling past the graveyard.
Are you putting your money on it, anywhere?
Where’d you get those numbers? There are people on another message board saying that the latest polls show CBS is an Obama shill.
1988: 84.9%
1992: 84.6%
1996: 82.5%
2000: 80.7%
2004: 79.2%
2008: 76.3%
At this point I am willing to predict it will hold up. (Even while acknowledging the fluidity of self reported voter ID.) Oh sure an amazing debate performance by Romney and some flubs by Obama could cause significant shifts, but Team Romney has demonstrated that the odds are more likely that Romney will just embarrass himself more.
IF Romney had a real narrative to sell, some positive vision for the future of America that he could convince a majority of the middle that he both really believed and to sign on to, then a President presiding over this weak of an economy would be very beatable. But he has foundered over his message and it is too late now to develop a consistent vision to articulate without the target audience seeing him as Etch-a-Skeching at the last minute. Not his fault really. He couldn’t get the nod without pandering to position farther Right than he really believes. And once pandered to he was very conscious that an Etch-a-Sketch reboot would have lost him base turnout. So he’s tried to both play some moderate notes while also throwing the base what he hopes is what they need to hear - leaving him with nothing that rings true to anyone. And right now just being not-Obama is not enough.
Oh bup, I’m not Jas09 but here’s a source for you (one critical of Obama’s chance btw):
Just more proof that Obama is registering undocumented aliens! 
That is precisely the source I used (although apparently I transcribed one number wrong) - sorry for not linking it in my post.
ETA: As to the author’s contention that the non-white share might drop this cycle, that was in May. Democratic intensity has gone up markedly since then (particularly since the DNC).
Sean Hannity was railing about it yesterday in his daily comedy monologue.
In any case, does anyone else think that the idea of a well-known polling firm intentionally, deliberately, and blatantly modifying its results in order to have a major impact on an election is patently ridiculous? Now, I’m not naive, and I know politics is war and all, but these companies are businesses. Being caught doing such things, or being just plain wrong when the election actually plays out, would be devastating to their reputations. It just doesn’t make sense.
Exactly. Pollsters want to be accurate. They don’t want to change elections.