Today, Gallup released a poll, not of the horse race but of the demographics of the electorate. The headline is “2012 Electorate Looks Like 2008″, but that buries the important difference. While the gender, racial, age and education characteristics are about the same, party identification has changed radically:
Basically, Republican vs Democrat is about +1 Republican; include leaners and that’s +3 Republican.
Gallup’s “horserace” poll of likely voters has Romney 50 percent Obama 47 46 percent. However, as Bob Krumm noted on Wednesday, the “likely voter” screens are very, er, liberal, and are probably including a fair number of people who won’t actually vote.
Rasmussen, by the way, has 50/47 Romney again today.
One more interesting point: several polls have now shown Republican enthusiasm much higher than Democrat, in fact at all all-time high. What this would imply is a greater likelihood that Republican and leaning-Republican voters will actually make it to the polls. And that in turn suggests the actual vote may be significantly more Republican than the polls are showing. This could be shaping up to be a Reaganesque landslide.
Column headings, please.
Oops. That’s 2008, 2010, 2012.
I think you mean 2004, 2008, 2012
Yeah.
I’m so confused. 12% more Ds in 2010?
Think: 2010 more so than 2008.
Yes, a mid-term doesn’t have the turnout that a Prez year does, but the 2004-2006-2008-2010 trend is quite distinct. I suspect that’s a facet of the accelerating loss of monopoly clout of the Mushroom Media, In sum: Dems/hard left out, RINOs out, statists out.
Unfortunately, after 80-120 years of statism, it’s way too little, way too late.
“This could be shaping up to be a Reaganesque landslide.”
But please, for the love of all that is holy… Don’t. Get. Cocky.
This information makes the current structure of polling – including our vaunted Rasmussen – clear as mud. Why are the polls slanted so far to the left?
If I were a conspiracy theorist I’d have one of two explanations, and I’m hoping for the former:
- the media wants the race to remain a tight competition to maintain viewership and excitement –
or
- the media wants to provide cover for a wholesale theft of our elections.
But perhaps it is simply that this election is like no other because of the level of mistrust the public has for pollsters and the media. I know many democrats who are voting for Romney including many in my own family (I’m actually amazed by D-Lifers who are crossing the aisle to get rid of Obama). It all seems to forebode a landslide Romney event that will surprise all of us.
As I’ve repeatedly written, 2010 was the warmup.
The storm could very well depress donkey turnout on the east coast. Big Oil caused AGW which caused the racist storm. Bush is still with us.
Polling from Left LAYING Pew shows GOP enthusiasm @ an all time high… Couple that with the info here… & I like our chances… Agree we can’t get cocky, many things could happen.
The headline is completely misleading. The columns are indeed, 2004, 2008, and 2012. The headline is a non-sequitur.
?????
Sorry, snork, I remember typing a reply but it’s not here. Check the rest of the linked article: all the other demographics are very much like 2008. Same proportion of women, hispanics, blacks — just a lot more of them are Republicans.
Perhaps, were it not for the massive Democrat voter fraud machine that is getting a little light shone upon it.
All they have to do is make the outcome look close to the RCP electoral map reflecting the polls and give Obama Ohio and it’s 281 Obama, 257 Romney and everyone goes “Gee, what a close race” instead of “My GOD there was so much fraud! Time to take our country back.”
That’s their only goal.
Final tally Tuesday: Obama – 281 (Including OH, MI, MN, WI, PA, NV, and NH), Romney, 257 (including FL, CO, VA, and NC)
Reason: Massive voter fraud. The ONLY way that’s not going to happen is so huge a landslide that they can’t even make the votes fast enough, much like what happened in WI with the recall election – and they still made it look close.
Orion
A few weeks ago I saw some of this data on another site (datechguy, I think) that correlated Gallup Party ID in October before an election with the election results, for the past several election cycles. Somewhere around D+1.5 to D+2 was the breaking point. Above that number and Democrats won; anything below D+1.5 and Republicans won. R+1 could mean a significant Republican win, and an R+3 would pretty much guarantee a large win. If the correlation holds, of course.
The correct column headings are 2004 – 2008 – 2012.
So it shows the huge shift to Dems in 2008 because of the Obama wave but that 2012 is more like 2004 and maybe even advantage Rep. An advantage Rep would likely led to a Reagan-Carter type win (not Reagan-Mondale)
This could be huge because most polls that show Obama winning in swing states, typically have a positive Dem advantage of +4, 5, 6 points. I ran some numbers and a rough calc shows that a 1 point shift is worth about 0.7%. So if the poll spreads are wrong by just 3 points there should be a 2% shift to Romney in the actual vote.
Link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx
Just for the record, Gallup’s likely voter screen is not “liberal.” Gallup’s 7 question LV screen is the tightest of all the major pollsters (they are sometimes criticised for having it set too tight).
Great, kid! Don’t get cocky
I believe in this context, referring to size, the adjective is “Reaganic”.