USA Today: Republicans much more enthusiastic to vote in Nov 2012 than Dems

[Little-Acorn]

Remember all those polls where the pollsters sampled 20%, 30%, even 40% more Democrats than Republicans?

They were polls which would turn out accurate only if 20%, 30%, or 40% more Democrats than Republicans, actually voted on Nov. 6, 2012.

But the few polls that bothered to count, found that the number of Dems and Republicans is nearly equal this year, in the U.S.

And it gets worse: US Today has found that many Democrats are dispirited about their candidates this year, in sharp contrast to Republicans who are very enthusiastic about voting this year.

Most polls have found, to no one's surprise, that most Democrats who will vote, will do so for Obama; and most Republicans who vote will favor Romney.

But how many of each will actually vote on Nov. 6, 2012?

In significant contrast to the lopsided polls that call up to 40% more Dems than Republicans, the actual number indicate that Republicans will vote in equal or greater numbers than Democrats. Far more people are registering as Republicans than Democrats, and the enthusiasm of the Republicans is far outstripping that of the the relatively dispirited Democrats.

If each party votes in proportion to their numbers, Romney will come out with a slight edge.

And if more Democrats stay home and don't bother voting on Nov. 6, as their dispiritedness seems to indicate many of them will, then Romney could wind up with a BIG victory.

"May you live in interesting times." - ancient Chinese curse

Withe the inexplicable way the polls are skewing their results toward Obama - a trend they know they can't enforce in November - we are living in VERY interesting times.

And the evening of Nov. 6 promises to be the most interesting of all, when a "poll" is taken that (at last) pollsters cannot load with 40% more Democrats.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/29/poll-obama-romney-gallup/1601125/

Republicans have opened a big enthusiasm gap: 64% say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, compared to 48% of Democrats. In general, though, the results show an electorate that is less excited and less engaged than in recent presidential elections.

Democrats are less enthusiastic about voting than in 2008, although Republicans are a bit more enthusiastic.

---------------------------------------------

(You have to scroll way down in the linked article. For some reason, USA Today buried the above paragraphs very deep in the text.)

[glockmail]

I've been saying it since 2008. The Obama, or Carter II, will get destroyed in 2012 just like Carter I did when he tried to get re-elected.

[logroller]

I polled tea leaves and it put Romney ahead by three points...but they were white tea leaves, so that explains it.:coffee:

[Little-Acorn]

I polled tea leaves and it put Romney ahead by three points...but they were white tea leaves, so that explains it.:coffee:

Were the tea leaves registered to vote?

[logroller]

Were the tea leaves registered to vote?
Are you implying black tea leaves could not be? :laugh2:

[logroller]

Were the tea leaves registered to vote?
Didn't check their ID.

[Little-Acorn]

Year. . . GOP voters . . Dem voters (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . 42 . . . non-Presidential election, after too high Repub govt deficits and liberal programs
2008 . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . 69 . . . Presidential election, more high Repub deficits, huge enthusiasm for unknown Obama
2010 . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . 36 . . . non-Presidential election, after HUGE Dem deficits and Obama's agenda is revealed
2012 . . . . ?? . . . . . . . . .?? . . . Presidential election, after Americans find even more Obama agenda while Repubs fight tax and spending hikes

EXPLANATION

In 2006, Republican voters weren't too enthusiastic for their candidate. Their politicians had been spending like drunken sailors, GWB had signed a new Prescription Drug entitlement and other such liberal bills into law, etc.

In November 2006, only 36 million Republicans voted, while 42 million Democrats voted.

In 2008, Republicans were pretty much the same, while Democrats had an exciting new candidate they were hugely enthusiastic about.

In November 2008, 60 million Republicans voted while 69 million Democrats voted.

But in 2010, things changed. By then, many Democrats were disappointed in their formerly-exciting candidate, who seemed to spend most of his time playing golf, pushing outlandish programs, and strong-arming congressmen into taking over 1/6 of the nation's economy in a socialized-medicine progam most normal Americans didn't want. In the meantime, unemployment remained in the 8-10% range, with no end in sight. While Democrats were relatively dispirited, Republicans were up in arms over the same things, and went charging into the polls in November 2010.

In November 2010, 41 million Republicans voted, while only 36 million Democrats voted.

Now we're coming up to the 2012 elections, and things are pretty much the same things are true. Democrats are disappointed and dispirited, while Republicans are alarmed, and generating huge enthusiasm for voting.

In November 2012... well, how many Republicans do you think will vote, and how many Democrats?

More Dems voted in 2006 than GOP, and the same thing happened in 2008.

Now, more GOP voted in 2010 than Dems. Will the same thing happen in 2012?

[logroller]

... Democrats are disappointed and dispirited, while Republicans are alarmed, and generating huge enthusiasm for voting....

That may have been the case in June; not so according to more recent polls.

Republicans remain highly engaged in this election, but Democrats have closed the gap from earlier this year (http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/21/gop-holds-early-turnout-edge-but-little-enthusiasm-for-romney/). Fully 72% of Republicans have given a lot of thought to the election, similar to the 71% of Democrats. In June, more Republican voters than Democrats had given a lot of thought to the election (73% vs. 66%). http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2361/barack-obama-mitt-romney-horserace-september-poll-obama-lead-favorability-likable-support-democratic-engagement-independents-swing-voters-deficit-jobs

The previous poll reflects changes which took place following the DNC convention, where democrat engagement would, expectedly, increase. The earlier-this-year polls to which you seem to garner your opinion from took place in June, and are explained well by the following.


Implications
Americans are not as engaged in the 2012 election as they were in the 2004 and 2008 elections at similar points in the campaign, but they do seem to pay more attention to election campaigns than to most news stories.Republicans currently are more highly engaged in the campaign than Democrats. If that persists, it suggests Republican turnout may be much stronger than Democratic turnout. However, Democrats may not have had as much reason to tune in to the campaign yet, given that most of the news has centered on the Republican nomination. Thought given to the election in September, after the party conventions are held, and in the final stretch of the campaign in October will give a better indication of potential turnout among party groups.http://www.gallup.com/poll/156524/voter-engagement-down-slightly-last-two-elections.aspx

[SassyLady]

I polled tea leaves and it put Romney ahead by three points...but they were white tea leaves, so that explains it.:coffee:

What did the green tea leaves tell you?

[avatar4321]

Republicans and those leaning to the right, especially Church goers, are going to be very enthusiastic this election.

[logroller]

What did the green tea leaves tell you?

Drink me. Settles the stomach, reduces gas and reduces my carbon footprint. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Dems and the liberal mmedia did all they could leading up to the 2010 midterm election to paint a picture of how well the Dems would do and how a majority of voters supported Obama's policies

When all the votes were counted, Dems lost over 600 seats in local, state, and federal levels

Given the total and complete disaster Obama has been to the country, I cannot believe a majority of voters will vote for more of his hope and change

[logroller]

Dems and the liberal mmedia did all they could leading up to the 2010 midterm election to paint a picture of how well the Dems would do and how a majority of voters supported Obama's policies

When all the votes were counted, Dems lost over 600 seats in local, state, and federal levels

Given the total and complete disaster Obama has been to the country, I cannot believe a majority of voters will vote for more of his hope and change

With utter disregard for your partisan leanings regarding liberal media, and respective of the OP, the Republicans in 2010 held a substantial advantage in pre-election polls. RealClearpolitics 2010 generic congressional average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html) showed republicans ahead by 9.4%...who now shows Obama ahead by 2.8 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html).

I really hope Obama leaves, but the useless polls indicate otherwise.

[cadet]

My only question is, where the hell are they getting these numbers? I've never been asked who i'm voting for. Noone i know has been asked if they're voting.

Heck, i just got an absentee vote and checked republican, and that's the only way they could know i'm registering republican. Everyone else though? HOW!?!?!?!?!? they pulling these numbers out of their asses to get more republicans to vote and disappoint dems????

[logroller]

My only question is, where the hell are they getting these numbers? I've never been asked who i'm voting for. Noone i know has been asked if they're voting.

Heck, i just got an absentee vote and checked republican, and that's the only way they could know i'm registering republican. Everyone else though? HOW!?!?!?!?!? they pulling these numbers out of their asses to get more republicans to vote and disappoint dems????

Scientific polling is founded upon the social science practice of statistical sampling. it includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects of representative subgroups to predict the likely behavior of larger population. There is a more comprehensive poll taken by our government...elections. Sounds like you're signed up; thanks for participating. :salute:

[fj1200]

Scientific polling is founded upon the social science practice of statistical sampling. it includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects of representative subgroups to predict the likely behavior of larger population. There is a more comprehensive poll taken by our government...elections. Sounds like you're signed up; thanks for participating. :salute:

I heard Michael Barone briefly on Medved the other day discussing this:

Michael Barone: Problem with polls: They might lean left (http://www.argusleader.com/article/20121002/COLUMNISTS02/310020033/Michael-Barone-Problem-with-polls-They-might-lean-left?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CCOLUMNISTS )
As a recovering pollster (I worked for Democratic pollster Peter Hart from 1974 to 1981), let me weigh in on the controversy about whether the polls are accurate. Many conservatives are claiming that multiple polls have overly Democratic samples, and some charge that media pollsters are trying to discourage Republican voters.First, some points about the limits of polls. Random sample polling is an imprecise instrument. There’s an error margin of 3 or 4 percent, and polling theory tells us that one out of 20 polls is wrong, with results outside the margin of error. Sometimes it’s easy to spot such an outlier, sometimes not.

We'll find out soon enough which pollsters have the better track record.

[cadet]

Scientific polling is founded upon the social science practice of statistical sampling. it includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects of representative subgroups to predict the likely behavior of larger population. There is a more comprehensive poll taken by our government...elections. Sounds like you're signed up; thanks for participating. :salute:

Can you put that in laymans terms?

Speaking of which, off topic, if you ask me, the best president would be the one that explains what he's talking about, instead of sitting there acting smart and making his people feel dumb. You know, relating to the people instead of degrading them.



And the most i got out of that was, "they ask a few people." But have you ever heard of anyone who's actually a part of these so called polls?

[fj1200]

Can you put that in laymans terms?

...

And the most i got out of that was, "they ask a few people." But have you ever heard of anyone who's actually a part of these so called polls?

Layman's terms? They know what you think by asking your friends what they think. And yes, people know people who have been called and have even been called themselves. :eek:

[Abbey Marie]

Were the tea leaves registered to vote?

No, but at least they are working. :laugh2:

[logroller]

Can you put that in laymans terms?

Speaking of which, off topic, if you ask me, the best president would be the one that explains what he's talking about, instead of sitting there acting smart and making his people feel dumb. You know, relating to the people instead of degrading them.



And the most i got out of that was, "they ask a few people." But have you ever heard of anyone who's actually a part of these so called polls?

I've been polled. In layman's terms, yes, they just ask people a few questions, but there is a science to it.

Say you've got your bowl of Halloween candy out for trick or treaters. Within that bowl there's a mix of assorted treats. Some chocolate, some gum, fake spiders and cockroaches...what have you. You really want to know what ratio of treats you have; so how do you determine that. First, you want to know just how many of each type there are. you could seperate out and count each, which is feasible given the small number of treats; but imagine it's a dump truck load. Counting each and every thing would take so long you'd likely not complete the task prior to Halloween night. So what good is that? So instead, you devise a plan.
By taking a small sample of that load and dividing it up into like groups, you can estimate what the rest of the load contains. To do this, you don't just need to count the numbers of each, but also determine how much each takes up out of the whole load. There's two ways of doing this. One is by finding the volume, (think marbles in a jar) and the other is by how much each weighs.
Either has its pros and cons, but for the sake of simplifying a concept, let us discuss weighting.

So we weigh the sample at 1 pound, and it contains 25 chocolates and 22 spiders. Then we weigh the whole at 1000 pounds. So we deduce that there is 25000 chocolates and 22000 spiders in the whole load.

Easy pleasey. Only problem with that is it ignores any number of things which could throw off the accuracy of that small sample. Maybe You really like chocolates and ate two while counting and forget to weigh them first. Or maybe the spiders were dumped in first and far more are at the bottom than where the sample was taken. So we take several samples, from different places and counted by different people and compare those results. After doing this load after load, year after year, you can predict what the next load will contain.

Polls are similar. Only polls also measure qualities, and not just quantities of the sample. To do this they use questions which not only ask chocolate or spider, but also how much you like or dislike them; and from that determine how many to put into each load.

Some of these questions are what they identify themselves as-- these are subgroups. White, black brown...republican dem or indie...young/middle/ old age...etc-- these are quantities-- chocolate vs spider. Then, and this is where it gets complicated, they ask a series of other qualitative questions. How likely are you to vote for Whomever/whatever: strongly certain, fairly certain, unsure, neither etc? How strongly do agree with this or that, him or her?
Then they take that information and they look for patterns and trends among those subgroups. This is called correlation. I'm not sure there is a way to teach a layman the concepts of statistical accuracy and deviation, and if there is, I lack the skill, but understand they use that information to predict what a larger group of people will do within a small margin if error....assuming they didn't go straight for the chocolates, I know I would.

[red states rule]

My only question is, where the hell are they getting these numbers? I've never been asked who i'm voting for. Noone i know has been asked if they're voting.

Heck, i just got an absentee vote and checked republican, and that's the only way they could know i'm registering republican. Everyone else though? HOW!?!?!?!?!? they pulling these numbers out of their asses to get more republicans to vote and disappoint dems????

The liberal media is doing all they can to get Obama re-elected and their goal up until now has been to drive home the lie that Obama has this election won so the Romney voters will give up and stay home

[red states rule]

Scientific polling is founded upon the social science practice of statistical sampling. it includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects of representative subgroups to predict the likely behavior of larger population. There is a more comprehensive poll taken by our government...elections. Sounds like you're signed up; thanks for participating. :salute:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk100312dAPR20121003014532.jpg