Even Rasmussen is skewed toward the Democrats

How can Rasmussen, long considered (at least by Democrats) to be biased toward the Republicans instead be biased toward the Democrats? Because even though he has been polling extensively on the question of party ID, he is not using that data, he is instead weighing his results to exit polls - which have a long and uniform history of being significantly biased toward the Democrats as I've previously written about.

How do we know this? Byron York reported that he stated:

 “For the last 20 years, between 37 and 39 percent of voters on Election Day have been Democrats ... Republicans have ranged from 32 to 37 percent."

Where did these figures come from? Not from his own polling, but from exit polling data. Jay Cost listed the exit polling data from 1972:

Notice how the last 20 years (1993-2012) of exit poll data matches exactly Rasmussen's statement. Republican ID ranges from 32-37%, while Democrats range from 37-39%.

Rasmussen went on in the same interview to state:

"Right now, our sample looks like 36 percent Republican versus 39 percent Democrat.”

Given the long term Democratic bias in the exit polls, these splits are almost certainly wrong. The bias towards the Democrats seems to generally be somewhere between 2 and 4 points ... in other words, the entire advantage that Rasmussen is giving them right now.

In fact, Rasmussen's own polling shows a much more volatile range over the last 9 years. Republicans have moved between 30.8 and 37.6% while the Democrats have been between 32.4 and 41.7%. His most recent polling on the question, in September 2012, shows a 2.6 point advantage for the Republicans, 36.8 to 34.2.

So, rather than using the results of his own up-to-date polling, showing a small voter ID edge for the Republicans, he is instead weighting his results to a small Democratic edge on the basis of flawed historical exit polls. If this was, ahem, unskewed ... Rasmussen's current rolling average showing a 2 point edge for Obama would instead show a 2-3 point lead for Romney.

I am not sure how any of this might effect his state level polls. If he weights according to the state level exit polling of previous election years, that would make most of his state polls lean even further toward the Democrats. He may, however, treat the state polls differently.

Why Biased Exit Polls in the Past Lead to Biased Polls Now

As discussed in my previous post, exit polls consistently skew towards the Democrats, election after election after election. Why should that matter now? Because the polls now use these biased exit polls to weight their results.

I earlier linked to a Washington Post piece on the poor showing of the exit polls in the Wisconsin recall election. There was a section of the article that explains the conventional thinking perfectly:

"One way to avoid Election Day confusion is to focus on what exit polls are good for — the tally of how different groups voted in an election, and their relative size in the overall electorate — not what they’re not: predicting results."

 See? Exit polls are allegedly "good" for showing the turnout percentages of various different groups - but these percentages are based upon a Democratic leaning sample! When you weigh a poll today so that it reflects a sample which has been proven to be skewed Democratic, you are necessarily skewing your current poll towards the Democrats.

This skewing is in addition to the problem of weighing current polls to reflect exit polls taken from a Democratic wave election.

Exit Polls Have a Long Standing Democratic Bias

Exit polling has a long history of Democratic bias. Nate Silver, the NYT's poll guru, had a very good post up on the subject in 2008. He brought up some doozies:

1. Exit polling showed Bill Clinton winning Indiana and Texas(!?!).

2. Exit polling showed Gore winning Alabama and Georgia(!?!)

Succinctly stated:

"Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote." 

Mark Blumenthal used to post at "MysteryPollster.com", and now is in charge of HuffPost's "Pollster.com". He characterized a study on exit polling this way:

"In short, Mitofsky and Lenski have reported Democratic overstatements to some degree in every election since 1990. "

The most recent example of this exit poll bias was in the Wisconsin recall election, where exit polls indicated a tight race:

"The numbers seemed to pop off the screen — 50 percent apiece for Barrett and Republican Gov. Scott Walker, the subject of the recall effort. Walker had a clear lead in independent pre-election polls, so the tie score sent analysts scrambling and buoyed Democratic hopes when the numbers were widely reported elsewhere minutes later at the official poll close time. 

Just a half hour later, the exit poll shifted to 52 to 48 percent, tilting in Walker’s favor."

but the actual result was a solid 7 point win by Walker, the Republican governor.

Oil Company Deductions vs 'Investments' in Solyndra & Co

During the shellacking Romney gave Obama last night, there was an exchange about tax deductions for oil companies and money for 'Alternative Energy'. I have a quibble about the comparison. Actually, more than a quibble: The two are completely different things, even besides the incredible amount of money wasted on these Obama crony's boondoggles.

A tax deduction given to oil companies means that they might get to keep more of their own money than they otherwise would have been able to do. A tax deduction is only valuable to a company that is making a profit. If they aren't profitable, they don't owe any taxes, and a tax deduction is completely meaningless. In any event, we are talking about money earned by the actions of this company and its employees.

In contrast, Obama showered his cronies with money earned by other people. Solyndra never made a dime, but Obama gave its owners (who were, let's remember, big donors to his election funds) a gift paid for by the rest of us.

These "Investments", as Obama loves to call them, are by their very nature a drain on our economy - they take money from profitable enterprises and people earning a living (i.e. taxpayers), and give it to objects of Obama's benevolence ... who just happen to be well-connected and wealthy Democratic donors. If these "investments" were really investments in the true meaning of the word, then their owners - especially given their wealth and connections - would have no problems attracting financing just like the rest of us! 

However, they are and were boondoggles that only someone inept, clueless, and/or corrupt would ever consider putting money into.

I think Obama hit the trifecta.

New Hampshire 2012 election analysis

New Hampshire has an interesting way of reporting voter registration, apparently because they allow same day registration and voting - they only report after primaries and general elections. This means that the only registration available to compare to previous years is as of the January primary. A lot can happen between January and now (or November), but let's see what trends there were anyway.

In 2004, Republicans had a sizable registration advantage during the primaries of 246,529 to 199,386 for the Democrats. By the time of the general election, they still had a very sizable advantage: 267,141 to 228,395. Independents were the largest group, totaling 360,325, and they seem to have swung appreciably toward the Democrats, as Kerry won by 9,000 in spite of the 39,000 Republican registration edge.

In 2008, Democrats cut the Republican edge in registration considerably during the primaries, down to about 12,500. By the general election the Democrats had taken a narrow lead of almost 2,000 in registered voters, and in the actual election, Obama won by 68,000.

In 2010, Republicans had gained a tiny lead in registration during the primaries, and pushed it up to about 8,000 for the general election. In spite of this small advantage, Republican Kelly Ayote blew out the Democratic nominee by over 100,000 votes, 23 points.

This year, Republicans re-established their dominance in registration in the primaries, pushing it back up over 43,000. Clearly, this year's election looks to more closely resemble 2004 than 2008. The question is whether the undeclared will continue with their recent lean toward the Democrats during the presidential elections, or whether they will maintain their strong 2010 swing toward Republicans. Given the registration advantage, this seems to be a toss-up at worst for the Republicans.

UPDATE: Realclearpolitics.com today moved New Hampshire from their 'Toss up' category to 'Leans Democrat' on the basis of a new poll showing Obama up by 15 points(!). This is a perfect example of ridiculous polling. As shown above, since 2008 New Hampshire has trended strongly towards the Republicans, yet this poll purports to show that Obama is going to beat Romney by 5 points more than he beat McCain. Looking at the internals, their sample consists of 323 Obama voters compared to 216 McCain voters - almost exactly 3:2. In the real world, Obama beat McCain 54:45.

Iowa 2012 election analysis

In 2004, Republicans had just over a 4,000 edge in 'active' registered voters, and won by a similar margin of 10,000 votes. In 2008, much like Nevada, Democrats surged to a huge edge of 106,000 'active' registered voters. This lead to a 146,000 blow-out win for Obama in 2008.

So how is 2012 shaping up? Republicans currently have a 12,000 edge in active registered voters, bigger than they did when Bush won in 2004.

In spite of the Iowa poll averages, Romney looks to have the advantage this year.

I notice that Rasmussen's most recent poll shows a Romney edge of 3 points. This looks about right. Not from confirmation bias (looking for a poll that agrees with my opinion), but because that result agrees with the objective evidence from non-polling sources.

Nevada 2012 election analysis

In 2004, Nevada Republicans had a small registration advantage: 434,239 to 429,808. By 2008, the Democrats had built a huge registration advantage: 625,134 to 513,629. These changes were reflected in the presidential voting, turning a small Republican edge of 21,000 votes in '04 to a blowout Democratic win of over 120,000 in '08.

Nevada has an interesting system of differentiating between 'active' registered voters and 'inactive' registered voters. Essentially, 'inactive' registered voters are those in which records indicate that they may have moved. They can still vote if they can show that they are legally able to do so, but I would think that such voters would be significantly less likely (though to what extent I don't know) to actually vote. I believe that, like increasing (or decreasing) voter registration, it is a proxy for enthusiasm.

In 2008 almost all of the Democrats' advantage was in 'active' voters, with about 101,000 of their advantage coming from them and only about a 10,000 edge in 'inactive' voters. This year, however, while the total Democratic advantage is only slightly smaller, their advantage in 'active' registered voters has been almost halved to 55,700. About half of it is now in 'inactive' voters. There are 127,000 'inactive' Democratic registered voters compared to only 76,000 'inactive' Republican voters.

One final issue is the growth of the Independent American Party. When you look at their site, it is clear that they are essentially Tea Partiers. If you look at only the active registered voters as of August 2012, Republicans, when combined with the IAP, are essentially tied with the Democrats.

Nevada looks to me to be in play as of the August data. Obama was clearly in much worse shape than he was in 2008 (though of course he can afford to lose quite a bit, considering the blow-out double digit win).

Ohio 2012 election analysis

As I stated in my earlier post on Florida, I am attempting to do a 'sanity check' on the state level polls coming out recently. A surprisingly large number of them seem to have results outside the realm of probability, so I decided to see if I could find predictive data outside of polling to see what it might tell us.

What I have stumbled upon is a comparison of historic voting patterns among various large segments of registered voters, with current voter registration. With Florida, I compared historic voting patterns of registered Democrats with that of registered Republicans and using those to forecast a vote using current registration levels.

Unfortunately, Ohio does not post these types of data, so I have to use a slightly different method - comparing the voting history of various counties with the current number of registered voters in those counties.  Certain counties have historically been much more Democratic oriented and others have been more dominated by Republican voters. To the extent that this pattern holds, you can estimate which party is better situated this year than in previous elections. This is somewhat more labor intensive than was the case with Florida, but I think that it is similarly helpful.

There are 88 counties, so I will be focusing on some of the largest counties to see if we can see evidence for which way this election will be going compared to 2008.

Obama won Ohio by 262,000. Cuyahoga county by itself provided Obama with more than 258,000 of that advantage. So what is going on there this year?  This is the total registered voters as of 9/7/12:

Democrats  -   346,642     38%
Republicans -  126,280     14%
Other          -   431,372     48%
Total               904,294

Looks pretty dreadful for Republicans, right? Well ... in comparison to 2008, its actually a huge improvement. Voter registration figures for November 2008 show:

Democrats  -       395,514     36%
Republicans -        91,416       8%
Other          -       625,527     56%
Total           -    1,112,507

In their most important county, Democrats have suffered a net loss of over 83,000 from their advantage in registered voters, from an advantage of 304 thousand in 2008 to an advantage of 220 thousand earlier this month.

Does this indicate a state that is going to be MORE favorable to Obama this year vs 2008 as many polls are showing, or one that is going to be considerably LESS favorable?

I had planned to do the same comparison for other counties (Franklin and Lucas counties in particular), but I can't find similar data on their websites. However, there is a recent Fox News story which details the declining registration in Democratic strongholds in Ohio including not just Cuyahoga but Franklin and Hamilton. Interestingly, they mention that this decline in Democrat standing is holding over at least 8 'key' swing states including Iowa, Florida, and New Hampshire.

This simply makes sense - Obama has been a disaster, and 2008 was a Democratic wave. How on Earth could he improve substantially in swing states as many polls are stating? In the real world, Republicans are increasing their number of registered voters in these swing states, while registered Democrats are declining.

Who are you going to believe, common sense plus data on literally millions of American voters actual actions, or are you going to believe divergent polls based on merely thousands of respondents (with highly debatable samples)?

UPDATE:  As I said, I wasn't able to get the same information from other counties, but I was able to download a CSV file from Hamilton County with the current registration figures. In 2008, Obama won Hamilton County by 7 %, nearly 30,000 votes - 225,213 to 195,530. Hamilton County currently shows a total of just of 554,000 registered voters. What is really interesting is that right now, by sorting the 'party code' column, I see that registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by more than 2 to 1 (though they are both swamped by officially unaffiliated voters). There appear to be a total of just 43,932 registered Democrats in the county vs 97,419 registered Republicans.

UPDATE 2: I have now downloaded a voter registration file from Franklin County, and it's more of the same. Keep in mind that it is of limited utility since I can't compare it to registration data as of 2008, and the unaffiliated voters make up the biggest percentage by far. With those caveats in mind, there are over 791,000 registered voters in Franklin County. Of those, 102,605 are registered as Republicans, while there are only 67,915 registered Democrats (leaving over 620,000 to the smaller parties and 'non affiliated'). This is in a county that Barack Obama won by 116,000 votes (over 20 percentage points 59.6 to McCain's 38.9).

Florida 2012 election analysis

The polls are all over the place this year, and something like half simply make no sense whatsoever. Obama is now a known factor, and has been a disaster. Romney, whatever his faults, is an improvement over McCain. Yet Obama is supposed to be doing twice as well vs Romney as he did vs McCain? I'm sorry, but that is inconceivable, and I DO know what that word means. How can this be checked without reference to polls? Using one poll (say Rasmussen) to 'prove' that another poll (say, Fox or MSNBC) is wrong doesn't make any sense. All you are doing is showing a textbook case of confirmation bias. The only way to judge is if you are somehow able to look at the issue by looking at data that is not artificially weighted, adjusted, etc. 

Where can you get such information, you ask? It depends on the state, but there is a surprisingly large amount of raw data available that I believe can be used as a sanity check. By this I am referring to votes in actual elections (rather than estimated "likely" voters), and I am referring to party preference actually reported to the state in voter registration forms. I am also referring to the TOTAL registered voter population, not a small sample taken from it, which may or, (much more likely) may NOT be representative.

I've chosen to look at Florida first, because it is not only an extremely important state in terms of electoral votes, but because it furnishes a long record of voter registration figures, including partisan breakdowns. One of the arguments that Republicans have been making about the polls is that they seem to be ignoring the evidence from the 2010 elections. The pollsters, by and large, respond that presidential years are very different. I think that each side overstates their case a bit, but to be as fair as possible to the polls, I will only consider presidential years in this post.

 In 2004, Florida had 10,301,290 registered voters:

Democrats -      4,261,249   41.4%
Republicans -    3,892,492   37.8%
Other  -             2,147,549    20.8%

So, notice, Democrats had over a 3 1/2 point advantage in registration, nearly 370 thousand registered voters.

In the 2004 election, Bush won by over 380 thousand votes. The actual vote totals were:

Bush -     3,964,522
Kerry -    3,583,544

Notice that, in comparison with registered voters, Bush's vote totals were slightly greater than the number of registered Republicans (102%), while Kerry's were significantly lower (84%) than the number of registered Democrats. In 2004, either Republicans were much more motivated to vote, or they were winning a huge percentage of 'Other' affiliations, or some combination of both.

This all changed for 2008, right? Well ... to some extent, but not nearly as much as I would have thought. First, and most obvious change was in the huge surge in Democratic voter registration, and the big advantage they derived from it:

Democrats  -        4,722,076   42.0%
Republicans -       4,064,301   36.1%
Other  -                2,461,257   21.9%

So in 2008, Democrats now have more than a 650 thousand registration advantage, nearly 6 points. How much do they win by? Considerably less:

Obama  -     4,282,367
McCain -     4,046,219

What jumps out at me is that McCain, like Bush in 2004, pulled in essentially the same number of voters as registered Republicans (99.8%), while Obama, like Kerry, pulled in a significantly lower percentage of voters/registered Democrats. He did improve over Kerry's figure (91% vs 84%), but this was a 'wave' election! In spite of that, McCain managed to cut over 400,000 off of his registered voter disadvantage!

So where does this leave us for the upcoming election? In terms of registered voters, much better shape than 2008*:

Democrats  -      4,581,056   40.0%
Republicans -     4,137,890   36.1%
Other   -             2,727,594   23.8%

Republicans have maintained their 2008 percentage, while Democrats have dropped 2 full percentage points. If Romney does as well as McCain did in garnering as many votes as registered Republicans, Obama has to do as well as he did in 2008 to get it even. If Obama does even slightly worse, say, 89% of registered Democrats, Romney wins.  If Obama some how, some way manages to maintain his 91% from 2008 and Romney makes even a slight improvement on McCain (i.e. does as well as Bush did in 2004), Romney wins.

As the country stands, I simply can't imagine Obama doing BETTER than he did in terms of Democratic turnout in 2008. I also don't see how Republicans don't turn out better for Romney than they did for McCain. Especially in Florida. The polls showing Obama out to big leads there aren't worth the pixels they are printed on. Best case scenario for him is a close nail biter. It's more likely that Romney wins it going away - he's going to have 10 or 20 times the resources McCain did.

Look at every other election metric besides: Republican governor. Republicans control the State Senate better than 2-1. They control the State House better than 2-1. The US House delegation is Republican at better than 3-1. The US Senate is the only place the parties are even, and that seat is in jeopardy.

Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to look at Ohio. It is much harder than Florida because they don't have nearly the same availability of records online, and they don't have partisan breakdown. However, I think I can do something similar with county registration and voting records.


*The figures from the Florida Division of elections that I downloaded were dated July 16th of this year.

UPDATE:  One more point. 2008 is far and wide referred to as a Democratic 'wave' election. This is reflected in Florida by not only a huge surge in registrations, but by a large increase in Democratic participation. It makes sense that these two are linked - when an unusual number of Democrats are motivated to go out and register for a particular party, shouldn't they also be more motivated to actually go out and vote? Sure. However, this year the Democrats are faced with the opposite problem. As they are LESS motivated to register this year, doesn't it now follow that this lack of motivation also applies to registered Democrats? As their registration advantage falls back to the historical norm, should not their turnout likewise fall back to normal?

ABC posted a hit piece on Romney yesterday. They purport to be showing photos of him from 1966 engaging in a counter-protest "in support of the draft". This is truly amazing, considering the Vietnam draft didn't begin until December 1969.

It's also amazing that none of these so-called (by ABC) "pro-draft" counter-protesters' signs said anything about the draft ... or even the Vietnam War! Instead they mentioned the true point of their demonstration - the fact that the people staging a "sit-in" were disrupting the school, causing anarchy, and interfering with students ability to get the education that they and their parents were paying for.

I left a couple of comments and also E-mailed a protest to the editors, but I won't be holding my breath for a correction.

This is an amazing video showing the US "Greens" who are suing Chevron in Ecuador conspiring to introduce fraudulent 'evidence':



"...at the end of the day, this is all for the court just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bulls**t. It really is. We have enough, to get money, to win"

Gallup also has a nifty tool showing the polling from all the Presidents since Truman. Comparing Obama to these previous Presidents is somewhat interesting. I think the ones who most closely track Obama right now are Carter, Reagan, and Clinton:


From about day 220 until about day 800 in their respective Presidencies, they all mostly stay within a 10 percentage point range of each other. Carter then starts diverging downward, with the exception of ~90 days right after the Iranian hostage disaster.

In this group, Reagan had the worst middle, dropping down into the 30's, but he began a steady rise as his policies pushed the economy into a sustained expansion. Clinton likewise began a steady rise in his 3rd year, when he started pursuing policies like free trade and welfare reform, and abandoned the "Hillarycare" fiasco.

Obama, while articulating the entirely correct phrase, "Good policy is good politics" has unfortunately instead been a poster child for the opposite: "Terrible policies are terrible politics".
His policies have turned what should have been a strong recovery into a near Depression, and will likely lead to a double dip recession. This has resulted in the current economic stagnation that shows no sign of ending until his term is over and someone else can begin undoing the harm he and (to a far lesser extent) Bush have caused.

This is why you can see that at this point in their administrations, Reagan and Clinton had already begun the upward trajectories that would carry them into a second term - they were respectively 5 and 6 points ahead of Obama, who's own trajectory is instead pointing downward with no reasonable expectation of relief in sight.

Obamacare still has only begun to show its malignant effects on the economy; the regulations Obama is STILL promulgating are continuing to strangle any hope of recovery; Obama threatens new taxes every chance he gets; the trillion plus dollars of deficit red ink continues to flow. Major scandals have erupted, and the media-enabled coverups (only now starting to crumble) will only serve to make them just as, if not more, relevant this time next year when the election season is at its most intense and voters are paying the most attention. There are additional scandals on the horizon too, but Fast and Furious and Solyndra alone are more than sufficient to hurt Obama significantly when he likely wouldn't even be able to survive the damage his disastrous economy has done to his re-election chances.