Well NBC has a new poll out and Morning Joe is simply salivating:
President Barack Obama leads Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, and the two are locked in tight contests in Nevada and North Carolina, according to a new series of NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls released Thursday.
Obama is ahead of Romney, 51 percent to 44 percent, among likely voters in New Hampshire. He also edges Romney in Nevada and North Carolina, but within the margin of error.
In Nevada, Obama gets the support of 49 percent of likely voters and Romney gets 47 percent. In North Carolina, it’s Obama at 48 percent and Romney at 46 percent. (Among registered voters in all three states, Obama’s lead expands to 8 points in New Hampshire, 4 points in North Carolina, and a wider 7 points in Nevada.)
I hate to put a damper on our friends on the left, even those who consider us “Poll deniers” or “Poll truthers” but as a resident of Realville I look at reality and here is what I see in this NBC/Marist poll, lets start with New Hampshire:
That’s a 46-40 split in a state where just two years ago Kelly Ayotte won a senate seat by 23 points.
And supposedly this is the case even though this very same poll show the right track wrong track numbers thus:
Because when people think the country is going in the wrong direction by 7 pts 51-44 their reaction is ALWAYS “stay the course”.
Last NH thought, before you start screaming how Obama won New Hampshire in 2008 lets take a look at what happened in 2010:
Yeah that’s a state where the 2008 paradigm is in play
Now lets try North Carolina that supposedly has a +2 Obama figure:
Here is the right track/wrong track
Yeah 41-54 right track wrong track SURE these guys are winning, here is the partisan split:
48-42 plus 6 Dem sample in North Carolina, now lets look at what happened in NC in 2010
Yeah that is another state that is going all 2008 in November:
Now lets look at Nevada, again lets start with Right Track / Wrong Track:
14 points, Obama is up 2 with a right track/wrong track deficit of 14 points.
Lets look at the partisan split:
47-42 plus 5 dem. now lets see what Nevada did in 2010
The GOP picked up two seats in 2010 enough and the Governor’s mansion enough to sustain any veto during the election where Harry Reid managed a massive turnout to save his seat. Interestingly enough while 52% of the vote was cast by the GOP the Democrats kept a majority.
But hey the still held the legislature in a GOP wave election, does that mean Obama is actually going to do well in the statewide vote. I’m glad you asked. Interestingly there was another election in Nevada on September 13th 2011. An election for the Nevada 2nd district surely this would show the power of Barack Obama…
But this STILL doesn’t mean that these polls are off after all we have a record of polling accurate polling in Nevada right? PPP did a poll just the day before the election and it showed Amodei winning:
Ok Sure we showed a 13 point margin when the election had a 22 pt spread but we had the winner right and THAT means our polling is accurate!
This is what we in Realville call “Math” if Eugene Robinson wants to call it a conspiracy theory and Morning Joe wants to make fun of it, bless their hearts as they say down south.
The data is the data and all the pretending otherwise from people who didn’t see 2010 coming and insisted the GOP were fools to support Pat Toomey or Marco Rubio doesn’t change it.
Update: Yup the focus on registration in samples is a conspiracy theory, it’s so ridiculous so foolish and so delusional that Gallup finds it necessary to reassure folks:
The discussion of the party identification composition of poll samples comes up in every presidential election with which I’ve been involved. Interested observers often opine that when a given poll shows that Candidate X is ahead, it cannot be correct because there is a higher percentage of voters who identify with Candidate X’s party in the sample than there should be, based on comparison to some previous standard.
There are several reasons why this is a faulty approach to evaluating a poll’s results.
He makes his case and I encourage you all to read it and make up your own minds, but there was one bit that jumped out at me that really gives away the game:
Now if a given poll in Ohio in this election shows Obama with a 10-percentage-point lead, one should just ask, “How likely is it that Obama would be ahead by 10 points if he won by five points in 2008?” — forgetting party identification, which we assume is going to be higher for the Democratic Party if Obama is ahead, anyway.
It’s totally backwards, people join or leave a party based on changes in what they think or believe, that the cause of a voting pattern, this gentleman treats it as an effect.
Now I don’t claim to be a professional poll guy. I don’t work at Gallup and the only people paying me are my advertisers and tip jar hitters. I trust my readers. If you decide he’s right and I’m all wet, that’s fine, if you think I’m right that’s fine too. I’m more than happy to see what happens when the votes are counted and we find out who is right.
But the math is the math and no computer model can change it.