WHY I trust Dick Morris' analysis:

 

1) He got Bill Clinton re-elected after the debacle of Hillarycare, when Clinton was way down in the polls. I hated him for it, but I respected his achievement.

 

2) He predicted the landslide Republican victory in 2010. And he predicted it months ahead of time by accurately dissecting & analyzing the polls (just like now).

 

Bluto

___________________________________________________

 

Romney Pulls Ahead

 

The published polling in this year's presidential race is unusually inaccurate because this is the first election in which who votes determines how they vote. Obama's massive leads among blacks, Latinos, young people, and single women vie with Romney's margin among the elderly, married white women, and white men. Tell me your demographic and I'll tell you who you're voting for and I'll be right at least two times out of three!

 

Most pollsters are weighting their data on the assumption that the 2012 electorate will turn out in the same proportion as the 2008 voters did. But polling indicates a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the president among his core constituency. He'll still carry them by heavy margins, but the turnout will likely lag behind the 2008 stats. (The 2008 turnout was totally unlike that in other years with all-time historic high turnouts among Obama's main demographic groups).

 

Specifically, most pollsters are using 2008 party preferences to weight their 2012 survey samples, reflecting a much larger Democratic preference than is now really the case.

 

In my own polling, I found a lurch to the Democrats right after their convention, but subsequent research indicates that it has since petered out. Indeed, when one compares party identification in the August and September polls of this year in swing states, the Democratic Party identification is flat while the ranks of Republicans rose by an average of two points per state.

 

Pollster Scott Rasmussen has the best solution to the party id problem. He weights his polls to reflect the unweighted party identification of the previous three weeks, so he has a dynamic model which adjusts for sampling error but still takes account of gradual changes in the electorate's partisan preferences.

 

Finally, with Obama below 50% of the vote in most swing states, he is hitting up against a glass ceiling in the high 40s. He can't get past it except in heavily Democratic states like New York or California. The first time Obama breaks 50 will not be on Election Day. Either he consistently polls above 50% of the vote or he won't ever get there in the actual vote.

 

So here's where the race really stands today based on Rasmussen's polling:

 

• Romney leads decisively in all states McCain carried (173 electoral votes).

 

• Romney is more than ten points ahead in Indiana - which Obama carried. (11 electoral votes)

 

• Romney leads Obama in the following states the president carried in 2008: Iowa (44-47) North Carolina (45-51), Colorado (45-47), and New Hampshire (45-48). He'll probably win them all. (34 electoral votes).

 

This comes to 218 of the 270 Romney needs. But...

 

• Obama is below 50% of the vote in a handful of key swing states and leads Romney by razor thin margins in each one. All these states will go for Romney unless and until Obama can show polling support of 50% of the vote:

 

• Obama leads in Ohio (47-46) and Virginia (49-48) by only 1 point (31 electoral votes)

 

• Obama leads in Florida (48-460) and Nevada (47-45) by only 2 points (35 electoral votes)

 

If Romney carries Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, he wins. And other states are in play.

 

• Obama leads in Wisconsin (49-46) by only 3 points (10 electoral votes)

 

• Obama's lead in Michigan is down to four points according to a recent statewide poll

 

• Obama is only getting 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and 53% in New Jersey. And don't count out New Mexico.

 

It would be accurate to describe the race now as tied. But Romney has the edge because:

 

• The incumbent is under 50% in key states and nationally. He will probably lose any state where he is below 50% of the vote.

 

• The Republican enthusiasm and likelihood of voting is higher

 

• The GOP field organization is better.

 

That's the real state of play today.

Dick Morris's Hilariously Dumb Misunderstanding of the "Incumbent Rule"

 

 

The funniest prank that Fox News plays on viewers occurs every other night, when freelance strategist Dick Morris -- a former Clintonite who now despises Democrats -- lurches in front of a camera and explains that Republicans will win everything. In 2010, Morris used his multiple media platforms, including the stages of Tea Party events, to ask for donations to his Super PAC for America. Give him enough, and "we could win an additional 50 seats, giving Republicans 100 new seats for this Congress!" (Read Brad Plumer for more about this. It was hilarious.)

 

 

This morning I gave a link to Morris's latest Fox News appearance, but I somehow missed out on his latest long treatise on why the polls are wrong and Mitt Romney's going to win. The knee-slapper comes when Morris describes the "incumbent rule."

 

Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.

But the fact is that the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent... an undecided voter has really decided not to back the incumbent. He just won’t focus on the race until later in the game.

So, when the published poll shows Obama ahead by, say, 48-45, he’s really probably losing by 52-48!

Got that? According to Morris, literally 100 percent of "undecided" voters will eventually vote against Barack Obama. Leaving aside how the theory ignores spillover to write-ins and third-party candidates, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Nate Silver, bless him, has already explained why the "incumbent rule" doesn't actually exist. "The challenging candidate has typically been underrated by head-to-head polls when he is still engaged in a heated primary battle, when his name recognition is low, or both," wrote Silver. "These effects seem to evaporate by April of the election year or so, when the result of the nomination process is likely to have become clear and when the presumptive nominee is likely to have become widely known to voters."

 

That deals with the pre-election polls. The exit polls tell us the rest of the story about how undecided voters feel about incumbents. In the last presidential race with an incumbent on the ballot, 2004, we can define "undecided" voters as the ones who made up their mind in the polling booth. In 2004, only 52 percent of these people chose John Kerry over George W. Bush.

 

Back to Morris. There's literally no evidence that undecided voters will break the way he says they're breaking. But he's telling an audience of voters -- and more importantly for him, potential consumers -- that the media is covering up how Mitt Romney's winning the election. It's silly, and at the same time it lays the ground for endless paranoia if Romney doesn't win.

In 2010, Morris used his multiple media platforms, including the stages of Tea Party events, to ask for donations to his Super PAC for America. Give him enough, and "we could win an additional 50 seats, giving Republicans 100 new seats for this Congress!" (Read Brad Plumer for more about this. It was hilarious.)

Republicans gained 69 seats (63 House 6 Senate). Sounds like he was headed in the right direction.

 

Back to Morris. There's literally no evidence that undecided voters will break the way he says they're breaking.

This is based upon what? Your extensive polling & research? (THAT's the knee-slapper)

 

Here's Morris' research. (where's yours?)

 

I compared the final Gallup polls with the actual results in every race in which an incumbent president was opposing an insurgent since 1964. This included the Johnson-Goldwater race of 1964, the Nixon-McGovern race of 1972, the Carter-Ford race of 1976, the Reagan-Carter-Anderson race of 1980, the Reagan-Mondale race of 1984, the Clinton-Bush-Perot race of 1992, the Clinton-Dole race of 1996 and the Bush-Kerry race of 2004.

 

In these races, the undecided vote went heavily for the insurgent and the incumbent lost vote share between the final poll and the election, even when the incumbent was winning the contest easily overall. Six of eight presidents seeking reelection performed worse than the final Gallup poll predicted, while one finished the same (Reagan in 1984) and one gained votes (Bush in 2004). Seven of the nine insurgent candidates did better than the final Gallup survey predicted.

• In 1964, Johnson lost 3 points to Goldwater at the end.

 

• In 1972, Nixon lost 1 point to a third-party candidate.

 

• In 1976, there was a 4-point swing to Carter.

 

• In 1980, there was a 3-point swing to Reagan or Anderson.

 

• In 1984, there was no change between the final poll and the results.

 

• In 1992, there was a 1-point shift away from Bush. In that contest, there was also a 5-point swing away from Clinton to Perot at the end.

 

• In 1996, there was a 5-point swing away from Clinton and to Dole.

 

• Only Bush in 2004 ran better in the result than in the final poll, by 
2 points. Undecided lean to insurgent - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Here's something that I wonder how much thought is being given to.

 

Early voting pretty much starts NOW in a whole bunch of places.

Here's something that I wonder how much thought is being given to.

 

Early voting pretty much starts NOW in a whole bunch of places.

 

Early voting is a joke. Why would anyone want to vote early. So many things could happen between now and November that could change a voter's mind. Voter's are just lazy and do not want to stand in line for a few minutes. I do not believe in any polls (except the one November 6) and I do not watch political ads. I have vote by what I learn independly about the candidates plus my gut feeling. Not very scientific, I know, but better than polls and ads.

Early voting is a joke. Why would anyone want to vote early. So many things could happen between now and November that could change a voter's mind. Voter's are just lazy and do not want to stand in line for a few minutes. I do not believe in any polls (except the one November 6) and I do not watch political ads. I have vote by what I learn independly about the candidates plus my gut feeling. Not very scientific, I know, but better than polls and ads.

 

A. I don't vote early. But I've never had to stand in line for hours on end, either. And my best guess is that there is a sizable percentage of the populace whose minds are already made up, so the most convenient method of voting is the most appealing.

 

2. I don't take a lot of stock in polls, either. Listen to the network of shrieking harridans, then listen to the network of pompous windbags and you get two totally different perspectives on the same numbers.

 

D. I tune out political ads as well. They're the LAST things that would sway me.

Early voting is a joke. Why would anyone want to vote early. So many things could happen between now and November that could change a voter's mind. Voter's are just lazy and do not want to stand in line for a few minutes. I do not believe in any polls (except the one November 6) and I do not watch political ads. I have vote by what I learn independly about the candidates plus my gut feeling. Not very scientific, I know, but better than polls and ads.

 

Or, they could be like me in several elections and knew they wouldn't be able to be in town on Election Day, and got it out of the way when they did have a chance to get to the polling place.

A.

 

2.

 

D.

 

:lol:

Or, they could be like me in several elections and knew they wouldn't be able to be in town on Election Day, and got it out of the way when they did have a chance to get to the polling place.

 

That is different. That is absentee voting. I have done that before. I am talking about people that are going to be in town but do not want to stand in line.

A. I don't vote early. But I've never had to stand in line for hours on end, either. And my best guess is that there is a sizable percentage of the populace whose minds are already made up, so the most convenient method of voting is the most appealing.

 

2. I don't take a lot of stock in polls, either. Listen to the network of shrieking harridans, then listen to the network of pompous windbags and you get two totally different perspectives on the same numbers.

 

D. I tune out political ads as well. They're the LAST things that would sway me.

 

I agree that most people have their minds made. I have my mind made up in the Presidential race. However, you don't know what information, scandal etc. that could arise between now and November that could sway your vote. I just want to wait until the last day possible, just in case. Having said that, if I thought voting early would end the polls and ads, I would vote today. Other than absentee voting, do we have the early voting option in Kentucky? If so, I have never hear about it.

 

I

That is different. That is absentee voting. I have done that before. I am talking about people that are going to be in town but do not want to stand in line.

 

I've been voting for 25 years and have observed polling places at several locales across the state. Not once have I ever seen a line of more than 3-4 people.

Here's something that I wonder how much thought is being given to.

 

Early voting pretty much starts NOW in a whole bunch of places.

 

With votes in what ever material form they take - paper, electronic, etc. laying around for over a month there would not be any chance for mischief would there?

 

Early voting as in a day or 2 one thing. A month or 2 is another.

I've been voting for 25 years and have observed polling places at several locales across the state. Not once have I ever seen a line of more than 3-4 people.

 

Me either

I've been voting for 25 years and have observed polling places at several locales across the state. Not once have I ever seen a line of more than 3-4 people.

 

In the 2 presidential elections I've been able to vote in, in NKY, the lines have never been shorter than a 30 minute wait.

I had to wait about half an hour in 2000. Every other time has been about five to ten minutes.