Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[PJABBER]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Obama's lead is essentially back to where it was back at the beginning of September.

Using that guy's analysis as a go to reference point is really getting old.

At the moment, he projects a 297 vs 241 EC split going to Obama.

He also projects only a 29% chance of Romney winning.

That is based not on accepting the recent polling that shows a paradigm shift, but on the idea that the recent shift is transitory and that the trend will revert.

In this he becomes just another Obama hopester trying to use selective and biased weighting to support a preordained and false outcome.

Beyond polling, we should take into account factors that are not captured in preference polling: the voting population gaining clarity on who Romney is, who Ryan is, the failure of Obama's foreign policy, the failure of Obama and the Congressional Democrats' economic experiment, the distinct personal character contrasts between the two teams, the recognition that, yes, there is hope still out there and it is not coming from the king with no clothes on.

These realizations, as they continue, will open up a can of whoop-ass on Team Obama well beyond the initial flurry of the first round.

 

[jpeyton]

Using that guy's analysis as a go to reference point is really getting old.

RCP and EV came to the same conclusion, so it's not just 538.

That is based not on accepting the recent polling that shows a paradigm shift

How does 1 week of polling show a "paradigm shift"? His not accepting a "paradigm shift" has more to do with the fact that debates have never produced a "paradigm shift" in a modern election. Furthermore, the first debate almost always helps the challenger, because it puts them on the same stage as the incumbent.

Obama won his 8-year seat in the Oval Office back in 2008. The 2012 election is just theater, but I'm glad you're enjoying it.

 

[mshan]

My gut impression (from well before first debate) is that Nate Silver is has consistently been slightly underestimating Obama's position in electoral college.

Sam Wang over at Princeton Election Consortium also said that anything under 80% probability should still be considered more on knife's edge, rather than slam dunk likelihood.

Plus tidbits I've read here and there suggest Romney's bounce is already fading. Perhaps what he achieved is to neutralize the 47% video among his base, at least for now...

 

[PJABBER]

RCP and EV came to the same conclusion, so it's not just 538.

How does 1 week of polling show a "paradigm shift"? His not accepting a "paradigm shift" has more to do with the fact that debates have never produced a "paradigm shift" in a modern election. Furthermore, the first debate almost always helps the challenger, because it puts them on the same stage as the incumbent.

Polling is a trailing indicator and it takes some mighty fine work to extrapolate the trend lines. I understand that you have to use the indicators that are out there, but you also have to recognize when a breakout is occurring or you won't make the big bucks or win invaluable status points here.

The trend is your friend!

Obama won his 8-year seat in the Oval Office back in 2008. The 2012 election is just theater, but I'm glad you're enjoying it.

We are not Venezuela yet!

 

[Rainsford]

Using that guy's analysis as a go to reference point is really getting old.

At the moment, he projects a 297 vs 241 EC split going to Obama.

He also projects only a 29% chance of Romney winning.

That is based not on accepting the recent polling that shows a paradigm shift, but on the idea that the recent shift is transitory and that the trend will revert.

In this he becomes just another Obama hopester trying to use selective and biased weighting to support a preordained and false outcome.

Beyond polling, we should take into account factors that are not captured in preference polling: the voting population gaining clarity on who Romney is, who Ryan is, the failure of Obama's foreign policy, the failure of Obama and the Congressional Democrats' economic experiment, the distinct personal character contrasts between the two teams, the recognition that, yes, there is hope still out there and it is not coming from the king with no clothes on.

These realizations, as they continue, will open up a can of whoop-ass on Team Obama well beyond the initial flurry of the first round.

I suspect people keep bringing up the 538 analysis (as well as analysis from similar sources) because many people view intelligent fact-based analysis as a useful counterpoint to politically biased gut feelings and emotional reactions.

For example, you're rejecting the 538 analysis (which is supported with a ton of data and well explained models) on the grounds that you think there is a "paradigm shift" that you provide not one shred of evidence to support other than your theory about the voting population gaining "clarity" (which you also don't support with data). It seems pretty obvious why at least some people would prefer science to bullshit.

I should also point out that 538 has definitely noted a large shift as a result of Romney's debate performance, which the page author himself has praised. But he also notes that Romney had a lot of ground to make up, and may not have made up all of it with a single night of good debating.

 

[Rainsford]

Polling is a trailing indicator and it takes some mighty fine work to extrapolate the trend lines. I understand that you have to use the indicators that are out there, but you also have to recognize when a breakout is occurring or you won't make the big bucks or win invaluable status points here.

The trend is your friend!
...

Polling is really only a trailing indicator if you assume that EVERY event-based shift in the polls represents a permanent change in the trend line that invalidates all previous data rather than a temporary shift away from the mean or a smaller modification of the overall trend line. Otherwise polling is an effective way to moderate short-term volatility in the polls resulting from events that will merge into the overall trend by election day.

 

[PJABBER]

I suspect people keep bringing up the 538 analysis (as well as analysis from similar sources) because many people view intelligent fact-based analysis as a useful counterpoint to politically biased gut feelings and emotional reactions.

For example, you're rejecting the 538 analysis (which is supported with a ton of data and well explained models) on the grounds that you think there is a "paradigm shift" that you provide not one shred of evidence to support other than your theory about the voting population gaining "clarity" (which you also don't support with data). It seems pretty obvious why at least some people would prefer science to bullshit.

Actually, he tosses in plenty of disclaimers and qualifiers in his writing. I guess that protects him when his projections fail to predict. Or maybe he just settles for good enough.

I do try to gauge emotion and enthusiasm, or lack of, and that is not captured very well in polling at all.

That is why I am short tulips.

I should also point out that 538 has definitely noted a large shift as a result of Romney's debate performance, which the page author himself has praised. But he also notes that Romney had a lot of ground to make up, and may not have made up all of it with a single night of good debating.

Like I said, he qualifies so he always has an out.

It is not a done deal, we have time for a reversal, there should be no early celebrating just yet, but if we have confirmation after tomorrow night's VP debate and then in the town hall that follows... :awe:

 

[PJABBER]

Polling is really only a trailing indicator if you assume that EVERY event-based shift in the polls represents a permanent change in the trend line that invalidates all previous data rather than a temporary shift away from the mean or a smaller modification of the overall trend line. Otherwise polling is an effective way to moderate short-term volatility in the polls resulting from events that will merge into the overall trend by election day.

Well, that is what Mr. 538 is basing his opinion on, that there is a smoothing effect that represents a truer trend line.

No one is entire unbiased. And he does admit that he may not recognize his own bias, asking that other analysts critique his methodology.

From Wiki entries -

Silver described his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism":

I regard myself as a rational progressive. I believe in intellectual progress – that we, as a species, are gradually becoming smarter. I believe that there are objectively right answers to many political and economic questions.

I believe that economic growth is both a reflection of and a contributor toward societal progress, that economic growth has facilitated a higher standard of living, and that this is empirically indisputable. I also believe, however, that our society is now so exceptionally wealthy – even in the midst of a severe recession – that it has little excuse not to provide for some basic level of dignity for all its citizens.

I believe that answers to questions like these do not always come from the establishment. But I also believe that it is just as important to question one's own assumptions as to question the assumptions of others.[40]

Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign signed off on a proposal to share all of its private polling with Silver. After signing a confidentiality agreement, Silver was granted access to hundreds of polls the campaign had conducted.[51][52]

I do believe he has to make a significant effort to restrain bias - his credibility, after all, is based only on how accurate he is - but I do question if his writing is where we find the opening to question his conclusions.

One other thing before I wrap up for the night, he still relies on other groups polling and does not seem much inclined to deeply question their assumptions. He does level some questions and calls out some disparities from norms but, in the end, believes there will be an evening out when all of them in aggregate are taken into consideration.

Of course, right now the group assumptions are that the Democrat are more energized to support Obama than in 2008 and the Republicans are less energized to support Romney than they were to support McCain. If you believe that, then there is no way to see that Romney has any chance at all.

:sneaky:

In any case, no matter how pollsters and pollsters of pollsters start off with their particular biases, and no matter which way they spin, there does seem to be a lifting of the veils closer to election day when they know they are going to be judged on their final calls more than anything that they produce in advance of the fat lady singing.

 

[jpeyton]

TLDR

So basically, 538/RCP/EV and all their data/analysis are wrong.

But your gut feeling about a "paradigm shift", backed with no data/analysis is right.

Got it.

There's a reason why Silver got snatched up by the NYT while you're making predictions on a message board.

Anyway, I think a little theater is good for turnout. Republican turnout has historically always been higher, because the party is made up of older, whiter, more reliable voters. Democrats who were previously ready to coast to victory are now going to be canvassing and making calls at the phone banks from now until election day. Good stuff, especially for Obama's campaign in swing states.

Here's an analysis of the debate's impact by The Atlantic:

The polls are indeed tightening, but many more of them show Obama ahead than behind. (Or at least as of six hours ago.)
We're about to have another debate. While I don't know whether Joe Biden or Paul Ryan will "win" the battle of the VPs, I am 100% certain that Biden will put up a better fight than Obama did.
Then we'll have two more presidential debates. Unless Obama is in fact being paid by the Kochs to throw the election, these should go better for him. The reasons include:
(a) Obama has seemed "on" in several post-debate speeches and rallies. This suggests that he still can do better.
(b) Romney has now gotten Obama's attention, by humiliating him. This suggests that, as one of the world's most competitive people, he will want to do better. Ta-Nehisi Coates argues something similar.
(c) The political media's iron law that "the story always changes" will give natural momentum to an "Obama comeback" theme.
(d) The next debate's format, the town hall, is better terrain for Obama than for Romney. The topics and pattern of discussion are less predictable, and meet-and-greet average-person small talk is not a Romney strength.
(e) The final debate is about foreign policy, where Obama knows the big picture and the fine points, and Romney knows neither. Don't take it from me, take it from Fred Kaplan and Conor Friedersdorf, in their eviscerations of Romney's lamentable foreign-policy address at VMI. If Obama's showing in last week's debate was the worst major-candidate debate performance in memory, Romney's speech was the worst of its kind in a very long time. Sample from Kaplan: "it was astonishing to watch Romney spin a daydream of himself as some latter-day George Marshall, bringing peace, prosperity, and hope to a chaotic world--this from a man who couldn't drop in on the London Olympics without alienating our closest ally and turning himself into a transcontinental laughingstock."

 

[chowderhead]

So basically, 538/RCP/EV and all their data/analysis are wrong.

But your gut feeling about a "paradigm shift", backed with no data/analysis is right.

Got it.

There's a reason why Silver got snatched up by the NYT while you're making predictions on a message board.

Anyway, I think a little theater is good for turnout. Republican turnout has historically always been higher, because the party is made up of older, whiter, more reliable voters. Democrats who were previously ready to coast to victory are now going to be canvassing and making calls at the phone banks from now until election day. Good stuff, especially for Obama's campaign in swing states.




Here's an analysis of the debate's impact by The Atlantic:

Ohio is pretty much a must win for Romney but here is his problem
New NBC/Marist poll done after the debate in Ohio
Obama 51 (51%)
Romney 45 (43%)
18% of the people surveyed have already voted and they support Obama almost 2 to 1.

Ohio reported nearly 1.2 million early votes have already been sent in.
Those are votes already locked in and no matter what the "shift," Romney needs to outperform on election to overcome this early advantage. Obama in Ohio have identified their likely supporters early and got them to vote early. They then bank those votes and then focus their GoTV on the occasional voters or persuadables. Romney for all the bus tours and millions of dollars cannot seem to break through in Ohio. He is in real trouble there.

 

[dmcowen674]

Ohio is pretty much a must win for Romney but here is his problem
New NBC/Marist poll done after the debate in Ohio
Obama 51 (51%)
Romney 45 (43%)
18% of the people surveyed have already voted and they support Obama almost 2 to 1.

Ohio reported nearly 1.2 million early votes have already been sent in.
Those are votes already locked in and no matter what the "shift," Romney needs to outperform on election to overcome this early advantage. Obama in Ohio have identified their likely supporters early and got them to vote early. They then bank those votes and then focus their GoTV on the occasional voters or persuadables. Romney for all the bus tours and millions of dollars cannot seem to break through in Ohio. He is in real trouble there.

Latest polls have Romney leading Obama in Ohio and Florida

10-11-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-takes-slight-lead-over-obama-presidential-race-035330340.html

Romney takes slight lead over Obama in presidential race



Republican challenger Mitt Romney has pulled ahead of President Barack Obama in the race for the White House for the first time in more than a month and leads 45 percent to 44 percent among likely voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll released on Wednesday.

 

[randomrogue]

That link doesn't even have the word Ohio in it. There's a link on the side leading to an article saying they're statistically tied.

I wish people would stop linking articles talking about national polling data though. It's irrelevant.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I suspect people keep bringing up the 538 analysis (as well as analysis from similar sources) because many people view intelligent fact-based analysis as a useful counterpoint to politically biased gut feelings and emotional reactions.

For example, you're rejecting the 538 analysis (which is supported with a ton of data and well explained models) on the grounds that you think there is a "paradigm shift" that you provide not one shred of evidence to support other than your theory about the voting population gaining "clarity" (which you also don't support with data). It seems pretty obvious why at least some people would prefer science to bullshit.

I should also point out that 538 has definitely noted a large shift as a result of Romney's debate performance, which the page author himself has praised. But he also notes that Romney had a lot of ground to make up, and may not have made up all of it with a single night of good debating.

This...pjblabber gets owned. And 538 did a really good job 4 years ago predicting that election as well.

 

[PokerGuy]

That link doesn't even have the word Ohio in it. There's a link on the side leading to an article saying they're statistically tied.

I wish people would stop linking articles talking about national polling data though. It's irrelevant.

Unfortunately, you're right. National polls mean nothing, voting in a few key states will determine the outcome.

 

[buckshot24]

The only national poll that has obama ahead is Rasmussen! LOL I always knew he was a left wing maggot infested hippy.

 

[buckshot24]

That link doesn't even have the word Ohio in it. There's a link on the side leading to an article saying they're statistically tied.

I wish people would stop linking articles talking about national polling data though. It's irrelevant.

The popular vote winner has won the electoral college in the vast majority of elections. It has happened 4 times before. The popular vote is an excellent indicator of who who will win the electoral college. It is so rare that it didn't happen in any election in the 19xx's. It happened in 2000 but the time prior was 1888. Saying it is irrelevant is an exaggeration.

 

[PokerGuy]

The popular vote winner has won the electoral college in the vast majority of elections. It has happened 4 times before. The popular vote is an excellent indicator of who who will win the electoral college. It is so rare that it didn't happen in any election in the 19xx's. It happened in 2000 but the time prior was 1888. Saying it is irrelevant is an exaggeration.

It isn't irrelevant in predicting most elections, but the way the math works out in this election, national polls are essentially irrelevant. Using national polling data is relevant in a national discussion, but when it comes to the electoral college, there's no point in looking at anything other than the states that are contested at this point.

 

[PJABBER]

This...pjblabber gets owned. And 538 did a really good job 4 years ago predicting that election as well.

Don't see the ownage as I am saying that polling is not a be all and end all for predictive purposes.

If you read the actual commentary by Silver, you will get a much more nuanced perspective and one that aligns with my own caution.

I am not a fanboi like you are (well, I do support the Romney/Ryan ticket, but not to the extent of being unaware of all kinds of contrarian information,) so I am cautious about anyone's claims to more than an opinion.

I do like a lot about how Silver approaches his work, it is as good as any out there, but the predictive modeling is an educated guess and it is less accurate when you get into breakout situations.

From the blog post he did today, again looking for confirmation of a breakout pattern...

October 11, 2012, 7:57 AM Oct. 10:

Is Romney Leading Right Now?

By NATE SILVER

Polling since the debate in Denver last week has generally been very strong for Mitt Romney. But there have also been a couple of rays of hope for Democrats and President Obama.

One hypothesis is that Mr. Romney’s debate bounce was initially very strong, but has since faded some. There is a case to be made for this — but Wednesday’s polling made it weaker.

Although Mr. Romney’s standing declined by two points in the Gallup national tracking poll, he improved slightly in four other tracking surveys, from Rasmussen Reports, Ipsos, Investors’ Business Daily and the RAND Corporation. And the state polling data that came in on Wednesday was generally consistent with about a three-and-a-half-point bounce for Mr. Romney, similar to previous days.

There is some spotty evidence that Mr. Romney’s bounce may have been as large as five or six points in polls conducted in the 48 hours after the debate, so perhaps the most recent data does reflect something of a comedown for him. But if his bounce started out at five or six points and has now settled in at three or four, that would still reflect an extremely profound swing in the race — consistent with the largest shifts produced by past presidential debates. We’ll see what happens once the news cycle turns over, such as after Thursday’s vice-presidential debate.

For the time being, however, Mr. Romney continues to rocket forward in our projections. The forecast model now gives him about a one-in-three chance of winning the Electoral College (more specifically, a 32.1 percent chance), his highest figure since Aug. 22 and more than double his chances from before the debate. Mr. Romney may have increased his chances of becoming president by 15 or 20 percent based on one night in Denver.

Coincidentally, he goes into a little bit about inside baseball, and confirms some of my commentary about the herd mind in polling, later in today's blog post.

What do I mean by “independence”? Here’s a dirty little secret: pollsters herd. Or to put it less politely: it’s probable that some polling firms, especially those that use less rigorous methodologies, cheat off the stronger ones — seeing what the consensus results are before weighing in on their own.

One piece of evidence for this comes from a paper by the political scientists Joshua Clinton and Steve Rogers, who analyzed polling in the Republican primaries this year. They found that when a low-quality pollster was the first one to poll a state, their results were quite poor. But they did as well as any others once there were high-quality polls already released in the state — possibly implying that the low-quality pollsters were tweaking their assumptions to match the better ones.

My own research is suggestive of a similar phenomenon. I’ve found that the more polls there are of a state, the narrower the spread between them — in a way that is inconsistent with normal statistical variance. Once there is a consensus established in a state, the pollsters may have an incentive to be in line with it. That may make the individual poll more accurate — but reduce the value of aggregating or averaging polls since the “wisdom of crowds” principle is strongest when individual members of the crowd are behaving independently. Otherwise, it becomes more likely that everyone will miss in the same direction.

Even high-quality polling firms sometimes feel compelled to change their methods if they are out-of-step with the consensus. Gallup announced a set of changes to its methodology on Wednesday, for example. Although the changes are defensible on a theoretical basis (and although it’s much better to disclose the changes than not to do so), it’s awfully late in the game to be doing that, and makes it harder to compare recent Gallup results to past ones.

 

[buckshot24]

The latest NBC poll out of Ohio has Obama up 6 but they have a Dem/Rep split of 40/29 likely voters.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/news/Marist OH 10-12.pdf

In 2008 turnout was split 39/31 according to exit polls.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/ohio.html

If there are actually more Democrats that come out to vote this year vs 2008 then Romney is toast. However, I highly doubt that this will be the case.

 

[randomrogue]

If there are actually more Democrats that come out to vote this year vs 2008 then Romney is toast. However, I highly doubt that this will be the case.

Why? What leads you to that conclusion?

 

[jackstar7]

Don't see the ownage as I am saying that polling is not a be all and end all for predictive purposes.

If you read the actual commentary by Silver, you will get a much more nuanced perspective and one that aligns with my own caution.

I am not a fanboi like you are (well, I do support the Romney/Ryan ticket, but not to the extent of being unaware of all kinds of contrarian information,) so I am cautious about anyone's claims to more than an opinion.

I do like a lot about how Silver approaches his work, it is as good as any out there, but the predictive modeling is an educated guess and it is less accurate when you get into breakout situations.

From the blog post he did today, again looking for confirmation of a breakout pattern...



Coincidentally, he goes into a little bit about inside baseball, and confirms some of my commentary about the herd mind in polling, later in today's blog post.

Wait, so you don't trust his analysis until it conforms to your preexisting mindset?

 

[PJABBER]

Wait, so you don't trust his analysis until it conforms to your preexisting mindset?

Even if I am right all the time it is nice to get confirmation. :awe:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The latest NBC poll out of Ohio has Obama up 6 but they have a Dem/Rep split of 40/29 likely voters.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/news/Marist OH 10-12.pdf

In 2008 turnout was split 39/31 according to exit polls.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/ohio.html

If there are actually more Democrats that come out to vote this year vs 2008 then Romney is toast. However, I highly doubt that this will be the case.

Early voting in Ohio is already underway and people are voting at record levels. Democrats are outweighing Republicans almost 2:1 at this point, largely due to all of the voter ID disenfranchisement scares. People are afraid their votes aren't going to be counted, so they are coming in early and getting it taken care of.

This means the pool of undecideds Romney has to sway at this point is getting smaller and smaller. He absolutely HAS to be tied or ahead of Obama to win this state at this point. The fact that he's down 3-6 pts in almost every Ohio poll is the DEATH SENTENCE to his campaign. He cannot make up that margin in two debates unless Obama has a horrific performance.

 

[buckshot24]

The fact that he's down 3-6 pts in almost every Ohio poll is the DEATH SENTENCE to his campaign. He cannot make up that margin in two debates unless Obama has a horrific performance.

You're simply not correct.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html

There are 2 polls that match your claim out of 7. 28% does not equal "almost every". Plus the spread of Republican/Democrat in the one where he is up 6 is absolutely absurd. Turnout will not match what they have in their poll.

Early voting in Ohio is already underway and people are voting at record levels. Democrats are outweighing Republicans almost 2:1 at this point, largely due to all of the voter ID disenfranchisement scares. People are afraid their votes aren't going to be counted, so they are coming in early and getting it taken care of.

So the people who voted early were going to vote for Obama any and since they are voting early means what? It means that on election day Romney will clean the clock of Obama with the remaining voters.

 

[mshan]

"We gauge our ground game on verifiable numbers that tell the real story: voter registration and early voting," Messina told reporters. "In nearly every battleground state, margins on both counts are bigger than they were in 2008. We've registered more voters than '08, we've knocked on more doors and we've talked to more people."

Bird said that the Obama campaign had made huge strides in both registration and early voting in key states — and were way past the benchmarks they set in 2008.

"Democrats, in party registration, lead Republicans in nearly every battleground state," Bird said. "Democrats have out-registered Republicans in every single battleground state for the past three months. Latino voter registration has greatly exceeded registration among non-Latino whites, and Latino registration references had increasingly favored Democrats since the election in 2008.

"Most striking, most new registrations are younger than 30 — and, in fact, more than 4 in five new registrants in these battleground states are women, young people and minorities," he said, pointing to groups that all favor the president in national and state polls.

In two key states — Iowa, Ohio — Bird said that the Democrats were leading in both ballots requested and ballots cast. In Florida, Democrats had cut the Republicans absentee voter registration requests.

"We've been at this for years and we have acted early in the battleground states," Bird said. "It takes time to build the kind of tried and true grassroots campaign that the president believes in that will make the difference on November 6th."

"You can't fake a real ground game. if you don't have one, you can't compensate with a billion dollar barrage of false ads at the eleventh hour," he said.


http://www.politico.com/politico44/...n-were-winning-in-the-field-138146.html?hp=l1

Louis in NY // Oct 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm

Sam,

I’ve been following your site for some time and finally decided to comment. As someone who has worked in politics, international relations, and have taught politics as an adjunct, I find your analysis and predictions quite refreshing and straight forward.

My question is as follows: does your Meta-margin model allow for changes/variation in polling methodology, especially when it’s the same pollster? My observation, as of late, is that many of the pollsters are seemingly self serving by changing their methodology.

You’ve done a very good job, as others, in outlining the variables from the standard polling as compared to robocalls, yet I notice that in many recent polls I’ve seen multiple instances when a pollster has not disclosed methodology or has changed from their previous approach; in some cases, seemingly going ‘backward’ and utilizing a less accurate methodology.

Looking forward to your reply. In the meantime, keep up the great work!




Reply

Sam Wang // Oct 5, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Thank you for writing. I have set up the code to be purposely blind as to pollster identity. No house effects and so on. If likely-voter and registered-voter are available from the same pollster, we take likely-voter data.

We considered having it accept at most one poll per state for a given pollster, which would be a justifiable move. However, at this point it would require redrawing the graph, something I don’t want to do midseason. In practice, pollster duplication is a major factor only in the early part of the campaign.


http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/05/predictions-october-5th-presidentsenate/ (comments section)

And for some retrospective perspective (2008 Democratic Primaries):

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/5780/ (Poblano is Nate Silver of 538 fame, just before he became part of establishment main stream media

"Consider two media markets, Denver and Wheeling (which is a market evenly split between Ohio and West Virginia). Mr. Kerry received roughly 50 percent of the votes in both markets. Based on the large gains for Democrats in 2008, Mr. Obama should have received about 57 percent of votes in both Denver and Wheeling. Denver and Wheeling, though, exhibit different racial attitudes. Denver had the fourth lowest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won 57 percent of the vote there, just as predicted. Wheeling had the seventh highest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won less than 48 percent of the Wheeling vote.

Add up the totals throughout the country, and racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote. In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.


Yes, Mr. Obama also gained some votes because of his race. But in the general election this effect was comparatively minor. The vast majority of voters for whom Mr. Obama’s race was a positive were liberal, habitual voters who would have voted for any Democratic presidential candidate. Increased support and turnout from African-Americans added only about one percentage point to Mr. Obama’s totals."


http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/