Obama Didn't Get Any Bump in the Polls after the Second Debate...

[TheDev]

WTF... Romney got like a 5 point bump in the polls after he won the first debate. Most people seem to agree that Obama won the second debate... so why no bump? The polls have basically been tied since the VP debate. And what the hell is up with the Gallup poll. It says Romney is 7 points ahead? That's completely different from what the other polls are showing.

 

[First]

He got a 1.5 point bump actually, check aggregation web sites. Romney got about 4 points, with a good deal of that republican leaning independents that were going to break to him anyway, usually 2-to-1. It always happens in October. He'll get back to 2 points+, higher if he does well in the debates.

 

[First]

And Gallup is a clear outlier at this point, the state-level polls show Obama up everywhere consistently except Florida. Virginia is literally a dead heat, and every other battle ground he's slightly ahead or more.

 

[Lanyap]

Looks like the pressure from the left to change Gallup's methodology at the last minute backfired.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2276357

Gallup's editor in chief, Frank Newport, said he didn't know why his results didn't line up with others. Nor did he seem unnerved by the disparity.

"We try to keep our eyes on the boat and do the best job possible," he said. "We're going over some additional tweaks with our methodologists to make sure we're on top of it."

When Obama opened up a wide lead in polls last month, Republicans accused researchers of interviewing too many Democrats. Those complaints evaporated when Romney surged ahead after his strong October 3 debate performance.

Now, the Obama campaign is questioning the validity of Gallup's methods after it released a poll earlier this week that showed Romney leading among likely voters in the handful of battleground states that will decide the election.

Obama pollster Joel Benenson called the Gallup survey an "extreme outlier" and said its formula to determine likely voters created a bias against Obama supporters. "Gallup's data is once again far out of line with other public pollsters," he wrote in a memo on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/20/us-usa-campaign-gallup-idUSBRE89J02720121020

 

[Rainsford]

Looks like the pressure from the left to change Gallup's methodology at the last minute backfired.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2276357




http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/20/us-usa-campaign-gallup-idUSBRE89J02720121020

I'm not really sure I see a "backfire" against the left or anyone else. Gallup IS a pretty extreme outlier, regardless of what your political ideology might be.

 

[Rainsford]

He got a 1.5 point bump actually, check aggregation web sites. Romney got about 4 points, with a good deal of that republican leaning independents that were going to break to him anyway, usually 2-to-1. It always happens in October. He'll get back to 2 points+, higher if he does well in the debates.

The other problem is that while general agreement seems to be that Obama won the second debate, the degree of victory wasn't the same as Romney's in the first debate. And maybe even more importantly, the media ("mainstream" and otherwise) didn't turn the second debate into a week-long story about how bad Romney's performance was. Partially that's because the first debate WAS more of a case of the loser doing a terrible job than the second debate was. And partially it's because the first debate was more of a surprise result.

 

[EagleKeeper]

People were expecting the Obama would do better than he did in the first debate.

The polls reflected such.

 

[chowderhead]

The media wants a close race and uncertainty. They have been wanting to dig up Romney from the dead. Romney basically got exposed for not knowing all the facts on Libya but chose to shoot his mouth off at the debate thinking he had a gotcha moment. The media should have been all over this empty flip flopping suit.

 

[Jhhnn]

People were expecting the Obama would do better than he did in the first debate.

The polls reflected such.

I think you're right. Obama just looked dog-assed tired to me.

 

[Lanyap]

I'm not really sure I see a "backfire" against the left or anyone else. Gallup IS a pretty extreme outlier, regardless of what your political ideology might be.

Gallup is normally on target. But if you read the links I supplied it appears they were pressured by the left to change their methodology weeks before the election which some suggested skewed the results to the left. Changing your polling methodology can potentially skew your results.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Gallup is normally on target. But if you read the links I supplied it appears they were pressured by the left to change their methodology weeks before the election which some suggested skewed the results to the left. Changing your polling methodology can potentially skew your results.

More conspiracy crapola...

 

[Jhhnn]

Gallup is normally on target. But if you read the links I supplied it appears they were pressured by the left to change their methodology weeks before the election which some suggested skewed the results to the left. Changing your polling methodology can potentially skew your results.

I do love the "pressured by the Left" routine. Gallup changed their methods in an attempt to be more accurate, and they're probably less accurate than ever, despite those efforts.

They wouldn't have changed if they hadn't thought it would be an improvement, "pressure" being a non-sequiter in context.

Gallup's poll isn't "skewed Left", anyway, given that they have Romney up by 7, utterly contrary to the rest of the reputable pollsters.

538.com has Obama's chances of winning at greater than 2:1, even with the screwy Gallup results included.

I doubt Mitt will do himself any good in the final debate about foreign policy.

 

[Lanyap]

I do love the "pressured by the Left" routine. Gallup changed their methods in an attempt to be more accurate, and they're probably less accurate than ever, despite those efforts.

They wouldn't have changed if they hadn't thought it would be an improvement, "pressure" being a non-sequiter in context.

Gallup's poll isn't "skewed Left", anyway, given that they have Romney up by 7, utterly contrary to the rest of the reputable pollsters.

538.com has Obama's chances of winning at greater than 2:1, even with the screwy Gallup results included.

I doubt Mitt will do himself any good in the final debate about foreign policy.

Why would a highly respected polling organization make a major change in their methodology weeks before the election?

 

[First]

Why would a highly respected polling organization make a major change in their methodology weeks before the election?

They already explained it in plain English; to improve their accuracy. Not rocket science, nor is there any evidence of a left-skew.

 

[buckshot24]

The first debate was so huge because Romney wasn't the monster Obama has painted him out to be.

 

[buckshot24]

It could be that Obama just didn't look presidential by interrupting Romney as much as he did. He looked manic and too charged up to me as well. Romney was the same guy from the first debate.

 

[IGBT]

The other problem is that while general agreement seems to be that Obama won the second debate, the degree of victory wasn't the same as Romney's in the first debate. And maybe even more importantly, the media ("mainstream" and otherwise) didn't turn the second debate into a week-long story about how bad Romney's performance was. Partially that's because the first debate WAS more of a case of the loser doing a terrible job than the second debate was. And partially it's because the first debate was more of a surprise result.

the media action lines and sound bites for a obama 2nd debate victory were in the can and ready to go before the 2nd debate started. The obama willing media accomplices were going to spin/cover just as predicted..and they did. The low information obama supporters sucked it in and swallowed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why would a highly respected polling organization make a major change in their methodology weeks before the election?

Asked & answered. Here's what Gallup says-

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/10/survey-methods-complex-and-ever-evolving.html

 

[Ryan]

It could be that Obama just didn't look presidential by interrupting Romney as much as he did. He looked manic and too charged up to me as well. Romney was the same guy from the first debate.

You're a fool if you think Romney didn't look like this during BOTH debates. He refused to abide by time rules, and ran over each moderator when they tried to wrangle him in.

 

[buckshot24]

You're a fool if you think Romney didn't look like this during BOTH debates. He refused to abide by time rules, and ran over each moderator when they tried to wrangle him in.

Look like what?

 

[Rainsford]

the media action lines and sound bites for a obama 2nd debate victory were in the can and ready to go before the 2nd debate started. The obama willing media accomplices were going to spin/cover just as predicted..and they did. The low information obama supporters sucked it in and swallowed.

That's a good example of another factor that I think was important...the reaction of the supporters of the respective "losers" of each debate. Liberals witnessing Obama's loss in the first debate came right out and admitted he got creamed, then turned to introspective despondency trying to figure out why his performance was so bad. Eventually some liberal pundits suggested Obama was right on the facts but made a poor presentation of them, and overall the theme was that he sure as hell better step up his game in the next two debates.

Conservative reaction to the second debate was...different. Almost immediately is turned into whining about the moderator, whining about the media, whining about Obama being mean (did any of those people pay attention when Romney was talking?), whining about the questions, basically doing everything possible to avoid admitting that Obama got the better of Romney in their second exchange.

Not everyone fit into either category, but the overall reaction seemed to follow that pattern for sure.

 

[zanejohnson]

i didnt even watch it.. bout to now..

 

[Jhhnn]

That's a good example of another factor that I think was important...the reaction of the supporters of the respective "losers" of each debate. Liberals witnessing Obama's loss in the first debate came right out and admitted he got creamed, then turned to introspective despondency trying to figure out why his performance was so bad. Eventually some liberal pundits suggested Obama was right on the facts but made a poor presentation of them, and overall the theme was that he sure as hell better step up his game in the next two debates.

Conservative reaction to the second debate was...different. Almost immediately is turned into whining about the moderator, whining about the media, whining about Obama being mean (did any of those people pay attention when Romney was talking?), whining about the questions, basically doing everything possible to avoid admitting that Obama got the better of Romney in their second exchange.

Not everyone fit into either category, but the overall reaction seemed to follow that pattern for sure.

Indeed. Righties run straight for the cover of "they cheated!" as a means of denial. That's particularly true wrt the VP debates, where mean uncle Joe laughed poor, poor Mr Ryan off the stage. "So disrespectful!"

If he'd deserved any respect, he'd have gotten it...

 

[OrByte]

I think the polling reflects reality.

bases are responding to the candidates performance, not really people choosing sides...more like people waking up on both sides.

made the race close, like it always should be.

shrug.

 

[Jaskalas]

You're a fool if you think Romney didn't look like this during BOTH debates. He refused to abide by time rules, and ran over each moderator when they tried to wrangle him in.

Obama and Biden have had greater speaking time in all 3 debates.

What were you saying again?