Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[buckshot24]

I think these polls you're seeing today are probably the first reflecting the small second debate bounce that is expected for Obama. If it continues like this for a few more days, Romney will probably be in a win or die situation Monday night.

They are weighted improperly. One has Dems +8 and the other has Romney up a point if you weigh it to the turnout from 2008 (which is not going to happen).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's okay though, I think Silver (538) leans left, and RCP leans right. I prefer 538 because I think they have the best analysis of what's driving the polls and why some polls show different results than others.

Silver leans towards math. I've followed him for years, long before he got famous, and while he personally is a liberal, he's a straight-shooter.

 

[Farang]

Silver leans towards math. I've followed him for years, long before he got famous, and while he personally is a liberal, he's a straight-shooter.

Same here, and agreed. I look at stuff like this at it is laughable:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/nate-silver-vs-the-world/

Bloggers justifying their existence, I suppose. If you can't bring anything of value to the table, attack the guy who does.

 

[buckshot24]

Silver leans towards math. I've followed him for years, long before he got famous, and while he personally is a liberal, he's a straight-shooter.

I don't think his political leanings are a factor in his predictions either.

 

[woolfe9999]

Same here, and agreed. I look at stuff like this at it is laughable:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/nate-silver-vs-the-world/

Bloggers justifying their existence, I suppose. If you can't bring anything of value to the table, attack the guy who does.

Funny I just read that column a half hour ago, linked from RCP. It's really stupid. He attacks Silver because his model shows Obama remaining the probable winner - albeit by a narrower margin - after the first debate. But he fails to mention that in his blog, Silver repeatedly said that the model was probably over-estimating Obama's chances because it is programmed to respond to events conservatively. The entire column is a straw man.

 

[First]

I think these polls you're seeing today are probably the first reflecting the small second debate bounce that is expected for Obama. If it continues like this for a few more days, Romney will probably be in a win or die situation Monday night.

Yup. As is, he's looking at an uphill battle already with the Mid-Western states pretty much locked (WI, PA, MI, etc.), which means he has to run the table in FL, VA, NV, CO, IA, NH, knowing that Ohio is very likely a lost cause at this point with all the early voting that's already happened there.

 

[First]

Same here, and agreed. I look at stuff like this at it is laughable:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/nate-silver-vs-the-world/

Bloggers justifying their existence, I suppose. If you can't bring anything of value to the table, attack the guy who does.

lol DailyCaller.

 

[Balt]

Silver leans towards math. I've followed him for years, long before he got famous, and while he personally is a liberal, he's a straight-shooter.

Yup. Regardless of the man's personal and (mostly) privately held opinions, he has based his career on being an accurate statistician. He's not going to throw that in the dumpster just because he likes one candidate more than another.

 

[sportage]

Let us all stop and take a moment and say a prayer for a cure for romnesia.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The fundamentals of this race have always been Obama with a modest lead. What are seeing now is a tightening of that lead, which is typically what happens as Election Day gets closer. In the key battleground states that Obama needs to hold he's doing fine. The all important firewall in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa will be enough to win him the election no matter how Romney does elsewhere.

The first debate squelched what could have been an Obama landslide and will likely turn it into a narrow victory. People aren't happy with the economy but the fully understand no president was going to fix the mess Bush left behind in 4 years. Obama gets the reluctant nod from America and wins reelection.

 

[trenchfoot]

The fundamentals of this race have always been Obama with a modest lead. What are seeing now is a tightening of that lead, which is typically what happens as Election Day gets closer. In the key battleground states that Obama needs to hold he's doing fine. The all important firewall in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa will be enough to win him the election no matter how Romney does elsewhere.

The first debate squelched what could have been an Obama landslide and will likely turn it into a narrow victory. People aren't happy with the economy but the fully understand no president was going to fix the mess Bush left behind in 4 years. Obama gets the reluctant nod from America and wins reelection.

Pretty much sums it up nicely. But the media refuses to sit on their hands and keep repeating what we already know. They want controversy. They want innuendo. They want to turn the political campaigns into a soap opera. They want market share and they will hype and gripe tirelessly to win the never ending ratings war.

 

[buckshot24]

Few state polls came out today

Iowa +1 Romney PPP poll (yesterday NBC has Obama up 8)
Virginia +3 Romney Rasmussen
Florida +1 Romney CNN
Florida +5 Romney Rasmussen
Florida +3 Romney Fox
New Hampshire +1 Romney PPP
Wisconsin +2 Obama Rasmussen
Ohio +3 Obama Fox (+8 Dem sample which was the gap in 2008)

Overall a very good day for Romney. That Iowa poll is especially interesting given that NBC had Obama up 8 just yesterday. The Ohio poll seems to have too many Democrats in it. If it is plus 8, as it was in 2008, then Ohio will simply be out of reach for Romney. I doubt it will be plus 8 however.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

buckshot: You keep focusing on splits and "weighting" (of course, only for the polls whose results you don't like). You do understand that they don't decide ahead of time how many Ds, Rs and Is to poll? They decide whom to poll based on demographics and ask people for party ID as part of the poll.

 

[buckshot24]

buckshot: You keep focusing on splits and "weighting" (of course, only for the polls whose results you don't like). You do understand that they don't decide ahead of time how many Ds, Rs and Is to poll? They decide whom to poll based on demographics and ask people for party ID as part of the poll.

Don't you think the sample should be looked at when trying to decide what the poll is really saying? If they are just recording what they get then maybe their polling methodology introduces some sort of bias unintentionally.

If the national poll that had an 8% advantage for Democrats is correct then Romney is going to lose. Considering that 2008 had a 7 point lead I find that possibility to be absurdly low. Obama will get less turnout this time around and Republicans more for a whole host of reasons that I outlined earlier.

 

[randomrogue]

Buckshot you're special.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Don't you think the sample should be looked at when trying to decide what the poll is really saying? If they are just recording what they get then maybe their polling methodology introduces some sort of bias unintentionally.

What is the evidence for your contentions? Gallup currently shows a +7 split to the Democrats including "leaners". They showed +11 on election day 2008.

Considering that 2008 had a 7 point lead I find that possibility to be absurdly low. Obama will get less turnout this time around and Republicans more for a whole host of reasons that I outlined earlier.

Again -- evidence?

 

[randomrogue]

Regarding that Iowa poll btw. Lets look at PPP

10/19 Romney +1
9/26 Obama +7
8/26 Obama +2
7/15 Obama +5
5/6 Obama +10

What's their track record? They have a record of accuracy going back 2 elections and they ask weird questions like "Should Obama go to heaven" or some shit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That Iowa/NH PPP poll is extremely bad news for Obama IMO.

 

[buckshot24]

What is the evidence for your contentions? Gallup currently shows a +7 split to the Democrats including "leaners". They showed +11 on election day 2008.

For one....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

Again -- evidence?

I've posted some of my reasons here in this thread.

Here are some of the reasons I think there won't be a gap as large as 08 in favor of Democrats.

• The majority of the population want Obamacare repealed.
• Republican enthusiasm is 20 points higher this year.
• Democrat enthusiasm is lower for Democrats (slightly).
• McCain had no chance come election day keeping Republicans home.
• Poor economy, right or wrong Obama will get more blame than the Democrats had in 08
• Democrats aren't going to come out to vote against Bush. Bush is in Crawford.
• Election isn't "historic". Minorities most likely won't turn out like 08.
• Much larger anti Obama segment than 08. More voters going out specifically to vote against Obama than 08. The 2010 mid term election is evidence of this.
• 04' had an even split Dem/Rep according to exit polls.

 

[buckshot24]

That Iowa/NH PPP poll is extremely bad news for Obama IMO.

I don't know what to make of it to be honest. We just had a +8 poll for Obama the day before by NBC/WSJ. NBC seems to favor Democrats but that is a huge gap.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

For one....

Rasmussen is an outlier. Has been for years.

I've posted some of my reasons here in this thread.

Those are opinions, some of which may be correct, but they are not evidence. (And some are quite silly.. less anti-Obama sentiment? What? )

 

[buckshot24]

Rasmussen is an outlier. Has been for years.

haha, don't sprain your wrist with all of the hand waving.

Those are opinions, some of which may be correct, but they are not evidence. (And some are quite silly.. less anti-Obama sentiment? What? )

Some are straight facts.

1,2,3,5,9 are statements of fact. So if you'd like to address those then be my guest.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

haha, don't sprain your wrist with all of the hand waving.

It's not hand-waving. It's what analysts have been saying for years.

Some are straight facts.

Only if you can back them up with evidence. Feel free to try.

As just one example, your claim about Obamacare makes the classic mistake of assuming that everyone who dislikes Obamacare is a Republican or would vote against Obama.

 

[buckshot24]

Only if you can back them up with evidence. Feel free to try.

There is a link for point number 9. You can look for yourself.

As just one example, your claim about Obamacare makes the classic mistake of assuming that everyone who dislikes Obamacare is a Republican or would vote against Obama.

If that were the case then Romney would be up by 12. I'm not suggesting that every person who favors repeal would vote against Obama. It is merely a data point that suggests that Obama's key legislation is unpopular. What the effect of that isn't entirely known but it seems reasonable to suggest that it could negatively impact the president while positively impacting Republican turnout. If you think otherwise I'm sure you could come up with a competing theory.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There is a link for point number 9. You can look for yourself.

The relevance of exit polling from 2004 escapes me, sorry.

It is merely a data point that suggests that Obama's key legislation is unpopular. What the effect of that isn't entirely known but it seems reasonable to suggest that it could negatively impact the president while positively impacting Republican turnout. If you think otherwise I'm sure you could come up with a competing theory.

You're the one making the assertion, but you haven't provided any rational basis for it.

If you actually look at the polls, a good chunk of people oppose Obamacare because they don't think it's liberal enough. Those people are not going to vote for Mitt Romney.

Obamacare is a known quantity and its impact is already "priced into" all the polls.