Althouse: Obama 48%, Romney 46%.

September 29, 2012

Obama 48%, Romney 46%.

Rasmussen tracking poll. With "leaners": Obama 49%, Romney 47%.

Swing state tracking poll: Obama 47%, Romney 45%.

40 comments:

Christopher said...: I recall somebody saying that Ras. uses a D+3 breakdown which would basically split the difference between 2010 and 2008.

So while a statistical tie, it likely does indicate a small lead by Obama. Of course this requires one to take into account the weekend bump the Dems. seem to get in polling. If it stays through this week then it likely is meaningful, if it suddenly returns then it was likely just statistical noise.

But even if you hold that this is a real change then you have to admit that it is fairly minor. This just seems to reenforce the general belief that most voters have entered something of a holding pattern in regards to their vote.

Most are likely waiting for the debates.; 9/29/12, 9:05 AM
Brent said...: The re-election of Obama will hasten the downward ranking of the United States from its position as the world's foremost superpower. If you as a voter cannot see this redistributionist in chief for the quasi-marxist, anti-American exceptionalist he is, then you are willfully blind and personnally selfish. You are robbing liberty from future generations in the name of personal selfishness or your own anti-Americanism sentiment. There“s no other rational explanation for such a choice.

You will have made the very choice the Professsor has decried here before - a primarily emotional choice. An exceedingly selfish choice, casting away the very soul of American liberty and leadership.

Future generations will damn you. It is that serious.

.; 9/29/12, 9:08 AM
kentuckyliz said...: I was sort of pissed off about PPACA and first amendment freedom of religion "free exercise thereof" but really I thought the religious rights lawsuits would filter up through SCOTUS next year and get solved.

But the 9/11/12 events and everything that followed makes me see how truly dangerous Obama is for a time like this.

I will happily pay my universal lifeline access taxes and let the gravelly voiced protestor have her cell phone. Just please don't talk on it real loud during the movies.

I will not pay jizya.; 9/29/12, 9:23 AM
TWM said...: No meaningful changes here. Still basically a tie despite the MSM pushing the Romney has already lost theme daily. The debates will matter.; 9/29/12, 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Was this taken before or after Romney ordered Drudge to post the racist Obama phone video at the top of his site?; 9/29/12, 9:34 AM
madAsHell said...: The only poll that matters is November 6.; 9/29/12, 9:41 AM
edutcher said...: Considering the bad week Zero's had, it's quite puzzling. With leaners, the Romster was ahead in the middle of the week.

The last couple of weekends the Romster has stayed even, so it's odd.

Perhaps Christopher is right and people are waiting for the debates.

If so, the Zero crowd needs to worry. The Romster has had plenty of recent debating practice and Zero's ratings the last couple of years have gone progressively down, as if people are tired of him.; 9/29/12, 9:45 AM
AF said...: Oh noes! Obama has opened up a small lead! I'm sure it's just a temporary thing, given that up till now, Romney has been WINNING!

Note to Professor Althouse: Your embrace of the "all polls but Rasmussen are oversampling Dems" argument is intellectually embarrassing. You should really take the time to examine the arguments.

On the other hand, with the right-wing hordes on your case for the race thing, this is a harmless way to bolster your wing-nut cred. Maybe you should start linking to unskewedpolls.com instead of Rasmussen.; 9/29/12, 9:47 AM
Revenant said...: It is kind of obnoxious that so few polls include third-party candidates when the third-party candidates are on the ballot in most of the swing states.

Sure, they'll likely only get low single-digits in percentage, but in a race that is statistically tied those few percentage points can decide the election.; 9/29/12, 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Me enjoys the Alhouse blog. It is the BEST blog.

My COMPLICATION is that no one here understand the power of the WH, DNC, K-street, and MEDIA.

Today - at the WH Brunch, one staffer of the Chief-of-Staff (COS) office said that Romney was (to quote Gene Wilder in Silver Streak) - the stupid, ignorant, S-*-* dumb bas****! Never before, the staffer continued (quoting Wilder) had met such a dumb bas****, and he (Romney) outdid them all.

WHY? Why would a WH staff say that about Romney who wants to defeat his boss.

WHY?

All of GOP is dumb. You are not qualified to run for any offices.

OBAMA IS GOING TO BE VICTORIOUS BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IS A:

BUMP IN THE ROADS.

THERE IS NOTHING THE GOP CAN DO. NOTHING. The NYT has offered a written guarantee that there is nothing they will do to jeopardize our victory. I have the letter. It is framed in the office of the C-O-S.; 9/29/12, 9:57 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Why can't Obama get past the 53% mark? [His percentage of votes last time, rounded up]

In the whole glorious history of our Republic, how many incumbents have won re-election by a smaller margin than their original election??

Zero.

If he hasn't widened his support since 2008, history suggests he will lose. Just like Bush 41 and Carter and Ford. It's not impossible to unseat an incumbent. Point me to the large swath of voters that he has added to his column. I truly want to know who they are.; 9/29/12, 11:09 AM
Cedarford said...: TWM said...
No meaningful changes here. Still basically a tie despite the MSM pushing the Romney has already lost theme daily. The debates will matter.

================
Not true. While the polls may have a pro-Dem bias, they have had them in since they started polling nationally and in the swing states - and all the polls, even Rasmussen now, show Obama gaining votes.
Not a huge upswing, but a noticable one.
Call it the "Little Mo'" in honor of HW Bush's "Big Mo'" theory.; 9/29/12, 12:33 PM
Cedarford said...: TWM said...
No meaningful changes here. Still basically a tie despite the MSM pushing the Romney has already lost theme daily. The debates will matter.

================
Not true. While the polls may have a pro-Dem bias, they have had them in since they started polling nationally and in the swing states - and all the polls, even Rasmussen now, show Obama gaining votes.
Not a huge upswing, but a noticable one.
Call it the "Little Mo'" in honor of HW Bush's "Big Mo'" theory.; 9/29/12, 12:34 PM
Unknown said...: In the whole glorious history of our Republic, how many incumbents have won re-election by a smaller margin than their original election??

Zero.

Really? Which Republic are you talking about? In OUR Republic, the United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt twice won re-election by a smaller margin than his original victory. The numbers:

(1932) Margin = 17.7%
(1936) Margin = 24.3%
(1940) Margin = 9.9%
(1944) Margin = 7.5%

The same pattern applies to electoral vote margin--Roosevelt twice won re-election with smaller electoral vote margins than his original election victory margin.; 9/29/12, 12:59 PM
Unknown said...: I'm waiting for edutcher, Jay, or another of the Althouse dunces to INSIST that only polls that show Mittens leading can be trusted. Because, of course, the Althouse dunces know so much more about polling and statistics than people who do that sort of work professionally.; 9/29/12, 1:02 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Jake Diamond,
Of course you are correct on terms 3 and 4 for FDR. But his second term was by a greater margin.

And, thanks to FDR and a Constitutional amendment, there will not be a 3rd or subsequent term for any President.

Here's a corollary to my first observation: Second [or last] terms are always worse than the first.

Can American stand a worse Obama term than we've already endured?; 9/29/12, 1:06 PM
Meade said...: The safe and sane default position is for voters to deny all politicians of any party a second term unless they have proven, by their first term, to be highly deserving.

In other words, vote against the devil you know. Deny him power. If you're lucky - who knows? - the other guy might not be such a devil.; 9/29/12, 1:28 PM
Unknown said...: Here's a corollary to my first observation

Since your first observation was wrong, does it deserve a "corollary?"; 9/29/12, 1:34 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Jake Diamond,
I granted you that FDR's 3rd and 4th terms were by lesser margins. I clarified my statement that no president has won a SECOND term by a lesser margin.

Or am I not allowed to clarify?; 9/29/12, 1:40 PM
Unknown said...: The safe and sane default position is for voters to deny all politicians of any party a second term unless they have proven, by their first term, to be highly deserving.

Well Meade, I'm happy to know that you voted against W in 2004. After all, he was completely undeserving of a second term after his dreadful performance in his first four years in office. Did you vote for Kerry or a third party candidate in 2004?

I don't accept your advice, by the way. I vote for the best candidate, period. If the incumbent has been a miserable failure in his first term (e.g. George W. Bush), then he's unlikely to be the best candidate. On the other hand, if the opposition parties are fielding terrible candidates (e.g., Mittens), then the incumbent might be the best candidate in spite of his disappointing first term.; 9/29/12, 1:42 PM
Meade said...: JD, the election that matters is the next one up. You're free to reject my advice while I accept yours: "If the incumbent has been a miserable failure in his first term [...], then he's unlikely to be the best candidate."

Obama has been a miserable failure - far beyond the miserable failure of Bush. Obama does not deserve a second term.; 9/29/12, 1:51 PM
Unknown said...: I clarified my statement that no president has won a SECOND term by a lesser margin.

Or am I not allowed to clarify?

Consider James Madison...

(1808) Pop. Vote % Margin = 32.3%
(1812) Pop. Vote % Margin = 2.8%

(1808) Electoral Margin = 75
(1812) Electoral Margin = 39

Please continue to clarify.; 9/29/12, 1:57 PM
Unknown said...: So Meade, you voted for W in 2004, didn't you?

So much for your advice. You don't practice what you preach.; 9/29/12, 1:58 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Jake Diamond,
Further clarifying...in the modern era, no president has won a second term by a lesser margin than his first.

And Madison expanded the map by garnering Louisiana for the first time.

But do answer my real question. Where has Obama expanded his following? What state that McCain won is Obama going to win?; 9/29/12, 2:11 PM
Unknown said...: Define "the modern era." Are you referring to the post-FDR elections?; 9/29/12, 2:16 PM
AF said...: Jake Diamond: Meade does practice what he preaches. He just though W had proven himself to be "highly deserving."

Same conclusion though: So much for Meade's advice.; 9/29/12, 2:17 PM
Unknown said...: Meade does practice what he preaches. He just though W had proven himself to be "highly deserving."

A scary thought but probably true. I'd like to see Meade admit it, though.

Meade?; 9/29/12, 2:24 PM
Unknown said...: Meade?

*crickets*; 9/29/12, 2:36 PM
ricpic said...: Did Montana Urban Schmendrik turn into Jake Diamond? Same nothing but insults comebacks.

The debates will matter.

And how. I read somewhere that Frank Luntz said Romney's first ninety seconds in the first debate will decide the election. Does this put too much pressure on Romney? Not at all. Millions of undecideds only need to be reassured that they won't be handing over the reins to the crazed Daddy Warbucks caricature the Obama campaign has been drawing of him. This Romney will accomplish easily and the undecideds (those unhappy with the incumbent but wary of the less well known challenger) will fall his way. The point is that he doesn't have to flash or be brilliant; steady, reliable and even a bit boring are what voters are looking for after the messiah that failed.; 9/29/12, 4:04 PM
Unknown said...: I read somewhere that Frank Luntz said Romney's first ninety seconds in the first debate will decide the election. Does this put too much pressure on Romney?

I doubt that serial liar Mittens needs the advice of known liar Luntz.; 9/29/12, 4:13 PM
Meade said...: Yes, George W. Bush was highly deserving. In addition, John Kerry revealed himself to be not only weak but a snake.

The crux of my advice (and I wish I'd learned it far earlier in life) is this: The default position - that is, if you are having difficulty deciding between two candidates - should be to throw the bums out. Deny a politician or party the opportunity to accrue power. Along with the constitution, it is the only real power to limit government that the People have.; 9/29/12, 4:19 PM
Meade said...: Caveat: Take extra care if the incumbent represents an oppressed minority. Throwing out an oppressed minority incumbent bum could hurt the feelings of self-identifying liberals who take a lot of emotional pride in having elected the representative of an oppressed minority. They might try to shame you and insinuate that you are giving in to racial fears, etc. They may tend to project their own unconscious fears and prejudices onto you. Hang in there. Remain calm. For their sake as much as your own, resist their insinuations. Go large.; 9/29/12, 4:28 PM
Unknown said...: Yes, George W. Bush was highly deserving.

Enough said. Sense and reason don't feature in Meade's world.

By the way, I'm willing to bet that Meade voted for Dole in '96. I'm confident that Meade judged Clinton highly undeserving just as he judged W to be highly deserving. In other words, Meade is just making up excuses for uncritically voting for Republicans.; 9/29/12, 5:26 PM
Unknown said...: Take extra care if the incumbent represents an oppressed minority.

Why does it even occur to you to mention race?

Weird and creepy.; 9/29/12, 5:30 PM
Meade said...: "By the way, I'm willing to bet that Meade voted for Dole in '96."

Oh? How much are you willing to bet? Want to bet ten thousand dollars?

"Why does it even occur to you to mention race?"

You don't read ELSPETH REEVE, do you?; 9/29/12, 6:17 PM
Unknown said...: You don't read ELSPETH REEVE, do you?

It doesn't have anything to do with this thread or our discussion, Meade. You're just using it as an excuse to whine about race. If Obama's race isn't an issue for you, you wouldn't make excuses to yap about it.

In any case, after the George Bush train wreck that you voted for twice, you've lost all credibility with respect to judging presidential candidates. Thanks to you and Althouse though for electing the doofus who was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, started two wars, disasterously mismanaged the federal budget and led the assault on our civil liberties.

You can resume talking about Obama's race now. I realize that it's a subject that really fires up the GOP base.; 9/29/12, 6:55 PM
Unknown said...: Also, I see that Meade doesn't deny voting for Dole in '96. At least Dole isn't a cretin like George Bush.; 9/29/12, 6:59 PM
AF said...: My guess would be that Meade voted for Perot in both 92 and 96.; 9/29/12, 7:00 PM
AF said...: The bottom line is that Meade's argument about the "safe and sane default" position has revealed itself to be an argument that those who believe Bush was "highly deserving" and Obama is a "miserable failure" should vote for Romney. In other words, not much of an argument at all.; 9/29/12, 7:04 PM
Dante said...: Throwing out an oppressed minority incumbent bum could hurt the feelings of self-identifying liberals who take a lot of emotional pride in having elected the representative of an oppressed minority.

I take this as a statement of fact, one with which I agree. What does one call it when people make hiring decisions on the basis of race?

I think in the contradictory liberal world, they have another name for it, because despite that its racist, it's a different kind of racism, an acceptable racism.; 9/30/12, 12:25 PM