Rasmussen tracking poll. It's a 3-day average, and today's poll includes 2 days since the last debate. Yesterday's poll, which had 1 post-debate day in the average, had Romney at 49% and Obama at 47%. Romney lost 2 points with one more day in the average.
ADDED: On the other hand, Romney has gained in the swing state tracking poll. It's now 49% Romney, 47% Obama. Yesterday, it was Romney 49%, Obama 48%. The previous day, Obama was up by 3 at 50% to Romney's 47%. That poll is a 7-day average, so there's less post-debate polling in the mix, which may make the trend toward Romney more surprising.
१९ ऑक्टोबर, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११७ टिप्पण्या:
This should be an entertaining election. Obama has to be worried that he's going to need Biden to be out on the stump a lot.
kinda optimal.
I haven't got a clue who's going to win. Although I've got my own preference, my world will not come to an end if my candidate loses.
The next debate should be hilarious. Obama's got to be looking over his should and wondering how in the hell he's going to finesse Benghazi.
I thought that Crowley's collusion with Obama would obsess you, Althouse. I think that, when we look back years from now, that moment when she spoon fed Obama will be considered the moment that the Legacy Media lost all credibility.
Even if Obama wins the election.
Three-day averages tend to be less accurate than seven-day averages because each day of the week tends to catch different types of people at home.
The most important thing to remember about a storm surge is that as it moves across the ocean, it doesn't look very big. It's only when it gets close to land and starts to interact with the continental shelf that its full effects become visible. This is why the flooding from a major hurricane is usually more deadly than the winds.
In other words, polls don't mean much.
It appears, according to Rasmussen, the irreducible percentage of morons who vote clearly ranges between 43-48%.
It will be fascinating to see what the final number is.
My own guess is 48%, +/- 0.5%.
The voters can't really be jumping around this much. It's the shortcomings of polling methodology that are behind this. How many people do you know who have changed their preference, and how many who have changed it back and forth every few days?
I don't care who wins as long as Obama gets 47.0%.
I haven't got a clue who's going to win. Although I've got my own preference, my world will not come to an end if my candidate loses.
My world won't come to an end, either. It came to an end in 2009 when the Obama/Pelosi/Reid contingent passed the HiTech Act and Obamacare. American medicine was ruined that year, and there's no going back. Even if Obamacare were repealed, the private sector has already adopted its tenents. We will be a nation whose healthcare is a nationalized-corporate model.
My only hope is that Romney will be better than Obama in other regards- understanding the importance of the core principles of the Constitution, serious foreign policy, getting government out of the business of running businesses. If Obama is re-elected, I truly believe this country is doomed.
Obviously, if a Republican president had screwed up as badly as Obama did over Benghazi, the Legacy Media would be touting this as a Watergate level controversy. They'd be camped out on front lawns screaming about the cover-up.
Just as obviously, the attack on the First Amendment represented by the arrest and defamation of the video maker would have set off a firestorm in the Legacy Media. Hollywood would already be getting in gear to produce a bio-pic enshrining the video maker as a free speech martyr of police state tactics.
So, my question is: which of the two responses are correct? Has the Legacy Press been blowing similar scandals during Republican administrations completely out of proportion? Or should they be applying the same standard of outrage to a Democratic administration?
If you look at all the recent polling the only thing clearly discernible is that momentum has been going toward Romney for a month with a huge jump after the first debate. At this point a toss up. Romney has run up against the wall of the impenetrably ignorant who cannot be enlightened. It will be very slow going now.
Has the Legacy Press been blowing similar scandals during Republican administrations completely out of proportion? Or should they be applying the same standard of outrage to a Democratic administration?
They should be applying the same standard of outrage to both parties. It is the only thing that keeps them honest.
You'd think you'd see more movement.
I guess some people were still sorting out all the claims about Benghazi.
I agree with the idea that all the trends have shifted in Romney's direction over the last month. This is in spite of the president's likeability and the media's continued idealogical corruption.
I'm not willing to believe its a done deal, but I stated on here in the week after the Benghazi incident, that the tide had changed and it has not changed back.
The big question at this point, as has been pointed out above, is how many people are still able to be awakened.
I've got a clue who is going to win. Romney by a landslide.
If a Republican was in office the last four years would we even need an election. Biden could win if that was the case. Just imagine that for a minute, with all the media stories about the unemployed suffering families, the homeless, all the people on food stamp. Oh my God, what about that deficit, and no budget for 3 years. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the 2000 dead mark in Afghanistan. "Where is the President's plan?" would be asked every day, every time he popped up his head. Keyboards would be burning up all through the MSM. It would be humming like a bee hive 24/7, digging into stories, looking for answers. Just think about that for a second.
But what do we get now? Binders. An endless studied exploration of each word spoken that could mean something it didn't. Little exploration of what's being done, or even what the words are saying, but just a sophomoric intense masturbation over single words themselves and how they can be twisted. The whole political world has been reduced to an endless scrabble game argument.
It's even. But someone's gonna win.
Both men have foreign policy weaknesses.
People don't trust Obama on China, Russia, Libya...but trust him more on keeping us out of new Neocon wars of adventure and not standing up and saluting when Israel gives America orders to attack Iran.
The American people, particularly women, are sick to death of endless war and are massively disappointed to see what 2 trillion dollars and 45,000 casualties got us in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the Neocon promises.
Romney seems more credible on China, Russia, having a strong military, not apologizing to Muslims and socialist Europeans.
He will benefit from the Libya lies Team Axelrod fed to Obama, Rice, Hillary, and Carney.
But Romney will take serious damage if he comes across as war thirsty and blindly neocon as McCain was. Maybe enough that that alone costs him the election.
Polls are now in the territory that they have to be close in their predictions--otherwise no one will buy their services. Look for polls to start looking for better for Romney as November 6 rolls around. Follow the money--no one, democrat or republican, is going to buy poll services from someone who cant call an election.
Best day of polling yesterday in a while for O.
National polls published in past 24 hours: Obama +3.2, Obama +3, Obama +3, Obama +1,Obama +0.6, Obama +0.5, TIE, Romney +7
One of those isn't like the others.
I'm not willing to believe its a done deal, but I stated on here in the week after the Benghazi incident, that the tide had changed and it has not changed back.
There might be something to this. CNN online has an opinion article about how 'we need to stop talking about Bengahzi.'
It's remarkable that we should no longer ask questions about how a complete disregard for our consulate led to the horrific deaths of four Americans.
I don't think Romney's momentum continuing after debate 2 is all that surprising. The Obama camp spent most of the campaign painting Romney as some sort of capitalist ogre that didn't care about anything but wealth and his wealthy supporters. Now that people have seen that he's actually human, he's become a plausible, acceptable choice for president. Losing debate 2 narrowly didn't change that. Obama really needed a knockout or a big Romney misstep to change the dynamic of the race, IMHO, and he didn't get it.
C4--as always I appreciate your observation, progressive jews nothwithstanding :)
I think your analysis is good--I simply am not sure if the Romney folks have thought thru their foreign policy planks. Clearly the Obama policy has not worked.
I regard foreign policy positions as the wild card in the election, and I havent seen anything that assures me.
bagoh20 said...
The whole political world has been reduced to an endless scrabble game argument.
Yeah, but wouldn't you love to play Benghazi on a triple-word score?
I've got a clue who is going to win. Romney by a landslide.
You are right, dreams. Comfortable, if not landslide win. It is not as close as the polls suggest at all.
the only thing keeping Obama afloat is the corrupt media. They know it, too.
From the Rasmussen link:
These updates are based upon nightly polling and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, roughly one-third of the interviews for today’s update were completed before Tuesday night’s presidential debate. In the two nights of polling conducted since the debate, Romney has a slight advantage. Tomorrow morning (Saturday) will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the second debate.
Roger J. said...
Polls are now in the territory that they have to be close in their predictions--otherwise no one will buy their services. Look for polls to start looking for better for Romney as November 6 rolls around. Follow the money--no one, democrat or republican, is going to buy poll services from someone who cant call an election.
Precisely, and remember these people also do a lot of market research, so that's an even bigger paycheck they might lose.
Except that Rasmussen reports in his article that Romney is actually leading in the two days of polling that came after the debate. The Poll is only tied because Obama had a good day of polling on the day of debate.
Thus, if we are reading Rasmussen right, there was no bump for Obama from the debate (unless Obama has a good day of polling today).
IN other news, Rasmussen reports that Romney is leading in VA 50-47. Romney has been leading there in all polls taken in the last 10 days.
SImilarly, a new poll shows Romney leading in Florida 51-46. Romney has also been leading there by bigger margins for the last ten days.
If VA and FL move into the leans Republican column as NC did yesterday, Romney will be at 249. At that number, Obama will need to win at least 7 of the 8 remaining toss up states to win the election.
That looks pretty difficult, especially since it is clear now that the debate this week did not chane the momentum.
The Orlando Sentinel, which endorsed Obama in '08, eviscerates Obama in Romney endorsement.
RIP Big Tex
I saw two WA state polls last night. One was Obama 50%/Romney 45%. Another was 52% Obama to 43% Romney. The state went 57.3% Obama to 40.3% McCain last election. Both polls indicated the race is closing up.
If solid blue WA can show that much support for Romney, imagine what it must be like in the rest of the country.
The text note by Ras indicates that it's *Romney* who has been polling better since the debate. This apparent shift is just one really bad day for Obama dropping off the back end.
Ras has more consistent numbers because he forces the same partisan split each time. The strange thing is that although his own long-term polling (which, on this matter, was correct to 1% in the last two Presidential elections) indicates somewhere between R+1 and R+3, he is using D+5 or D+3 (I've heard both, not actually a subscriber to see) for the daily tracking poll. I'm guessing this was an attempt to blend his numbers into the general D oversampling of the rest of the poll pack.
Bottom line: Romney is winning. By a lot.
SImilarly, a new poll shows Romney leading in Florida 51-46. Romney has also been leading there by bigger margins for the last ten days.
There is a lot of Jewish support in those numbers. Obama's hatred of Israel and his love of Islamism is taking its toll.
Garage, you are purposefully fooling yourself by looking at pols recently "published". Go to RCP. Every poll "conducted" in the last 2 days shows Romney tied or ahead. He's been ahead in RCP average since 10/8.
The Orlando Sentinel, which endorsed Obama in '08, eviscerates Obama in Romney endorsement.
And here (via Hot Air) is another brutal review-- by "former Obama administration Defense undersecretary and State Department adviser Rosa Brooks," writing in Foreign Policy.
It's-- wow.
@bagoh20
Except for a weird poll that they just added. But outlier. I mean that unlike Nate Silvers outliers. :)
Can anyone imagine someone who voted for McCain in '08 switching sides to vote for Obama this year? I can't.
The final days of the Obama Term are upon us.
The Hitler in his bunker video is apropos now. Which means the question is whether Obama and his cabal order the destruction of the dollar based the financial world order in Dceember as they had planned to do next year?
Nashville Tennessean, after endorsing Gore/Kerry/Obama, opts resignedly for Romney.
Notable for Al Gore having worked there as a reporter.
@Sorun
The electorate has changed a little. You've at least got four years of new potential voters (almost 16 million people), four years of young voters maturing in their ideas, four years of people dying (about 10 million).
by "former Obama administration Defense undersecretary and State Department adviser Rosa Brooks," writing in Foreign Policy.
Well not quite the Defense undersecretary. "...she served as Counselor to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy at the U.S. Department of Defense" - FP
But what do we get now? Binders. An endless studied exploration of each word spoken that could mean something it didn't. Little exploration of what's being done, or even what the words are saying, but just a sophomoric intense masturbation.
One party's operatives with bylines. Navel-gazing and parlor games, instead of following stories to where they'd lead, or, notable exception being Lara Logan, outward-focused vigilance noting our enemies are reconstituting and are testing the fences.
Ms. Logan or the foreign press
Every poll "conducted" in the last 2 days shows Romney tied or ahead.
Uh, no.
Underundersecretary, then.
bagoh20 said...
"Garage, you are purposefully fooling yourself by looking at pols recently "published". Go to RCP. Every poll "conducted" in the last 2 days shows Romney tied or ahead. He's been ahead in RCP average since 10/8."
A lifetime of experience and observation informs me that one cannot help the willfully stupid, indignantly committed to their ignorance and self-delusions, no matter how much one wishes to help them. They not only are impervious to help; they are outraged by the effort.
Garage will figure it out years after the Walker indictments are issued, which is to say, never.
Let him go in peace. The cognitive dissonance alone must be painful enough as it is.
How could Obungle lose?
The CPUSA endorses him.
Hugo Chavez endorses him.
Vladimir Putin endorses him.
Dictator Raul Castro's daughter endorses him, and on American soil too.
A lifetime of experience and observation informs me that one cannot help the willfully stupid, indignantly committed to their ignorance and self-delusions, no matter how much one wishes to help them. They not only are impervious to help; they are outraged by the effort.
That was an amazing display of projection there. I just listed 6 polls with Obama up. I would link to the data but I doubt it would do any good.
"That was an amazing display of projection there. I just listed 6 polls with Obama up. I would link to the data but I doubt it would do any good."
Fact: Obama has consistently polled under 50% for 18 months now. No incumbent president polling less than 50% has ever won re-election.
#ClingingBitterlytoDenial
'My son is not very optimal - he is very dead': Mother of diplomat killed in Benghazi attack slams Obama's comment on raid
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html
I'm surprised Inga has been so easy on Obama on this issue, considering her daughter's situation.
Roger J -
Thanks. I think foreign policy is the wildcard and Romney could get in some real trouble if voters, especially women, come to believe from that debate he is too eager for new wars or continuing a bad one (Afghanistan) past 2014.
BTW - Liked how you dealt with the troll "whore" on an earlier thread.
While it is true that some Vets and active duty have betrayed the country (the Walker Family) or been gutless - in most cases no. And I've had a little thought to Sen. George McGovern, now dying. Real lefty, would have been as bad as Obama if he had gotten into office or even worse...but the guy kept flying mission after mission as his comrades were lost right and left. So he is a patriot who did his duty and did hard, challenge you right to your inner soul and last parts of your will sort of duty.
He had time to think, between each mission.
Tim, this is the money quote from the Sentinel article you linked:
Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.
Obama is not a leader. Never was and never can be.
Here you go, garage:
RCP Average 10/7 - 10/18 -- -- 47.1 47.0 Romney +0.1
Rasmussen Tracking 10/16 - 10/18 1500 LV 3.0 48 48 Tie
Gallup Tracking 10/12 - 10/18 2700 LV 2.0 51 45 Romney +6
IBD/TIPP Tracking 10/12 - 10/17 909 LV 3.5 46 46 Tie
Hartford Courant/UConn 10/11 - 10/16 1023 LV 3.0 45 48 Obama +3
ABC News/Wash Post 10/10 - 10/13 923 LV 3.5 46 49 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/7 - 10/11 1000 LV 3.1 48 49 Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/8 - 10/10 1360 LV 2.7 47 46 Romney +1
FOX News 10/7 - 10/9 1109 LV 3.0 46 45 Romney +1
So the smaller the sample, the less accurate the poll, the more likely it is to show a small Obama lead.
It also means that fully half of the polls you cited weren't good enough to be included in RCP's average.
I can understand why you are scared to link to the actual poll data, though.
Refusing to support your facts is probably your only hope at this point, gm. Maybe someone dumb enough to not care how you make stuff up out of thin air might be convinced.
We all have seen how how objective facts are biased against the so-called reality-based community.
Can anyone imagine someone who voted for McCain in '08 switching sides to vote for Obama this year? I can't
That would be a bit o' a stretch, but I know a couple folks that voted for McCain in '08 but are voting for Gary Johnson this election.
I've also know a few people who say they are sitting home on election day...one of which voted McCain, another Obama, and two that haven't voted before...but I'm still trying to convince 'em to vote for either Libertarian or Green. (depending on their own core beleifs)
Can someone please break the news to Nathan Alexander and Tim that we don't elect presidents from national tracking polls? And be nice. It will come as quite a shock.
C4--thanks
And especially your kind words for Mr McGovern--he was indeed an american patriot who put his life on the line in every mission he flew--you can disagree with his policies, as I did, but no one should ever challenge his patriotism.
much appreciated, sir
No incumbent president polling less than 50% has ever won re-election.
True dat, but it is also true that no candidate whose first name contains the letter "K" has ever lost a Presidential election.
*shrug*
h/t to XKCD.
Can someone please break the news to Nathan Alexander and Tim that we don't elect presidents from national tracking polls? And be nice. It will come as quite a shock.
Will someone please tell the idiot/fool/hypocrite/liberal (but I repeat myself) who posted 6 poll results with Obama leading that we don't elect presidents from national tracking polls?
I was listening to Rush. It appears that the purpose of the Benghazi cover-up has now been revealed.
Apparently, Benghazi and half of Libya is controlled by Al Qaeda. That region has large oil reserves...
So when Obama was elected. Al Qaeda was on the run. Now, due to Obama's own direct policies, to take out Khadafy and then do nothing, Al Qaeda now controls 1/2 of Libya, on top of the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt.
This is massive epic fail.... That is why the cover up was attempted.... But like all cover-ups, it was badly executed.
Next two weeks could get quite tedious hashing over poll movements of 1%. Right now they are moving like a snake.
Going off-topic along with Nathan Alexander & Sloanasarus, but I find the link re: Sean Smith's mother interesting:
'My son is not very optimal - he is very dead': Mother of diplomat killed in Benghazi attack slams Obama's comment on raid
Everytime I read about Obama's comment, I find it ironic that Comedy Central is mentioned.
But, libs, carry on with the "women in binders" & Big Bird meme's. It's the best that you have.
I'm not sure why people keep linking to RCP when they show Obama winning the election?
Apparently, Benghazi and half of Libya is controlled by Al Qaeda.
Why did we engage in regime change in Libya?
The thing is, the trend of national tracking polls is a strong indicator of how the populace is considering voting in individual states and counties.
Not a perfect indicator, but broad indicators are still worth paying attention to, as part of the information input you need if you want to analyze and understand what is going on in the world.
Unlike, say, garage mahal, who ignores everything that doesn't fit his preferred world view.
I'm not sure why people keep linking to RCP when they show Obama winning the election?
Because unlike you, we don't ignore information that we don't like.
The thing about RCP is, it is another data point. Not definitive on its own, but also vital to not ignore.
Conservatives like me have open minds and try to figure out how things work. It is my open mindedness and ability to accurately understand cause/effect and how to appropriately incorporate context into my view of events that makes me a conservative.
Based on the evidence, if is epistemic closure combined with self-righteousness that makes someone a liberal.
Does anyone here understand why Obama is still at 62% to win at Intrade? Seems he should be coming down, but I think the lowest he's gotten this week was around 61%.
I'm not sure why people keep linking to RCP when they show Obama winning the election?
Maybe because linking to RCP shows Romney 206 EVs, Obama 201 EVs, 131 Tossups.
keep linking to RCP when they show Obama winning the election?
But that's OK, GM, if it assures enough voters that Obama has it in the bag, no need to vote, kick back and chill out on Nov. 6th, no need to wait in line, it's a done deal - your Obamaphone is safe.
Does anyone here understand why Obama is still at 62% to win at Intrade? Seems he should be coming down, but I think the lowest he's gotten this week was around 61%.
I think its because Obama is still leading in many of the swing state poll averages. However, once Florida and Virginia move to lean Romney, you will see a drastic change on intrade. At that point, Obama has to win 7 of 8 swing states and all the big ones to win. To do that he needs momentum.
Does anyone here understand why Obama is still at 62% to win at Intrade?
Because people on Intrade know what I've been telling you folks for weeks.
If O doesn't win it, he's going to steal it.
Hope you're right, Sloanasaurus. Thanks.
Does anyone here understand why Obama is still at 62% to win at Intrade? Seems he should be coming down, but I think the lowest he's gotten this week was around 61%.
Intrade was originally touted as being more accurate than polls because of the "wisdom of crowds" backed up by their own cash.
But I think after gaining that reputation, people game the system.
If you are willing to give the DNC $200 for no tangible personal benefit, just so that your favored candidate wins...wouldn't you be equally as willing to "bet" $200 on InTrade if it helps create a bandwagon effect that helps get your favored candidate a win?
These days, it seems like InTrade is treated like crowd-sourced advertising for politics.
That would be a bit o' a stretch, but I know a couple folks that voted for McCain in '08 but are voting for Gary Johnson this election.
Most polls (bafflingly, admittedly) show Johnson hurting Obama more than Romney.
'My son is not very optimal - he is very dead': Mother of diplomat killed in Benghazi attack slams Obama's comment on raid
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html
I'm surprised Inga has been so easy on Obama on this issue, considering her daughter's situation.
The left cares about grim milestones and photographs of soldiers' coffins when it can be used to hurt a Republican president, Nathan. You need only walk to your local "no blood for oil!" protests to confirm that.
But Inga has a daughter in Afghanistan, and is in greater danger because of Obama's feckless foreign policy.
While I sincerely hope and pray nothing ever happens to her daughter, you'd think Inga would have the awareness to realize that if Obama can stonewall a woman regarding how his policies may have caused her son's death for Obama's political purposes, he could do the same thing with her daughter.
garage mahal said...
I'm not sure why people keep linking to RCP when they show Obama winning the election?
The other shows Romney winning by 5 electoral votes.
When it comes to disabusing you of your absurd assertions, I've rarely been wrong. Romney is going to be our next president by a comfortable margin.
All sarcasm aside. I feel sorry for you.
James Taranto of WSJ has a plausible take on the Libya question in "Was Candy in Cahoots?"
In Taranto's reconstruction, Crowley had been through that question with Axelrod in September, so...:
After the interview, Axelrod, or someone else from the campaign, called Crowley's attention to the White House transcript. She read the relevant portion and conceded that Axelrod was right: Obama had called the attack an act of terror. As we wrote yesterday, such an interpretation was reasonable, although it was a matter of opinion because the president's statement was ambiguous. Obama was briefed on all this during his debate preparation.
If this surmise is correct, then Crowley knew about the "acts of terror" Easter egg hidden in Obama's Sept. 12 speech, and Obama knew she knew. Romney did not know and was as incredulous as Crowley had been, because the administration had spent weeks peddling the claim that the video dunnit. Obama brought the matter up expecting incredulity from Romney and backup from Crowley. She therefore unwittingly played her role in Obama's little ambush of his opponent. She was just clarifying the facts--or so Axelrod & Co. had led her to believe.
Look at the internals in some of the Real Clear polls:
IBD/TIPP Presidential Daily Tracking Poll:
Obama 47 to Romney 45
Sample Size: 929 likely voters (identified from 1057 registered voters with party affiliation of 37% Dem, 30% GOP, 32% Ind.)
Courant_UConn_1019
Obama 48 to Romney 45
Dem 47% (is this a joke?)
Ind 15%
Republican 39%
The Obamites hope that Eric Holder, Justice, and the FBI could stonewall this until after the election is fading fast.
The stonewall is crumbling. And the coverup and the time allowed to let Al Qaeda escape is the more important of two issues - the other being what security enhancements could have prevented this asked by the Ambassafor and security within Libya.
Who got those now-reported CIA cables saying it was a major Al Qaeda terrorist attack and not a "mob that did senseless violence", within 24 hours?
Who was on that routing of major Intel ops - reporting on what happened to all top decision makers - with a dead Ambassador and the Consulate and safehouse blasted ruins?? Frontline news??
Think that routing of top priority National Security Critical/Extreme Urgency reports describing a major Al Qaeda attack didn't go like lighting to the top People?
Napolitano, Head of Homeland Security? The Joint Chiefs Of Staff? David Petraeus, head of the CIA? Tom Donilon, NSA? President Obama??
"trying to convince 'em to vote for either Libertarian or Green. (depending on their own core beleifs)"
Look people. I'm mostly a libertarian, except on foreign policy. I think we could increase GDP in this country by 50% if we completely overhauled government scope, taxation and regulation. I also find it immoral to not try to do that, but I will not vote for someone who cannot possibly win, even though my vote doesn't count here in CA.
The only possible outcomes are Romney or Obama, and nobody will even remember a week after the election how many votes any other candidate got. It won't send any message. Nobody will care or notice. By definition, a wasted vote. Alternatively, voting for one of the possible winners will at least contribute to the presence or lack of a mandate for the one who prevails. That is the only thing I can do here in California. Others can do that as well as help elect someone who can both win and move the country in your prefered direction. A libertarian or Green party vote will move nothing and effect no one. It's narcissism, aimed at stroking your own self esteem. Prideful that you held to your principles. The fact is you simply passed up a chance to contribute to whatever course we take.
If you prefer the left's gravitational pull, vote for Obama even if he loses you weaken Romney's mandate. If you prefer the small but significant change in direction that Romney will provide, then vote for him, and again if he loses you at least weaken the strength of the move the other way.
This is really not about you and how principled you are. For example: we are all against killing people, but there are times most of us would swallow that principle for the pragmatism of survival, or even the better goal of saving more of us rather than less.
As for libertarians: Your ideas are really central to our survival and the country needs you involved. You've had a powerful influence in the course of Republican politics lately, and consequently, the ideas of smaller government are being discussed more than ever, and the Republicans will get the spoils of that no matter what you do. The smart course would be to try and influence the Republican party to move your direction from within it. It's ripe for the ideas, and the coming fiscal problems are going to make them listen.
For the Greens: Nothing protects the environment like a healthy prosperous economy with smart regulation. The poorer a society is the less it cares for the environment. Without economic prosperity, nobody can afford to buy electric cars, and insist on cleaner energy. When humans are poor they eat their environment and crap wherever they want. Your best move toward your goals is voting for the candidates that are most likely to create private sector jobs which are the only ones that are sustainable. Sustainability starts with sustainable jobs.
A vote for even a small down and dirty real effect, is more valuable than a vote a shiny principle up on a shelf.
Well, the RCP average is now showing a tie (Obama +.01).
I have to admit, I think any lead carries a psychological effect. It's not going to affect my voting, but I do think it does have an effect.
The Green Party is not about the environment. They're hard-left and use environmental concerns to reel in naive kids. In fact, Greens get pissed off if you talk too much about the environment.
"The Green Party is not about the environment. They're hard-left and use environmental concerns to reel in naive kids."
True, but I'm speaking to those who put the environment above all else. I'm almost there myself. We should still be voting for jobs through liberty. Poverty is bad for the environment.
Darcy, read my post, the internals on a few polls are ummm, strange, 47% democrat sample?
Rasmussen tracks party ID and as of Sept they list R 37, D 34, I 29%. Even if you think they over/under sample, those numbers make no sense in either poll I listed.
It is close to be sure, but why does it seem like they typically over sample dems and under sample indies, who are likely, historically to break for the challenger.
@gmama3
Thank you for the reply! I do believe the polls are skewed too high Dem. I believe by a lot. I didn't guess we'd see Romney much ahead until very close to the election. Still, it was nice to see some of that bearing out at RCP.
The unresolved Libyan questions now out there:
1. Why did the Obama people blame a video and "senseless mob violence" when the CIA station chief reported within 24 hours it was a large scale organized military style Al Qaeda led attack with heavy weaponry?
2. Why the demands for more security prior to the Benghazi attack were not met.
3. Reports were the Marine fast support element was mobilized and on the tarmac in Sicily within an hour of the start of the 8 hour battle by Americans fighting for their lives against Al Qaeda's forces and 15 minutes flight time away from the battle. The Navy had surface vessels and air assets. The Air Force had fighter bombers in Aviano Italy ready to go. They were told to stand down. Why? By whom?
4, Did Romney and the Republicans try to politicize this unduely?
5. If Obama thought it was a terror attack a day after, why did he then change and refuse to mention Al Qaeda and that it was a terror attack for two weeks and instruct Susan Rice and his WH Spokesman to put out the same story?
6. Why were the Marines that wanted to go in and secure the Benghazi Counpound and recover documents denied in deference to the FBI "controlling a crime scene they didn't want disturbed"? But a crime scene they didn't arrive at for 3 weeks - while instead ordinary Libyans, CNN stringers, and victorious Jihadis looking for souvenirs picked the place clean?
7. Reports were that many Americans at the Benghazi Compound survived, escaped. Why has there been a lockdown on their firsthand observations.
8. With State Dept Security seeing the whole attack in realtime - when was the Pentagon and White House contacted. Were people in the White House situation room watching the attack as well as State and the CIA fed it to them.??
9. What did Homeland Security, Petraeus Head of CIA, the NSA, the National Security Advisor to Obama know and when?
Now hold on Cedarford. We need let the investigation run it's course. Which means wait till after the election, and then forget about it.
Garage the RCP no-toss up gives Obama 277. Just a few weeks ago Obama was up +50 on that same one. The gap has been closed.
RCP "No toss ups" poll
10/19 Virginia Obama »»» Romney Obama 277 - Romney 261 Obama
10/3 North Carolina Obama »»» Romney Obama 332 - Romney 206
From Obama +126 to Obama +16 in 2 weeks. Ouch.
Yes Alex, Obama's electoral count with no leaners is at it's all time low and freefalling.
bagoh - at the current rate Romney will be leading in "No toss ups" by Sunday.
The only possible outcomes are Romney or Obama, and nobody will even remember a week after the election how many votes any other candidate got. It won't send any message. Nobody will care or notice. By definition, a wasted vote. Alternatively, voting for one of the possible winners will at least contribute to the presence or lack of a mandate for the one who prevails. That is the only thing I can do here in California. Others can do that as well as help elect someone who can both win and move the country in your prefered direction. A libertarian or Green party vote will move nothing and effect no one. It's narcissism, aimed at stroking your own self esteem. Prideful that you held to your principles. The fact is you simply passed up a chance to contribute to whatever course we take.
If people had always felt that way then there wouldn't be a Republican Party today.
That aside, voting for a Third/Fourth party can be very effective in gaining ballot access, being invited to future debates, receiving press coverage, and influencing the stances of the TwoMainParties.
Woman's Suffrage as well as the passage & repeal of Prohibition were all brought about due to the high number of citizens that were voting for "alternative" parties that supported those measures...the parties didn't actually win at the ballot box, but the other main parties took note of those voters who were going elsewhere and ended up adopting those issues as their own.
Don't beleive the myths...a vote for a Third/Fourth Party isn't wasted at all.
Polls seem to be moving to toward O. CNN has it 49-48 for Romney. In Florida.
Uh oh!
Too soon for talk about the COMEBACK KID?
Using his secret-sauce poll crunching, Nate Silver still has Obama to win at 7:3 odds.
We'll know for sure Nov. 6, but I bet that Silver is essentially a late-blooming, dotcom wonderboy who will go down in similar flames as the Cluetrain crowd ten years ago.
Which is not to say Silver will be out of a job -- there is always a place in the left-wing echo chamber for a smart guy or gal who will tell the left what it wants to hear. But Silver will be out of contention as a serious, objective analyst with special insights.
Don't beleive the myths...a vote for a Third/Fourth Party isn't wasted at all.
Penguin: No sirree! All those Nader votes in 2000 elected George W. Bush.
Too soon for talk about the COMEBACK KID?
Yes.
#ObamaFail:NotOptimal
The Republican party was started in 1854 and by 1858 it dominated the northern states, and won the Presidency 1860. There is no third party anything like that, and none of the current ones seem capable of ever getting there after many years of trying. When a third party has a chance you'll know it, and then I'd vote for them. Doing something that cannot possibly succeed is a waste of whatever resource you spend on it (a vote). I'm in favor of supporting any movement you agree with, but if you know an action will fail, why and who are you doing it for?
It's really no different than voting for whatever primary candidate you supported even though he's not on the ballot. I would vote for George Washington if I didn't care about my vote actually doing something.
Using his secret-sauce poll crunching, Nate Silver still has Obama to win at 7:3 odds.
We'll know for sure Nov. 6, but I bet that Silver is essentially a late-blooming, dotcom wonderboy who will go down in similar flames as the Cluetrain crowd ten years ago.
From what I have read about him, he was born about 20 years too late - could have been one of the "quants" on Wall Street.
Mike Reed and Amy Wong manned the helm, PDT veterans from the days when the group was nothing more than a thought experiment, its traders a small band of young math whizzes tinkering with computers like brainy teenagers in a cluttered garage.
On Wall Street, they were all known as "quants," traders and financial engineers who used brain-twisting math and superpowered computers to pluck billions in fleeting dollars out of the market. Instead of looking at individual companies and their performance, management and competitors, they use math formulas to make bets on which stocks were going up or down. By the early 2000s, such tech-savvy investors had come to dominate Wall Street, helped by theoretical breakthroughs in the application of mathematics to financial markets, advances that had earned their discoverers several shelves of Nobel Prizes.
From "The Quants", by Scott Patterson
Eek! This is our President!
Obama: "Romnesia"
I think Legal Insurrection has it right: A caricature making jokes.
RCP average for Florida Romney +2.4 including that CNN poll. Florida is red this year.
Get your trunk emptied garage, your going to be needed on Nov 6 to move some votes.
Obama is up by 17 in California. Do you want to be associated with California...or Biden?
If it ends up like the current RCP (no toss up) map, then all Romney needs is Wisconsin for 271 and the win. Come on guys, call a liberal friend and tell them not to forget to vote on the 7th.
Eek! This is our President!
Obama: "Romnesia"
I think Legal Insurrection has it right: A caricature making jokes.
It's kind of clever, but it's the kind of stuff you leave to the surrogates, isn't it?
Garage: "Too soon for talk about the COMEBACK KID?"
"COMEBACK KID?"!!
How can obama be the Comeback Kid? The left has been assuring us for over a year that obama would cruise easily to reelection and the left, being all "reality-based" and everything could not have been wrong......
Could they?
Speaking of oldies but goodies from the resident stalinists, here's one:
roesch/voltaire said...
Interesting the announcement was made in front of a decommissioned USS Wisconsin that is now a museum much like the philosophy embraced by Paul Ryan. As Bain destroys yet another American based business in Freeport, Ill. to send it to China, I think the debate on the economy and who can create jobs for America will be an interesting and welcome one.
8/11/12 9:40 AM
I wonder if R/V (and garage et al) are pleased with how this conversation (re: economy/creating jobs) has turned out?
It's kind of clever, but it's the kind of stuff you leave to the surrogates, isn't it?
EMD: So it would seem to me. It looks like Obama is enjoying himself and the audience too, but it's hard for me to imagine it playing to independents or swing voters, especially anyone with an iota of sympathy for the Tea Party.
Then there are Obama's frequent appearances on Letterman, Stewart, Fallon and The View. Does that play outside his base?
My god, to discuss Libya on Jon Stewart and come up with that "less than optimal" line about recent American deaths! It conveys such a lack of seriousness and sense.
"Does that play outside his base?"
The fact the incumbent president is spending time on those shows only confirms he's in trouble; they appeal directly to his base; were he in better shape, he'd been in Tampa, or Denver, instead.
Since Obama has been consistently polling below 50% in all of the swing states, he could have a very bad election night. It would be good for the country if Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin flipped to the Republican candidate again. It's been awhile.
When a third party has a chance you'll know it, and then I'd vote for them. Doing something that cannot possibly succeed is a waste of whatever resource you spend on it (a vote).
Like I pointed out, history has shown that a party doesn't actually have to win the election to have their issue(s) go forward.
It is pretty obvious that a third/fourth party won't "have a chance" to win a major election until they have an easier time gaining ballot access, get invited to the debates, receive Federal matching funds, and be treated seriously by the media. But none of that will happen until more folks start voting for 'em, will it?
It's really no different than voting for whatever primary candidate you supported even though he's not on the ballot.
Big difference actually. For example, most states have their ballot access laws tied into how many votes a party got in the previous election. Because of this the Libertarians, Greens and other parties have to spend time & money just to appear on the ballot in an election, but if more people voted for them then they would automatically get a slot like the Dems and Repubs and those resources can instead be used getting their message out.
In the big picture, it ain't a wasted vote at all.
Urkel losing to Romney come 11/6/2012. Not optimal.
Purplepenguin: "
It is pretty obvious that a third/fourth party won't "have a chance" to win a major election until they have an easier time gaining ballot access, get invited to the debates, receive Federal matching funds, and be treated seriously by the media. But none of that will happen until more folks start voting for 'em, will it?"
You have it exactly backwards.
A 3rd party won't have a chance until it becomes the embodiment of an issue or issues that become so important to the American people that the failure of the other parties to address those issues leads to a majority flowing to the 3rd party.
Consider the Whigs and the issue of slavery.
It's difficult at this point in time to see what issue would arise with what level of urgency that it would drive a majority into the hands of any 3rd party.
"It's difficult at this point in time to see what issue would arise with what level of urgency that it would drive a majority into the hands of any 3rd party."
We are probably teetering on the possibility of a huge fiscal upheaval, but the last one - The Great Depression - didn't even produce a new party. It's not necessary. If you can do what the Democrats did by going from the party of slavery and Jim Crowe to consistently winning 90%+ of the Black vote, then an existing party can do anything. Pick a party and change it.
There is much more likelihood that the Dems and the Republican parties would embody the policies of the the Greens and Libertarians than that those parties would actually be replaced. Unlikely, but more likely. Change the party ideology, not the name.
Can anyone imagine someone who voted for McCain in '08 switching sides to vote for Obama this year? I can't.
Saw this article and thought of you.
~~~~
It's difficult at this point in time to see what issue would arise with what level of urgency that it would drive a majority into the hands of any 3rd party
The War on Drugs seems to be the biggest issue that is driving voters to go Green or Libertarian.
Since both Romney and Obama agree that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine a lot of people find it impossible to vote for either of 'em.
~~~~
There is much more likelihood that the Dems and the Republican parties would embody the policies of the the Greens and Libertarians than that those parties would actually be replaced. Unlikely, but more likely. Change the party ideology, not the name.
This is exactly what has happened in the past, but it only works when enough people start voting outside the TwoPartySystem.
There will be little/no change to party ideology until that party starts losing too many voters to other parties.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा