Romney 49%, Obama 48%...
Just yesterday Obama reached the 50% mark... in the combined [11] swing states...Wow, I would like to see what the numbers for yesterday were!
The regular tracking poll, which is a 3-day average, has Romney ahead by 2, 49% to 47%. It was Romney 49%, Obama 48%, yesterday.
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
"Can you say that a little louder Candy."
"That's 4 points in what is a 7-day average, 4 points with the inclusion of 1 day that comes after the second debate:"
#PreferenceCascade
#JimmyCarterRedux
#RomneyKickingAss
"That's 4 points in what is a 7-day average, 4 points with the inclusion of 1 day that comes after the second debate:"
#GarageMahalThinksObamaSprunghisTrap
#GarageMahalisanIdiot
#NoSurprise
#Carryon
Ah - he was ahead by two points a couple of days before that. Yesterday's was probably the outlier. And Rasmussen tends to skew a couple of points Republican over other polls.
In short, it's a pretty close election.
Still more than close enough for O to steal it.
Andrew Sullivan's chub just shrunk.
Is it possible Romney is the only Pastor/CEO/Governor to have never succumbed to carnal desires?
Whats wrong with Romney ;)
Pollsters clawing their ways back to reality for future consideration.
Sounds like one of Glenn's "preference cascades."
I'd like to know what a Rasmussen Ohio poll from last night would look like.
Oh. Obama +1. The exact same result as in the last three Rasmussen polls of Ohio, before and after the first debate.
This entire election is within the margin of error.
AF:
Nice job in redefining success downward.
I thought you were saying Obama beat Romney in the debate, no?
If so, why are you considering it a big deal that Obama didn't lose a tiny lead in a state he must have to win the Presidency?
Winning the 2nd debate would mean that Obama would be gaining ground nationwide,and making in-roads into supposedly safe "red" states.
4 point swing? That likely means picked up a lead in the high single digits, more likely double digit lead over Obama. If it sticks, along with Romney holding or increasing his lead in Gallop, and other polling company releases, Team Obama is going to reach for the nasty and desperate tactics.
That's encouraging news but all that money from A123 and Solyndra and others went somewhere and my bet is it went towards buying votes and buying voter fraud. It will be interesting to see how the informal polls match the real polls.
New Ramussen post-debate poll in Ohio shows Obama +1, same as Rasmussen polls on October 10
Obama+1 means everything is great and you're dumb, when 2 weeks ago it was Obama +4, Obama +6, Obama +7, etc., in Ohio.
We all know who the dumb one is, AF.
(you)
Wisconsin is back to a very familiar place in the partisan political wars, according to the latest poll by Marquette Law School: almost perfect parity.
President Obama leads Mitt Romney 49% to 48% in a survey of 870 likely voters taken Oct. 11-14.
Two weeks earlier, Obama led by 11 points in Marquette’s polling.
Landslide
"Team Obama is going to reach for the nasty and desperate tactics."
-- Maybe they can say Romney gave a woman cancer.
You have to take all this "Who won the debate?" questioning with a grain of salt. I don't remember seeing this Jimmy Kimmel bit linked on any other threads here (I apologize if I missed it) but it makes you realize that there's a whole lot of stupid (and uninformed) out there that gets to vote, too.
Jimmy Kimmel: Folks Describe Watching Presidential Debate Before It Aired
Oct 11 had taken the poll from +2 Romney to +1 Romney, so I'm guessing it's a combination of gaining a good day for Mitt, and losing a good day for Obama.
In any event, it's a nice result, and a proper reward after Obama's "performance" in the 2nd debate.
Drudge today:
Obama lied about his pension being smaller.
Crime up 18%
Welfare soars 32% higher in 4 years
Jobless claims back to normal after previous outlier (due to misreporting from a large state)
But Romney mentioned "binders" and "women" in the same sentence, which Democrats are convinced will win the Presidency for Obama.
I think Romney should make references to how his binders of women were in 50 different shades of gray, and he'd lock up the liberal woman vote in seconds.
Look at the senate races.
He's calling Nevada for Heller, now.
To get 50 senate seats, we now need to take 3 of the 5 close races. Just two weeks ago, we needed 5 of the 7 close races.
(Indiana's the other race that went from "toss-up" to "leans Republican".)
Can you smell the repeal yet?
At UVa's Center for Politics, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has moved the Pa presidential and Senate races to "lean" Democratic from their previous "likely" rating.
We also cannot ignore the polls showing tightening margins in both Pennsylvania's presidential and Senate contest, so we're moving both to leans Democratic, down from likely. Romney probably only wins Pennsylvania in a decisive national victory — we'll be stunned if it accounts for his 270th electoral vote — and the challenger's campaign is wise to downplay his chances both in the Keystone State and Michigan. Meanwhile, it appears that Sen. Bob Casey (D) is running a subpar campaign, and businessman Tom Smith (R) is hammering him with ads. Last month, we ran a list of potential Senate shockers — but none of them would compare to a Casey loss.
Landslide
As I say, wait for the middle of the week.
7 day averages can be a little ponderous.
AF said...
I'd like to know what a Rasmussen Ohio poll from last night would look like.
Oh. Obama +1. The exact same result as in the last three Rasmussen polls of Ohio, before and after the first debate.
Within the MOE, so it could also be Romster +3.
Anything past an MOE of 3 is less and less reliable, I learned in Applied Statistics.
Only Jay would cite a poll showing Romney behind and declare a Romney landslide. Romney has never lead in any polls in Wisconsin. I don't think in Ohio either.
Ohio is still 49 - 48 Obama - Romney. Which isn't good, but isn't bad, since what it says is that the state will come down to turnout. And the Romney voters are more enthusiastic than the Obama voters.
Just as importantly, Ohio stayed the same, but Romney went up in the Swing States as a whole. I would be nice to win Ohio. Romney winning Ohio would pretty much end the election. But he doesn't need Ohio to win it, and he's clearly doing better in all those other Swing States, no?
:-)
I'm always leery of polls; even this close to an election. Romney could take Ohio; if he does, the game is pretty much over. That's probably why Obama is abandoning NC, at the least, and potentially also Florida. Obama can lose those, and though painful, they are not checkmates. I'm not even sure Obama could feasibly win without Va., but there's rumors he'll abandon us here soon enough.
We'll see.
Romney will win Ohio by at least 3.5% and probably closer to 5%. The backlash from the public union bill has subsided in Ohio and nobody other than people who were going to vote for Obama anyway associate that state issue with Romney. That was all Kasich's baby.
Mandel will also win. Brown has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him and it's still a MoE race. Brown doesn't have any "centrist" credibility to fall back on and get ticket-splitters, like Nelson in FL or Kaine in VA.
garage mahal said...
Only Jay would cite a poll showing Romney behind and declare a Romney landslide
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your utter retardation.
As Nate Silver has pointed put, Rasmussen has a tendency to miss "bounces" b/c they weight by Party ID (which reduces volatility at the expense of catching quickly-changing preferences).
That could cut either way in this case, but I think it makes it slightly more likely that it's noise.
As an Ohio resident for 25+ years, all I need to know about the state of the race is that Obama needed Bill Clinton and Bruce Springsteen as draws to try to get any semblance of a crowd in Cuyahoga County, and Obama hasn't been seen in SW Ohio except to sneak into Stan Chesley's house for funders in weeks.
Meanwhile, Romney draws 10-12k crowds in Summit and Cuyahoga Counties on a weekly basis. He did do a massive event in Warren County this week but that was a sop to the base more than anything else.
He's already going to crush Barry in SW Ohio in epic fashion, but you do want to get out and be seen by the most loyal supporters before you really knuckle down on the swing areas in the home stretch.
Note:
In 2008′s exit polling, Obama won women by 13 points and men by one for a +14 gender gap over John McCain and a seven-point victory overall. In the tracking poll data, Rasmussen reports that Obama only leads among women by four and trails among men by 10 for a -6 gender gap. That’s a flip of 19 points, combined with a 17-point flip among independents.
But Obama is such a super debater!
I thought you were saying Obama beat Romney in the debate, no?
If so, why are you considering it a big deal that Obama didn't lose a tiny lead in a state he must have to win the Presidency?
I don't consider it a big deal. I have been consistent in saying that it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions based on a single poll. However, it's even more ridiculous to jump to conclusions based on an inference from a subset of a portion of a single poll. So I would place slightly more weight on Rasmussen's Ohio poll than on an extrapolation from the change in the swing-state poll. But I am not jumping to any conclusions either way.
I am a Romney supporter and trust Rasmussen over the other pollsters. That said, I wouldn't trust any poll until a week from Monday.
It's almost a certainty there will be drone strikes in Libya next week. You heard it here first. But it will be a day late and a dollar short.
Too bad there wasn't a drone strike on 9/11, it might have helped.
The movement from the 10th to the 11th (representing in part added data on the 11th that has now just rolled off), moved it a point towards Obama. So it is likely that the jump for Romney is some less favorable data rolling off as well as (very) favorable data rolling on.
Of course, these things are averaged for a reason and daily samples are somewhat small.
Just the same, if you are hoping for a wave election, this could be the start of said wave.
Obama holding his election night party at McCormick Place, rather then in Grant Park like in 2008. "Weather forecasts" cited as reason for shift to smaller, indoor venue. Sort of like how that 75 degree, no-clouds night in Charlotte forced Obama indoors at the Dem convention.
Amazing how Obama can project the weather three weeks out in Chicago but didn't notice the absence of protesters outside the US consulate in Benghazi, as it was happening, despite real-time video feeds.
Watch what they do, not what they say.
I wonder if he'll stiff Rahm for the costs?
Kcom,
That Kimmel thing is funny, and seeing my fellow Los Angelenos there shows you exactly why California is a basket case.
The link:
http://youtu.be/9UrOmhH2PeI
Gallup 52-45 Romney among likely voters. Romney has been slowly opening a lead in Gallup's polling.
I think that the preference cascade is steamrolling in favor of Romney. My wife has several teacher friends that are pro-union and have always voted Democratic (they all voted for Obama in 2008). This year they are all voting for Romney. One of the friends lives in Columbus, OH, and she's told us that a lot of her friends and co-workers are planning on doing the same - voting for Romney.
Heck, my eldery mother, whom I don't think has ever voted Republican in her life, has changed her mind on Obama. She says she not sure yet if she can bring herself to check the box for Romney, but she is NOT voting for Obama.
So, you have greater Republican enthusiasm, more agressive Republican turn out the vote in swing states than in 2008, and many Democrats that voted for Obama last time who will either vote for Romney or NOT vote for Obama.
Gallup is out with their results including yesterday's polls. Obama picked up one in the registered voter survey (Romney 48 - Obama 47), but Romney picked up 1 in the Likely Voter survey: Romney 52, Obama 45.
Dems better hope that Gallup number is wrong, because if it isn't, it's over.
I forgot to add, the major turning point we've heard is similar to what happened with Carter and Reagan: Incumbant president that can't run on his record, so his only chance is to demonize his opponent. The first debate happens, and people see that the challenger is an acceptable alternative to the incumbant.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your utter retardation.
You cited a poll showing Romney behind and you declared a Romney landslide, dumb fuck.
I think the polls may be better st showing trends rather than accurate snapshots of what voters will do. Too close to measure a 1 point lead or deficit, but the trend from Obama +11 to Obama +1 must be disconcerting for the President.
Still, with a very low response rate, I remain skeptical.
My point about trends speaks to what Garage just said. Obama has a 1 point lead, but in the world of polling, that is meaningless - they cannot measure that closely. The fall from +11 takes the two numbers which may themselves be somewhat inaccurate, but they were obtained through the same methodology. Accordingly, the huge drop seems to me to be pretty significant. I would think it is safe to say there is a move away from the President.
The Obama campaign is run much the same as the 49er's offense.
Very, very overrated.
Actually, garage, Jay pointed to a poll that showed that Romney has gained 10 points in Ohio in two weeks. He's still 1 point behind, but if he continues to gain at even one-fifth of the rate at which he has been gaining, he'll win. He only needs to pick up two more points in two and a half weeks (one to catch up and one more to cover the margin-of-fraud). Do you really not understand why a man who's gained 10 points in two weeks might feel pretty good about his chances of gaining 2+ more in two and a half weeks?
Great minds think alike. While I was typing my last, Patrick made pretty much the same point. I hope he won't take it wrong if I say that it's a pretty obvious point, even if garage can't figure it out.
Aw c'mon,, Dr. I thought I was being very insightful!
I read a few years ago we go in 30 year cycles.
Reagan/Carter/Hostages/Iran
Romney/Obama/Iran
I was looking forward to the 10s because the stock market soared, the US started kicking into gear. I still managed to find full-time jobs in an economy like this.
Now hoping to maintain.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your utter retardation.
You cited a poll showing Romney behind and you declared a Romney landslide, dumb fuck.
------------
Wrong, it's not Romney behind, it's a statistical tie, dumb fuck.
Margin of error - stupid people don't know how it works.
But I'm not concerned with polls, "registered voters" even "likely voters" are innacurate metrics. The majority of people that are tagged as likely voters in polls do not even vote. Most people don't respond to polls from pollsters.
It's all garbage. The poll that matters is on super tuesday.
As a matter of fact, Anne doesn't understand margin of error either.
I the post she declares that Romney is ahead by two, which is incorrect. It's a statistical tie, according to Rasmussen.
I am grateful that Ann's blog is dial-up friendly. I use a broadband wire-less modem until I run out of gigabytes. Then I switch to dial-up. Ann's blog is one of my favorites and I can participate on both dial-up and broadband .
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा