UPDATE: Looks like Obama is at only 70% with black voters. Even though there's probably at least a 10% margin of error on that subsample, it suggests the poll is significantly understating Obama's support in the urban counties!
All - good news tonight. It's clear that Obama's support is still very stable in Ohio, which is great news. At this point, stability in Ohio is deadly to the Romney campaign.
This is all pre-debate. Sample is D +7, fairly consistent with what we've seen in other polls of Ohio. Clearly, Obama and Romney are picking up undecideds as leaners are "coming home". Since SUSA's last poll, Obama and Romney are up +2.
Plus, deeper in the crosstabs - 26% have already voted. Much of the cake is being baked as we speak, it appears.
In an election in Ohio today for President of the United States, Barack Obama remains where he has been for the past 2 SurveyUSA weekly tracking polls -- ever-so-slightly ahead of Mitt Romney in the battle for the Buckeye State's 18 electoral votes, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCMH-TV in Columbus. 15 days until votes are counted, it's Obama 47%, Romney 44%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released 1 week ago, Obama and Romney are both up 2 points. Obama led by 3 points last week, leads by 3 points today.
Nate Silver just did a great job of explaining the role of Gallup in his surveys and why he believes it should essentially be viewed "in context", which is to say, in view of the fact that when it diverges from consensus, it's usually way off, despite the fact that it is considered so "brand name":
...(A)ny rigorous attempt to consider the value of the Gallup poll would probably get you to something of the same answer. Perhaps the Gallup poll accounts for 5 or 10 percent of the information that an election analyst should evaluate on a given day.
The Gallup poll’s influence on the subjective perception about where the presidential race stands seems to be proportionately much greater than that, however — especially when the poll seems to diverge from the consensus.
This simply isn’t rational, in my view. As I discuss in my book, our first instincts are often quite poor when it comes to weighing information. We tend to put too much emphasis on the newest, most widely reported and most dramatic pieces of data — more than is usually warranted.
Good news. It appears the president is rebounding in both the Nov. 6th forecast and the now cast. He is now at 64.8% in the now cast and 66% in the Nov. 6th forecast.
Interestingly enough, Colorado and Virginia are close enough right now that they go to Romney in the now-cast but go to the President in the Nov. 6th forecast.
Keep it goin' Mr. President. A strong performance in the next debate would be grand.
Look, I'm not going to try and convince anyone that this deal to raise the debt ceiling is good. Sure, I would prefer that jobs be the focus right now, but obviously that isn't going to fly in the current climate save for a major shift of some sort.
Honestly, I can't say that this current deal upsets me or pleases me all that much. But what I can't stand is how much the progressive left makes a fetish of Barack Obama, either as its idol or as its bete noir (I wish i had those cool little french hats in HTML).
One of the things that sticks out to me about the anti-union actions that Gov. Walker is taking in Wisconsin is the absence of a cohesive strategy on his part to outright defeat the unions in the long as well as the short run. No question that this whole confrontation could just be Walker's attempt to get the unions to concede the givebacks and strip the collective bargaining language from the bill, but if he is going for only a stripping of their collective bargaining rights for everything save wages, I think he has really screwed himself politically when he comes up for re-election, and for not much of a lasting political upside.
I really don't get this, guys. I made some comments in another diary suggesting that Dennis Kucinich is not as worthy of our limited resources as other Democrats like Tom Perriello or even other members of the Ohio delegation that voted for the Affordable Care Act that are in great electoral danger 2 days from now.
Look, his protestations aside, Dennis Kucinich is not going to lose Tuesday. Not. So why is he fundraising for himself and not stumping for his fellow members of the Ohio delegation? Why is he not tranferring what he has in his campaign account to the state party, a la Lee Fisher?
I can tell you why: because he simply doesn't care about Dems in danger as much as he does about himself and his "candidacy" for his safe seat.
Hi everybody. I haven't posted in awhile, and generally I avoid it, but I wanted to put in my two cents about how I'm seeing political polls being interpreted here by a lot of people.
Before I begin, however, I'd like to put two caveats out there:
- I am not trying to make any point whatsoever about what may or may not happen next week.
- I also do not think that my opinion about what will happen next week matters at all, so I'm not going to discuss it.
Long long ago (so it seems) when I was in college, I still believed that we could take build a big Democratic majority that would change the country.
Two years ago, when we actually elected a big Democratic majority, I was overjoyed. I believed that our man, our majority and our time had come. I thought that the days of Democratic half-measures and weakness would finally abate.
But over the past 18 months, I have really had the wind knocked out of me. Not only does it seem that our party leaders really don't have the political starch to address big problems, I have discovered that many liberals and progressive activists get just as easily distracted by totems and taboos as they do by substance.
For example, the public option, while incredibly important, would not have made or broken the health care bill. In addition, a cap on carbon, while important, wasn't our only shot at reducing emissions.
However, the fact that each weren't an absolute given in the bill underscored to me how weak the DC Dems really are, how utterly unwilling they are to take a position, decide how and when to effectively compromise and not cave. Why have a party platform when we all know the policy will actually come down to Ben Nelson, or Blanche Lincoln?
Pulling the trigger on the gun pointed at our heads. Again.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring a limited package of oil spill response and energy measures to the floor next week, delaying action until at least this fall on a broader proposal that would impose greenhouse gas limits on power plants, senior Senate Democratic aides said.
One of the things that a lot of liberals (myself included) got swept up in in 2008 was the idea that this smart, young courageous US Senator was going to swoop in and solve our problems. He was so successful at doing that that we held him to his word.
And as such, when things didn't go as planned, many of us became disappointed, wary of progress and dubious our collective ability to solve problems.
But I really don't know how...
I think some of my problem stems from the fact that I got a masters in public policy recently. As a result of that, I tend to think of public policy and politics in a lot more concrete terms.
Dollars, tons of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, marginal costs, costs of service, cost benefit analysis...all of these things have helped to turn my outrage into understanding of lots of different issues.
I'm not not outraged anymore, but I think the whole experience has helped me to realize just how broken our system is.
We have two parties dependent upon their most partisan members for any kind of legitimacy. The broad mass of Americans is disgusted, as they should be.
There's a lot to be disgusted about with Obama, with Bush, with anyone with recent influence, in terms of how impotent they are in the face of special interests and the status quo.