Skip to main content

First it was Obama had a fantastic, excellent debate. Then it was all part of a master jujitsu chess plan. Now the pollsters are corrupt.

Seriously? Really?

Look, there are pollsters out there who are crap. Rasmussen comes to mind. We Ask America. This Gravis whatever it is. But there are pollsters who have spent years building up a solid reputation for thoroughness and accuracy. You cant trash a good pollster when said pollster says something you don't want to hear. Nor can you tout a crap pollster when it shows something you like.

This is nutcase territory. What's next? One of these "unskewed polls" websites where you guys are going to re-weight the poll to fit your expectations of what the electorate ought to look like?

I went back and compared the last Pew poll which had Obama up 8 with this one. Guess what I found. The changes in demographics were almost nil. Minor. I didn't hear you all trashing the poll last month.

Lets look at what REALLY happened in the pew poll. Look:

The last Pew Poll ended up being 37% D, 31% R, 31%. This one has 36% R, 33% D, 30% I. I didn't hear at any point folks here saying 'the Pew poll is skewed towards Democrats' but there were plenty of nuts on Redstate saying it. We were laughing at them them.

The truth of the matter is that Pew does not weight its polls by its own perceptions of Party ID ought to be or what it thinks the electorate will look like in November. You don't know that no matter what you think you know. You simply know past events which although is the greatest predictor of future behavior, certainly isn't perfect. So, people self identify their party preference and this is a factor that will vary. It will vary on moods of the electorate. It will vary depending on the time of day the phonecalls are made. But even this change in party ID doesn't explain the sharp shift in the Pew Poll. What does? Well, look here:

Obama was 49 to 46 among white women in the previous poll. He's losing 57 to 38 among white women now. And you can see in the details that most of the damage was among white women with less than a college education. There Romney was leading 49 to 45. Now he's leading 63 to 31.

These are the low information voters. These are the white ladies who work and don't follow politics online because they probably don't sit at computers while doing their jobs. The probably don't watch the news very often because after busting ass all day and taking care of kids, who wants to? The debate watch number was huge...60+ million. More than any debate in the 2008 cycle. It isn't unreasonable to say that for millions of these women they got their first look at Mitt Romney outside of ads and media coverage. And he made the best of that opportunity. Meanwhile, our guy was somewhere else so there was nobody to call Mitt Romney on his lies and bullshit.

There is probably some noise and variance in there, but for the most part, what you see reflected in the polls is a shift among non college educated white women as result of the debate. Obama's number among college educated white women was still a solid majority. So, there is one part of Obama's coalition of minorities and white women that is "swingy."

What that tells me is that these ladies not only want to hear about policy, they want to see a fighter who is going to go to the mat for them. These women are the ones who are going to have to rely on Social Security and Medicare since a huge number are unmarried. They don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things.

Because otherwise, may as well try out the new guy.

For all you folks trashing the Pew poll, I had better not ever see you tout another Pew poll. I don't care how much the numbers improve, you and Pew are done.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (277+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigOkie, lisajones, bloomin, Reino, PalGirl2008, andgarden, Jeffersonian Democrat, boophus, Mariken, jhop7, Horace Boothroyd III, maryabein, SneakySnu, Armando, kenboy, Eric Twocents, brooklyns finest, annecros, WisePiper, CherryTheTart, EJP in Maine, sharonsz, HudsonValleyMark, Yosef 52, kj in missouri, Bush Bites, sgary, golem, Cory Bantic, Steve15, CrissieP, NotGeorgeWill, praenomen, maybeeso in michigan, gizmo59, on board 47, hester, OutcastsAndCastoffs, statsone, indubitably, Murphoney, madmsf, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Mother of Zeus, Emerson, shanikka, MikeBoyScout, NYC Sophia, mkor7, lawstudent922, Cat Servant, poopdogcomedy, JanL, BrooklynJohnny, bwintx, imfunnytoo, environmentalist, CT Hank, zhimbo, BoiseBlue, Haningchadus14, triv33, bluehen96, eeff, raptavio, Crashing Vor, gof, kate mckinnon, jkay, Kurt from CMH, PapaChach, psnyder, hwmnbn, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, LEP, SallyCat, LSmith, temptxan, gooderservice, pademocrat, Front Toward Enemy, ltsply2, cv lurking gf, Aspe4, edsbrooklyn, Words In Action, Smoh, Snow Camp, 2dimeshift, Cardinal96, Ryvr, Xapulin, Friar, paradox, oysterface, Murchadha, tomephil, cici414, donaurora, letsgetreal, Kentucky Kid, Progrocks, Kvetchnrelease, cartwrightdale, brainwave, blueoasis, unionboy, ItsSimpleSimon, Assaf, TexDem, priceman, blue aardvark, pontechango, TomP, marabout40, mungley, jeff in nyc, Jake Williams, dotsright, DCDemocrat, martybee, BlueJessamine, bookbear, leonard145b, IndieGuy, geordie, agent, Ellinorianne, zerelda, jds1978, David PA, mHainds, Militarytracy, Allequash, Hey338Too, kpardue, LeoQ, Brit, Hastur, No one gets out alive, Leftcandid, gulfgal98, Dr Swig Mcjigger, TX Freethinker, Catesby, Bendra, icebergslim, jfromga, Zornorph, journeyman, Katydid, betson08, slinkerwink, dejavu, J M F, JVolvo, Rizzo, poligirl, Curt Matlock, greycat, puakev, cassandraX, parryander, Involuntary Exile, hyperstation, quill, BroadwayBaby1, EdinStPaul, Julie Gulden, democracy inaction, young voter, AaronInSanDiego, faithnomore, quagmiremonkey, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, sneakers563, dmhlt 66, NewAmericanLeft, buckeyemike, keetz4, dradams, fou, Empty Vessel, liberte, MichiganChet, Boodaddy, demimondian, Catte Nappe, kevinpdx, middleagedhousewife, Alchemist, Andrew C White, Ptown boy in NC, lanshark, stevej, Temmoku, BRog, jethrock, NearlyNormal, Catskill Julie, FogCityJohn, 3goldens, FischFry, Anak, FG, cpresley, basquebob, Eddie L, Subterranean, highacidity, pgm 01, orlbucfan, Cederico, MikePhoenix, Chitown Kev, skats, rhetoricus, disconnect the dots, Hayate Yagami, lgmcp, dsb, Kombema, Laughing Vergil, Grendel, sfbob, exiledfromTN, RageKage, angstall, Oaklander, GreyHawk, bnasley, jrooth, ColoTim, JosephK74, CanyonWren, Jerry J, Pam LaPier, chuckvw, deeproots, grover, crescentdave, Dburn, a2nite, Orange County Liberal, tofumagoo, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, ThinkerT, ubertar, Meteor Blades, dansk47, Mr Robert, cap76, Native Light, 313to212, alguien, newpioneer, EdSF, Recovering Southern Baptist, zozie, keirdubois, George3, Nobody, Midwesterners, Dewstino, pioneer111, El Mito, Bendygirl, luckylizard, lirtydies, uciguy30, George Hier, michael1104, Americantrueandblue, justalittlebitcrazy, PhilJD, Gorette, Van Buren
  •  Well, you're halfway there! (16+ / 0-)

    Complaining about polls is foolish, but so is any attention whatsoever to polls.  

    Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:00:31 AM PDT

    •  I do like the title of that poll, though. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigOkie, mungley, skertso, George3

      It's a Republican wet dream!

      Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

      by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:01:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  now, if only the subtitle read... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mungley, drmah, George3

        "The only souls that really matter."

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:12:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If it's foolish to pay attention to polls, then (32+ / 0-)

        why are there so many posts about polls here?  Why does this site, along w/ SEIU, do so much of its own polling?  Under your approach, there's apparently a lot of foolishness on this site, and, I guess, Nate Silver spends most of his waking hours engaging in foolishness.

        IMHO, there's a lot of white noise involved w/ polling, and the white noise factor intensifies the closer you get to election day.  The real skill, accordingly, lies in distinguishing relevant polling data from irrelevant data.  I don't know if Romney's post-debate bump is a short-term or a longer-term phenomenon, and I don't think anyone else will really know for a few more days.  I do know that an election that I thought was pretty much in the bag is now more competitive.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:46:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  say the fuck what? (10+ / 0-)
          I don't know if Romney's post-debate bump is a short-term or a longer-term phenomenon, and I don't think anyone else will really know for a few more days.
          we know now; romney's gains are already dissipating.  and in this pew poll, all he "gained" was the margin of error.  bupkis.
          I do know that an election that I thought was pretty much in the bag is now more competitive.
          right...because 75% to 25% is totally competitive!

          Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

          by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:56:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  nate isnt god (19+ / 0-)

            citing him as if that's definitive proof, well isn't.

            If it were that far off, Obama could just blow the last two debates off.

            Clearly, he can't. Clearly, he must improve upon the last debate performance or he can and will lose this.

            This is a lot closer to a 60-40 race right now than 75-25, so I respectfully disagree with Silver that the odds are that low for Romney.

            Is it over? Of course not. Does Obama still have built in advantages, you bet. But he can't afford another disaster like the last debate.

            and quite frankly, he needs at least one win in the last two to feel any level of comfort.

          •  Sorry, Ced, I heard a lot of this (23+ / 0-)

            questionable positivity throughout the 2010 campaign season.

            We are just now getting post-debate numbers, so I think it's early to be saying the bump is dissipating. Certainly at least one way for the bump to dissipate at this point is if both Biden and Obama show up and show up on their games at the coming debates. The other to reach and convert un-educated white women...

            Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

            by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:17:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps you might actually read Silver's content (36+ / 0-)

            that you linked, starting w/ the headline:

            Oct. 8: A Great Poll for Romney, in Perspective
            Better yet, you might want to read what this site's founder has to say on the FP about this site's own polling:
            That's a pretty disastrous six-point net swing in just a week, and the first time we've ever had Romney in the lead. It is inline with all other national polling showing Romney making gains in the wake of his debate performance last week.
            While I don't think that Romney is ahead by 2 nationally, when this site's own polling data shows him gaining 6 points in 1 week, that's cause for concern.  Again, I will quote this site's founder:
            Regardless, it shows that Obama's debate performance was an epic blunder. Romney gave his partisans a reason to get excited about him and they've responded. It should come as no surprise that people like to fight for people who are fighting for them.
            While I still expect Obama to win, this election isn't the largely foregone conclusion that it was a week ago at this time.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:18:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ding ding ding ding ding! (26+ / 0-)

              "While I still expect Obama to win, this election isn't the largely foregone conclusion that it was a week ago at this time."

              Hello. The Romney campaign was in shambles. Romney was winning the election for Obama almost single-handedly. Because of Obama's inept performance in the debate, the hopeless pre-debate fool now appears much less of a fool to a whole lot of people, many of whom will now be contributing, openly supporting Romney in the media, and willing to identify with Romney with more commitment and less embarrassment than before.  These are not small things. In fact, they are huge. And not even the lie corrections will change that. Politicians accuse each other of being liars all the time. Much of the corrections outside the debate itself will not have the force they might have had within the debate.

              As you say, it's not the end of the election. But the election, because of Obama, has changed dramatically, much more dramatically than many are willing to admit.

              Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

              by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:39:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right, as much as I hate reality (8+ / 0-)

                in this case, we ignore it at our peril. Our energy is better spent than in arguing the polls must be wrong. The debate debacle was huge but not fatal IF all effort is focused on turning things around, not by pretending Romney didn't get helped enormously by his performance and the subsequent coverage which changed the narrative about him. It's bad, it sucks, but it did actually happen...

                "If you think you have it tough, read history books." Bill Maher

                by berkshireblue on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:13:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  yes.. a preference cascade (5+ / 0-)

                if you will.  It is extremely powerful once it gets rolling.

              •  And this is not the first time (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, Kombema

                remember 2010, when "we" had the majority?  Who was "responsible" for that debacle?  Allowing the Republicans to rehabilitate themselves in less than two years by failing to hammer them, and trying to appear "post partisan?"  Who forced working class Americans into "accepting" for-profit, private "health insurance" that they didn't want, and can't afford, instead of national health insurance?

                There was no accounting for failure in 2010, and there is not now.  We are saddled with defending a massively unpopular policy ("Obamacare") and with the same "leadership" that gave us epic defeat two years ago.

                The leadership which pushed us into this untenable territory (Pelosi, Hoyer, and the President) were let off the hook in 2010, just as Barack is being given a pass for sleep walking through the debate that could have sealed Romney's doom.  (Er, or did the President actually "win" that one???)  

                Even if Obama wins this election, we should not be applauding this kind of behavior by the "leader" of our Party.

                Who is the "face"of the Democratic Party, and what do people think they're getting when they vote for our "brand?"

                Constant denial of truth, including apologies for inept political leadership because you personally "like" people, does NOT help our side win back the House, or help the President's chances for re-election.  It does not lead to working majorities in Congress, or the ability to drive policy agenda with the public.   All it leads to is political irrelevance.

                Obama needs to hear criticism from us when it is warranted.  When he doesn't aggressively defend or promote the Party's interests.  Not the uncritical adoration that dominates the rec list.  

                Thanks for injecting a little "reality" back into a "Democratic" blog .

            •  i *did* read it, yo (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, greengemini, George3, duhban

              don't ever come at me with that kind of bullshit.  

              The change represents a continuation of the recent trend: Mr. Romney’s chances were down to just 13.9 percent immediately in advance of last week’s debate in Denver. He has nearly doubled his chances since then.
              it also contains such gems as this:
              The last thing to consider is that the fundamentals of the race aren’t consistent with a 4-point lead for Mr. Romney. Instead, the most recent economic numbers, and Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, would seem to point to an election in which he is the slight favorite. We don’t use approval ratings in our forecast, but we do use the economic data, and both the monthly payrolls report and the broader FiveThirtyEight economic index would point toward an election in which Mr. Obama is favored in the popular vote by around 2.5 percentage points.

              ...This technique has produced a very stable forecast over the whole of the year: since we began to publish the model in the spring, the projected Nov. 6 result has varied only between a 1.6-point win for Mr. Obama in the national popular vote and a 4.3-point edge.

              Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

              by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:43:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nate's "predictions" are only snapshots in time (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                George3

                The only prediction of his that counts is the day before the election.  He has a very good record, but only in the short term.  His analyses out a month or more, or even weeks have been terrible at times.

                You will be burned if you put too much stock in his predictions at this point - especially given the volatility of the race right now.

          •  FL is a tossup, CO & VA are competitive (10+ / 0-)

            If Romney wins Florida and either Colorado or Virginia, he wins the election -- according to Nate Silver's current projections (which you seem to regard very highly).

            Why the interest in beating down people who point out the reality that the election can easily go Romney's way?

            Do you imagine Obama or his campaign staff are as blase and dismissive as you? Because they're not. They're reality-based and they know they losing is a very real possibility.

            •  hilarious (5+ / 0-)
              Why the interest in beating down people who point out the reality that the election can easily go Romney's way?
              Why the interest in beating down people who point out the reality that one debate/round of polling do not an election make?

              and sure..IF romney wins those states, he actually has a chance.  but not one of those states guarantees him a win, and polling is again trending in obama's favor.

              Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

              by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:50:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  one debate/round of polling do not an election... (10+ / 0-)

                make, but, as it gets closer to election day and folks start paying more attention, one debate makes a bigger difference. time for redos is running out.

                Obama is going to need to do better in the next debate so he doesn't compound his mistakes in the last one. and it would make a big difference imo if he did show up as a fighter, like bbb said...

                but that ball is in Obama's court, not the pollsters...

                A) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12 B) "Stoking the base’s enthusiasm is part of a campaign’s job, whether or not it thinks it should have to do it." ~Michelle Goldberg

                by poligirl on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:35:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Florida is pretty much gone (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pengiep, George3

                Romney already leads there in several polls, and if it's close, then corruption will hand FL to Romney.  

                Obama will have to win without FL.  

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:22:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  FL is already gone? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Aviate, justalittlebitcrazy

                  gods I love the chicken little act, why don't you just concede the entire election to Romney?

                  •  Why would FL vote for Rubio? (0+ / 0-)

                    But not Romney?  

                    FL going to Obama will be a surprise to me personally, and without those electoral college votes, the margin between them is razor thin.  It's likely that all the "close" states will fall one way or another by election day.  Leading to a much larger victory for one side than the polling (which is based on POPULAR numbers at this point) would suggest.

                    Obama could easily win the most votes and lose the election.

                    •  FL is going to be close (0+ / 0-)

                      it has been for almost the entire election, lately the polls have overall favored Obama but the chicken little act above is really annoying.

                      And frankly it's unlikely that Obama will win the popular vote but lose the election and there is no evidence that the 'close' states will fall in line especially because they all have diverse characteristics

                  •  A better question would be (0+ / 0-)

                    why did Obama concede the debate to Romney?

                    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                    by Subterranean on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:46:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  utterly rubbish framing (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Cedwyn

                      thank you for buying into the gop lie that pure aggression while spewing lies wins

                      •  I said no such thing (0+ / 0-)

                        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                        by Subterranean on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:14:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  your exact quote (0+ / 0-)

                          'why did Obama concede the debate to Romney'

                          this implies that Romney won and while I certainly would not object that the public as a whole agrees with this I reject such a statement. Romney didn't win, he lied, then lied then just for the hell of it lied some more. And while he lied he bullied a much respected veteran reporter who deserves and has earned more respect then Romney gave. And the entire time he acted like Bush redux.

                          That's not what I want in a president and that's not winning to me.

                          So how about instead of buying into the 'president lost' nonsesne of the media we actually push that back with facts and reason?

                •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban, Cedwyn

                  The polls Romney leads in are all GOP robopolls taken at the height of his bounce. Especially in FL, robopolls have been shown to seriously underestimate Obama's support.

                  Even then, Obama still polls within the MoE.

                  And the best part is he can win without FL anyways.

                  Seriously, all the people here who complain about Obama not being a fighter and then wilt at the first sign of bad news really drive me nuts.

            •  cuz that's how some folks roll here (10+ / 0-)

              Daily Kos: formerly a reality-based community   :o(

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:40:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think (14+ / 0-)

                that some in the community are more reality-based than others, and that, as you well know, is not a new dynamic.  We have some community members that consistently choose positive spin over reality and I don't think that will ever change, despite the fact that those of us that are reality-based never buy their rose-colored-glasses spin.  It's wasted effort here, spinners need to go and peddle their spin elsewhere to those for whom it might actually make a difference.  Trying to spin those of us that are reality-based is an insult to our collective intelligence.

                Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                by democracy inaction on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:14:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  (slurp slurp) Sorry, I was enjoying this tasty (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  democracy inaction, George3

                  beverage that bwd handed me...and I...whu-...huh?...hey...Oh Wow Man.  Obama kicked Romney's ass!  Chill, He's Got This!!

                  : D

                  The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                  by JVolvo on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:10:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I find it interesting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MKSinSA

                  that immediately you view that which you agree with as the only possible 'reality based thinking', you know what operational bias is right? (and irony for that matter)

                  •  I find it interesting (0+ / 0-)

                    that you're making an ASSumption about what I do and do not agree with based on my above statement, which was a general statement and made no such judgement.  So spare me the smarmy lecture.

                    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                    by democracy inaction on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well if it is an assumption (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MKSinSA

                      and a false one then by all means please correct it but I only have your words to go by and given your comment I stand by my reaction.

                      If that reaction was wrong how about correcting it instead of getting indignant?

                      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                        ...I only have your words to go by...
                        Which words, the ones that I wrote or the ones you put in my mouth?  You even quoted me for something I did not say.  And you have the gall the lecture me about irony?
                        If that reaction was wrong how about correcting it...
                        I already did but you obviously haven't figured that out.

                        Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                        by democracy inaction on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I am trying to have a meaningful (0+ / 0-)

                          conversation with you here but it is starting to seem like you're more interested in fighting.

                          If I seriously made an assumption there and a wrong one at that please point it out but stop this stupid bluster because you don't intimidate me.

                          •  I don't buy that for a second (0+ / 0-)

                            If you really were trying to have a meaningful conversation, you wouldn't have replied to me initially in such a snippy, condescending, patronizing - and yes - indignant way, and then you turned around and accused me of being indignant.  Not to mention that you purposefully misquoted me and implied that I said things I didn't actually say.  I choose my words carefully and that's frankly insulting.

                            Some advice: if you want to have meaningful conversations with others going forward, you shouldn't approach them with the smarmy, reproachful tone you've taken with me.  Nor should you read more into their comments than they actually said and then arrogantly lecture them for it.

                            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                            by democracy inaction on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:51:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  there was nothing snippy (0+ / 0-)

                            condescending, patronizing or even indignant about what I said.  But if you choose to view it that way that's you're choice. You say you've chosen your words carefully and frankly if that's the truth then you've chosen to be insulting instead of polite and condescending instead of helpful.

                            If this is going to go no where, if all you are going to attack me and bluster instead of actually answering my question (and given it's three comments later and you've still not) then I have nothing further to add here. You can say this is all my fault all you want but you're the one that has been accusatory and is convinced that I am not dealing in good faith.

                            So some free advice for your, don't blame other people for poisoning a conversation when you've not even tried to deal with the person in good faith.

                            (And yes that was reproachful and lecture so that in the future you can tell the difference)

                          •  You're not (0+ / 0-)

                            nearly as clever as you seem to think you are.

                            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                            by democracy inaction on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:28:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that implies I think I am clever (0+ / 0-)

                            and I do not think I am clever, I am just me

          •  I think Nate (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert, George3

            is making a huge mistaking continuing to rely on pre-debate polls.

            This is not the same race.

            The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

            by fladem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:33:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not the same race as Thurs & Fri either (0+ / 0-)

              That's the thing about polls, they are snapshots in time. Right now Romney's look great because they have the post-debate bounce in there. There's quite a bit of evidence that it has been dissipating. Gallup reports Obama has been +5 in their RV polls the last two days.

              Once things settle the polls will be roughly tied, which is not a bad place for us to be in. LV screens giving Romney a 5pt boost strike me as too much given Obama's turnout operation. The fundamentals work in his favor. And Romney has much less upside in the next two debates.

              Bloomberg has a story up quoting a lot of polling gurus--most of them think that we need more information, but that at this point it looks like Romney made gains without reversing the overall trend of the race.

        •  Because there's a lot of foolishness on this site. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          George3

          That was easy!

          Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

          by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:52:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why? Becaue there are fanatics here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kombema

          Fanatics argue about statistics and scream to have the coach fired, etc. When they glom onto politics, you see the crazy shit that we laugh at on Redstate -- but there's a comparable amount of crazy shit on this site, too -- and because of the dynamics pf the internet, much of that shit winds up on the rec list.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:00:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What about non-party demos? (3+ / 0-)

      Brooklyn, I think you've got a red herring.

      Yes, some here are touting Party ID, but many seem to realize that is changeable. Stipulate that Party ID is not an issue.

      But there has been objection to the large numbers of respondents in the south, over 50, white, $75K or more, etc. Percentages that seem wildly out of proportion.

      These are not changeable factors, and do seem to challenge likely turnout.

      What are your thoughts on these objections?

    •  Polls = noise (9+ / 0-)

      to me at this point. Impossible to read tea leaves if someone split buckets of the stuff out on the sand.

      The Spice must Flow!

      by Texdude50 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:23:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really?? (8+ / 0-)

      you don't want information about the election?  Where swings are happening?  Where efforts should be focused?

      Please.

      Polls are the lifeblood of politics.  

      I will say this:
      It is odds that some polls find a bounce, and some don't in the state polling.  

      PPP Va goes from +5 on the 18th to +3 after the debate.
      Ras goes from O+1 to tied in VA.
      Sesquehanna shows no change in PA
      Byadon/Foster in MI goes from +2 T0 +3, Though Epic-MRA goes from +10 to +3 .
      In CO Ras goes from R+2 to O+1, while Gravis goes from R+1 to R+3

      The polling on just Oct 4 does look worse (both Ras and We Ask America find 5 point swings in Fla, and arguably bigger swings in Ohio).

      Taken as a whole, though, the state polling really doesn't show as big as a shift as some of the national polling.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:27:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I don't want that information. (0+ / 0-)

        Campaigns might want the information, to triage scarce resources, but there's no reason for anyone else to want it.  And that's to the dubious extent that it's even real information.  The fact that pollsters poll predictably (vs. the polling average) based on known partisan orientation is in itself sufficient reason to doubt the veracity of polling. It;s part of the influence machine.

        Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

        by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:48:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  paying attention to polls is dumb? (6+ / 0-)

      jeez? obama must really be getting smoked now.  

      On DailyKos nothing is significant unless Obama doesn't do it.

      by glutz78 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:39:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  76 % of respondents agree. :^) (4+ / 0-)

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:06:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Our guy was somewhere else" (9+ / 0-)

      Great.

      Fortunately the progressive media was there to feed the national media meme that Obama sucked, he probably lost the election, and that he's a spineless professorial weakling.

      But hey, it's not like we should be unified in pointing out Mitt Romney's lies. That's not as fun as attacking the president.

      Fox News or CNN will probably cover that Romney fact-checking for us.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:32:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, Obama provided that meme himself (5+ / 0-)

        He fucked up.  Can't we just accept that and move on?  You can't rationally convince anyone that Obama's debate performance was anything more than mediocre.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:26:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kerry Vs Bush Debate 1 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lirtydies

          After Bush took a major case of whoop ass from Kerry in debate one, Bush asked his inner circle how he had done. All of them except one guy gave him kudos for a great debate.

          Only one guy had the nerve to tell him the truth: He said (Paraphrased) "You got your ass kicked".

          Bush was pissed. They were on Air Force One. He lead the guy who told the truth around to all of the inner circle that lied and asked them how their assessment differed so radically from the one person. Apparently there where some very red faces.

          Point of this is simple: We know now that Obama relies heavily on his inner circle for a positive feedback loop, much like Bush . We don't do favors to the president or the people that read this that can get inside that inner circle by Blaming polls, the weather, Bush, etc et al.ad nauseam, instead of the culprit, the President himself. We also know that he veers away from self criticism, instead pointing to things beyond his control to blame.

          Follow the example that  this diarist and the founder of this site made  by being heavily critical of his performance so it gets through the noise of his inner circle so someone he trusts speaks up,  or lose the election.

          As far as Kerry vs Bush, the election was lost by 122,000 votes in Ohio. It doesn't matter what we think of the lies told by the opposition, the Dems lie too. It doesn't matter what we blame the after debate assessment on. If one saw the debate and was reality based enough to realize that Obama got his ass kicked, then he needs to hear that over and over again. He's competitive enough that he will do what it takes to win the next debates if he gets the right words from the right person.  

          There is no question now that there has been a trajectory change in Mitt's descent, post debate. The cause of the change is Obama. Nothing else. He can be his own worst enemy as well as his own greatest asset. It's time to point out the sky ain't blue.

          Taking the outcome for granted, with a populace that has been heavily let down after the soaring rhetoric in 2008, is suicidal.

      •  Mutt's lies are not news here. Obama's inability (4+ / 0-)

        to counter them in that debate is bad politics, I think we can all agree. Liars win elections all the time. The WH needs to get its  act together and stop parroting Republican memes (SS "tweaking," Simpson-Blows, etc.) and have Obama fight back hard. 1000 great stump speeches and political ads will not make up for that bad debate performance, but they've got to kick some ass from hereon in. That's reality.

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:01:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I see (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Orange County Liberal

        Obama can't fail - he can only be failed, right?

      •  Obama Did Suck in the debate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr Robert

        And there's no shortage of polling info that strongly backs this simple assertion.

        "But hey," let's just pretend it never happened and focus on the lies. And how rotten Mitt is.

        As if that somehow erases the fact that Obama never stepped forward and stomped on Romney's lies, never brought up the 47%, never pounded home the hidden tax returns, nor personalized some of his bread and butter issues and generally looked like a deer in the headlights. Even Obama joked about his bad performance.

        Don't conflate this with Romney's lies. They are two different issues. As Obama's counter punching since then has illustrated.

        Excellent diary for the reality based crowd.

        In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects. J. William Fulbright

        by crescentdave on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:16:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama sucked its that simple (4+ / 0-)
    •  Yup, let's just ignore all polls. (0+ / 0-)

      Who's joining me to knock on doors in Mississippi?

      /eyeroll

      © grover


      Join Muppets Against Mitt! Go to www.barackobama.com to join now. This message brought to you by the number 2012 and the letters B and O.

      by grover on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:54:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a putrid diary, and it doesn't make sense (7+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, alba, cyeko, greengemini, samlang, duhban, Aviate

      Ok everybody is debating a poll that was mostly from Thursday and Friday--we know a lot has happened since then, the job report numbers, Obama's pushback, the California fuel price shock--that could have an impact on how people vote. But really, we're debating the internals of a poll that is already out of date?

      Remember a poll only says how the country will vote on any given day. So we know--from the trackers and the Pew poll--that had the election been on October 4, Romney would've won. But the election is on November 6. And have new developments changed things?

      I will say the Obama campaign did a poor job of managing the news cycle, and that could bring things back to Romney. But they'll win it today because the press has the attention span of a knat.

      Finally, I live in the West (California) and followed the 2010 western elections closely. Barbara Boxer was on the cusp of losing in the polls, till she won easily, Harry Reid was going to lose narrowly, till he won easily, and Michael Bennett was going to lose solidly, until he won narrowly.

      My take from that is that there is a segment of the electorate that is not pollable (at least with the traditional methods the public pollsters are wedded to). They are prepaid cell phone users. They tend to be overwhelmingly poor, minority and urban-based. They're not going to pick up when it's an unknown number for two reasons:

      1. It costs them what little money they have to answer the phone ($.10 to $.15 a minute is normal, with a 1 to 3 minute minimum charge).
      2. It could be a bill collector from the hospital, cable company, etc.

      Across the west, in 2010, this phenomenon was most pronounced in Nevada, which makes sense because of the bad economy there. It was worth +7 from the public polls for Harry Reid. It was almost as pronounced in Colorado, where it was worth +5 for Michael Bennett. And it was still significant here in California where it was worth +3 for Boxer.

      If anything, it is more pronounced now. Some of the younger underemployed college graduates in their 20s have went to the prepaid phones too. Again, likely Obama and Democrat supporters. I think adding +5 to any public survey for the Democrats is a conservative estimate of how much effect this will have in the end. I am not too worried--Dems outnumber Republicans by 80,000 (or about 5% in Nevada), and it's about the same in Colorado; here in California there was a mass number of registrations among Democrats in Latino neighborhoods of LA. If somebody takes the time to register, they're probably going to vote. Registration statistics do catch the prepaid cell phone voters intent, and they look relatively favorable to Obama (it'll be closer than the last time but still a victory).

      •  that's what a tracker does...point to point to poi (11+ / 0-)

        nt to point-in-time.  connect the dots.

        ignore history at your peril -- if "out of date," as you say, news doesn't inform you then why ever look at another opinion again? It'll all be over by yesterday, anyhow.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:17:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  main point of this diary: Pew isn't corrupt (30+ / 0-)

        I think it's a good point. YMMV.

        Toward the end of the diary, I think he probably underestimates the noise in the poll. But that hardly makes it a "putrid" diary.

        Election protection: there's an app for that!
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:21:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't remember anyone claiming (0+ / 0-)

          pew is corrupt, possibly inept for a bad methodology but I don't see anyone claiming corrupt

          •  that's the funny thing about DKos (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo

            To me, the other rec-list diary pretty clearly says that Pew is corrupt: "Media & Pew Narrative is that only white men over 50 will vote.... The Beltway media wants a tight race at all costs even pushing party ID weightings to Record highs. Pollsters should keep party methodology constant and these big swings wouldnt be so huge." Either that's accusing Pew of rigging their results, or it's a colossal non sequitur. Other diaries and comments have stated it beyond any apparent possibility of misinterpretation.

            But DKos is big, and diaries can be long, so I don't know if you read any of those statements. That's why Kossacks can go for years debating what meta wars were really about, no irony intended.

            Election protection: there's an app for that!
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:35:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't remember (0+ / 0-)

              reading anything about a diary saying only white men over 50 will vote according to pew. Any such statement said truly  would be incredibly silly. I wouldn't put it past the media to construct a tight race but any such claim that pew or any other pollster is actively doing that would have to be handled in the same way any extraordinary claim would have to be, with extraordinary evidence.

              So maybe I am missing something but given that I did see bbb's last diary that he then deleted, well it sounds to me like bbb has an axe to grind or something.

              •  we agree about a big part of this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban
                i don't remember
                reading anything about a diary saying only white men over 50 will vote according to pew.
                The other diary (which I quoted in another comment) is here. There were others; that one just was the most popular.
                I wouldn't put it past the media to construct a tight race but any such claim that pew or any other pollster is actively doing that would have to be handled in the same way any extraordinary claim would have to be, with extraordinary evidence.
                Yup, I agree with both parts of that. Also that the thing about only white men over 50 voting is "incredibly silly."
                So maybe I am missing something but given that I did see bbb's last diary that he then deleted, well it sounds to me like bbb has an axe to grind or something.
                Maybe he does, but I think this diary shot up the rec list because it crystallized what a lot of us have been saying and feeling about the attacks on Pew's integrity, even if we don't agree with all of bbb's analysis.

                No need to take my word for it -- it's just one perspective. But if you didn't see any of the attacks on Pew's integrity, you might want to take those into account and not just construe this diary as bbb's axe-grinding.

                If I never slept, I would have written a diary that said pretty much what you just said in your comment, and corrected some common misrepresentations of the Pew poll -- but didn't take sides in any of the meta-arguments over the debate per se. (Well, good luck with that. It's almost impossible to avoid taking sides in meta-arguments, even if one has no idea what they are!)

                Election protection: there's an app for that!
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:32:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  having seen the link (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  HudsonValleyMark

                  I remember the diary I must skipped over that part because you're right that part is utterly silly and pure hyperbole

                  That said, I was also around for bbb's last diary (or well another one as I very well might have missed a few) which he posted basically insulting every one he disagreed with while protesting that he hadn't meant any such thing. He did delete the diary so I took him at his word then but to do it again? At this point I don't know it just seems to me as someone that wasn't really here for 2008 or 2010 that people have agendas here other then winning.

                  •  an interesting case in point (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    duhban

                    I have no idea what you're talking about -- which makes sense, since he deleted the diary. That probably largely accounts for our difference in perspectives.

                    From what I have seen, it seems to me that bbb has a personality, not so much an "agenda." Not long ago, I got into a bit of an argument with him, and I don't think either of us moved very far, but I thought he was shooting straight. Not being contentious, just comparing notes.

                    Election protection: there's an app for that!
                    Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                    by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:14:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it probably does (0+ / 0-)

                      account for the difference and I am not sure if there is a difference really between an 'agenda' and a 'personality'. To an extent everyone has both and they influence each other.

                      Do I think bbb is being contentious? maybe I am not sure I don't know him that well but he does seem to say what's on his mind and I certainly can respect that. I'd rather interact with people that say what they mean and mean what they say. But that doesn't mean I think he's right or being particularly fair

      •  This diary isn't putrid. (16+ / 0-)

        I have written before about cell phones and polls, but comparing polls from one pollster who uses the same methodology clearly gives information about changes in the electorate.

        In fact, Pew is one of the pollsters that have been most concerned about cell phones, and have tried to address it om their methodology.

        My diary on cell phones and polling is here.
        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:32:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But all cellphones are not equal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          agent, greengemini, duhban

          There are two types of cell phones you can get:

          1. Contract phones with a set amount of minutes and texts (and these days, data) for a flat fee. They run $80/month for a basic plan.

          2. Prepaid cell phones--the kind you can buy at the drug store, are $20 and then generally around 10 cents a minute and are loaded via cards purchased at the store.

          Prepaid phones offer the economic advantage of no monthly bill. They also don't require you to pay exorbitant reconnection fees when you can't afford the phone for a few months and stop paying the bill. They are extremely popular in urban, poor neighborhoods.

          For a variety of economic reasons, the prepaid users are very unlikely to answer the phone (it costs them minutes to do so), and even more unlikely to spend minutes they have to ration talking to a pollster. They are not pollable, but voter registration statistics do capture them--if you register, you're probably going to vote.

          Polling hasn't caught up with technology because there really isn't a good way to solve this problem. You could weight via demographics. But if they're landline users, or cell contract users, they are off a different socioeconomic group. You could try weighting towards the American Community Survey, but much of that data is from 2007 and 2008 and therefore outdated. Short of a door to door poll, you're not going to get responses from prepaid users, who skew overwhelmingly Democratic. Therefore most public polls undercount Democrats--remember Michael Bennett was behind by 4 in Colorado and Harry Reid was behind by 2 in Nevada--until they won by 2 and 5 respectively.

          Polls are not the election. Voter registration may well be more accurate, and they show huge influxes of Dems in Los Angeles, a +80,000 voter registration advantage in Nevada.

    •  I have to agree with you. (22+ / 0-)

      Pew (and now SEIU/PPP) are pollsters that we look at with respect, especially SEIU/PPP). Both have Obama down. The PPP poll today says Obama down 2.

      This is not good. We were ahead and going away. This has all reversed in a week. It might come back, might.

      It is also possible that the money that the right has to reinforce this narrative will kick into high gear now.

      This is what Jack Welsh and his ilk were really doing. Once he felt that he had done enough damage, he backed off.

      Mission Accomplished.

      Stop living in denial, people. This is bad.

  •  Pew doesn't skew. (66+ / 0-)

    You get it , badboy. I am embarrassed by the pathetic CT that many people here are peddling.

    The Beltway media wants a tight race at all costs even pushing party ID weightings to Record highs.

    Pollsters should keep party methodology constant and these big swings wouldnt be so huge.

    Pew doesn't skew.

    Once we accept reality, we can do something about it. Denial is the road to defeat.

    Obama must give up the "Middle Man" act. The triangulation and capitulation must go for good. That week kneed crap led to the big fail in 2010.

    The cool composed Obama that took out Osama  must show up at the next debate.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:05:24 AM PDT

    •  Sure they skew....they call mainly people with (8+ / 0-)

      landlines.....the very definition of a low information voter.  Our very lives and future are in the hands of low information voters.  This country is in a complete mess because of low information voters.  It is very depressing.  

    •  The scary part is that Democrats don't seem to (18+ / 0-)

      to learn from their mistakes. They keep repeating the same hype, while beating down the voices of those who know what is wrong...

      ...and the enthusiasm gap keeps getting larger.

      •  Lol, the irony hurts head (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs, wishingwell, TLS66

        Dems never learn from their mistakes. Your solution is we need to elevate all of he voices that say "THE ELECTION IS OVER! OBAMA JUST DESTROYED THE COUNTRY! DESPAIIIIIRRRR" We should beat down the voices that say "Obama didn't do a great job, but it wasn't catastrophic. Lets fight harder and see what happens in a week."

        But it's OBAMA's fault there's an enthusiasm gap. Sigh. Again, I sometimes wonder why I even call myself progressive.

        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

        by PhillyJeff on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:35:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Straw man. (15+ / 0-)

          "THE ELECTION IS OVER! OBAMA JUST DESTROYED THE COUNTRY! DESPAIIIIIRRRR"

          This isn't what people are saying.

          "'Obama didn't do a great job, but it wasn't catastrophic. Lets fight harder and see what happens in a week.'"

          This is what people are saying, but you suggest we should be beating THEM down????

          "But it's OBAMA's fault there's an enthusiasm gap."

          Yes, it was his performance 2009-2010 that created the gap many refused to acknowledge or accept in 2010. And it is his performance 2011-2012, most recently in this debate, that is creating the gap today. I mean let's face it, Romney-Ryan was almost single-handedly winning the election for Obama (yet the polls were still surprisingly close, even with all the jaw-droppers). Obama gave people reason to think that maybe Romney wasn't so incompetent after all. And, more importantly, Obama gave many otherwise disenchanted and/or discouraged Republicans reason to think that they had a real dog in the fight after all. That was Obama who did that.

          Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

          by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:48:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I have no idea what you're talking about (12+ / 0-)
          "THE ELECTION IS OVER! OBAMA JUST DESTROYED THE COUNTRY! DESPAIIIIIRRRR" We should beat down the voices that say "Obama didn't do a great job, but it wasn't catastrophic. Lets fight harder and see what happens in a week."
          That's how you interpret what I said?  Jeez!

          Look at the recommend list: every since the debate, most of the diaries have been borderline ridiculous. Many of them have been as illogical as a Sean Hannity rant, which is only one degree above the logic that Herman Cain uses when he's spinning a subject.  

          Obama lost the debate. Period. You can spin it anyway you want, but the results prove that he lost ground after the debate. I don't care how many lies Romney told, his numbers rose, while Obama's numbers fell...that's reality....and even worse, the enthusiasm gap is widening, but Democrats are doubling down on their efforts to promote the same tired themes. It's no wonder that the Republicans are pumped, while many Democrats are looking for a leader to pull us out of this morass.

          Every time someone like Samuel Jackson releases a video that says  "Wake the f*^k up," it only makes our side look like we are nothing but a group of small children who need to be told what to think. How many people are motivated by that type of logic?

          But some progressives have been using that same type of tactic every since Obama took office and it hasn't worked yet.

          Obama could improve his chances if he would convince the hesitant members of his base that his second term will be a lot better than his first. Trying to convince us that his first term was terrific scares the shit out of people who believe his policies were shortsighted.

          Have him promise he will never touch any of our social safety net programs.

          Force him to replace the Wall Street insiders in his administration.

          Persuade him to protect the environment.

          Above anything else, have him focus his attention on the people who are suffering the most.

          But like I said, Democrats seem to never learn from their mistakes.

      •  I did not hear that or see that phonebanking , (3+ / 0-)

        we had a good day yesterday with GOTV. What I am doing is with every piece of bad news, I double down on GOTV. It is energizing and revitalizing and great.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:08:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But polls have errors (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver, J M F

      This was a far bigger move than any other poll out there.  So I think the first poll quoted above was far on one side of the margin of error and the latest poll was far on the other side.

      I don't think we need the "cool" Obama at the next debate, I think we need the passionate, fighting Obama at the next debate.  Presidential debates have become the political equivalent of the WWF and the public wants a fight.  It's a sad situation, but you play to the voters you have, not the ones you wish you had.

    •  Do I want a moderate Republican for Pres? (8+ / 0-)

      Before you judge this, take into account I have voted a straight Democratic ticket since 2004.. and might well, again.

      Obama must give up the "Middle Man" act. The triangulation and capitulation must go for good. That week kneed crap led to the big fail in 2010.
      And, This..
      What that tells me is that these ladies not only want to hear about policy, they want to see a fighter who is going to go to the mat for them. These women are the ones who are going to have to rely on Social Security and Medicare since a huge number are unmarried. They don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things.
      FishOutofWater and BrooklynBadBoy get it. There is no spin to this.

      Setting aside the Presidents actual debate performance, what many of us heard here in Colorado was the President arguing how he was the better choice as a moderate Republican. It felt like 2 Republicans in a primary - not a Democrat and a Republican squaring off.. Colorado voters have historically voted for the "true" Republican when given this choice.

      We voted for Change in 2008 and - say what you will - but many of us felt there was very little change between 2008 and 2010.. Too many campaign promises compromised or unfulfilled. The reasons don't matter, i.e. filibuster. Facts do.
      Democrats had a historical opportunity to create true change and didn't. They got their ass handed to them in 2010.

      If the President is going to argue for more of the same, then expect people to be disappointed and turn away from him and Democrats, in general. His arguments and policies that debate day were not a solution to what they need or want... Neither is that lying, S.O.B. - Rmoney, but the aggressor typically wins this kind of contest.

      Make the Republicans eat their obstructive tactics and policies - don't acknowledge them as though they had a point - when we know they suck. The President seemed to think that working with and placating crazy bastards actually appeals to us..

      Talking about education and training expansion is way too ephemeral. The deficit is a buzzword - forget about it. People want results they can see, touch and feel. Do something that actually tangibly benefits all taxpayers. Make it concrete. Here in Colorado one could advocate for a new CCC or WPA to repair the damage done by forest fires and expand the number of firefighters.. then expand it for each locality.

      Advocate for jobs, real health care, don't question S.S. or Medicare - if anything advocate its expansion to control medical costs going forward..People need to eat 1st, have a home, health care they can actually afford. Take care of very basic things, then you can build on this.

      Attack Republicans over the Personhood thing. Commit to protecting contraception and a womens right to choose.

      Pick a progressive value and promote it. Don't give an inch. Republican politicians are lying, cheating conniving bastards who say one thing and do another. Don't stand there and say how you'll do Republican things only better.

      All I can say, is loudly and proudly proclaim Progressive Democratic values; fit your policies to these values and actually try to implement them; never back down to Republicans or even seemingly support them; Advocate and do real CHANGE this time.

      That's what we want..

  •  I dont think its skewed. But that said, I find it (27+ / 0-)

    hard to believe that there will be a 18 pts swing among women after only one debate considering that ABC pollster said that women in their focus group, while agreeing that Romney had won the debate, didnt find him likable to win their support. They viewed him more negatively and described him as 'aggressive', 'rude' and 'bossy'. The women in CNN live focus group gave a similar view. And Priorities USA pollster said pratically the same thing  as the ABC pollster.

    18pts swing among women just seems unlikably.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:06:24 AM PDT

    •  Exactly- if something makes no narrative sense... (8+ / 0-)

      ...then it probably doesn't make sense, period.  In this case they're saying one in five women, and way more than one in five female Obama voters, switched their putative votes because of a debate.  What sense does that make?  

      Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

      by Rich in PA on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:17:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they're not really saying that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FishOutofWater, wishingwell

        You can take two lines out of two different poll reports, construct a narrative, and say that the narrative doesn't make sense. But that doesn't necessarily tell you much about the polls.

        It got really weird after 2004, when people pored over the exit poll crosstabs for narrative inconsistencies in order to argue that the "original" exit poll results were right!

        All the data (not just the new data) are noisy, and it's fine to be skeptical about those numbers. But we shouldn't put words in Pew's collective mouth about women changing their intended votes.

        Election protection: there's an app for that!
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:56:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It matters who decides to answer the phone (6+ / 0-)

      and what they say.  Dem enthusiasm was way down that day.  That translates to the likely voter models.  It isn't just the answer to how you will vote.   If Dkos was any guide, thurs and Fri were terrible days for the Dem and Obama supporter emotional states.  Andrew Sullivan apparently is still pissed if diaries are correct...so that shows up in the screens..

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

      by justmy2 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:41:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Andrew Sullivan is out of control! Almost like (6+ / 0-)

        Tweety's twin

        "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

        by LaurenMonica on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:46:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Andrew will need new clothes after rending his (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaurenMonica

          garments, to see a dentist after gnashing his teeth and a new fainting couch. But first he needs a serious tranquilizer.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:16:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed, he's way beyond pissed (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kat68, LaurenMonica, Subterranean, duhban

          I have decided to stop reading his blog for the time being, after yesterday's full on break with President Obama. He has decided that this one night, this one debate, was THE defining moment of Obama's presidency and his re-election campaign. He is reading into the poor debate that Barack Obama doesn't even want to be president anymore, and also that he doesn't deserve to be.

          Sullivan knows full well that mittens is lying about everything he said, he has stated that Ryan's budget is a fantasy and called him not serious. But regardless, he's fully prepared to say now that they deserve the white house, solely because Obama did not show up in top form at the first debate. That is more important to him than anything Obama got done in these four years, all his so-called "meep meep" moments that cause Andrew to swoon over him but now mean nothing. The debate means more than months of terrible campaigning by R/R, and more than Mitttens being a lying sack of shit and a horrible human being, and Ryan is a mini-mitt.

          But the sad, sad part is that it is not just Andrew Sullivan... as these post-debate polls show, it's a lot of people. Although I agree with the premise of this diary in that most of those people who have swung to mittens so radically over one night have mostly not been tuned it to the whole election, and so can be somewhat more easily understood.

          But I don't understand someone like Andrew Sullivan setting this tone of jumping off the cliff -- no, throwing the whole country off a cliff -- because the debate performance was bad and outweighs everything else to him.

          I don't get it, but he is way off the deep end this past week, and I think he's very shallow. I've lost pretty much all of what respect I had for him, which was already not great because of some of the other dumb things he says and his emotional analysis.

          Right now he's demonstrating what is wrong with voters, in allowing themselves to be swayed by the emotion of the moment rather than their thinking brain. What we have to hope -- those of us looking eagerly to the polling data for signs that the bleeding has stopped and we're back on our feet -- is that over time the thinking part of the brain kicks back in. If so then we have reason to think it will come back our way. There are some signs of that from over the weekend. But I think those who are insisting Romney has not gotten a real boost here, and the polls are not correct, are deluding themselves. We have lost major ground and need to accept it.

          Sure we can make more calls, send more money, register voters, and try to help refocus on the big picture. I'm doing that and hope everyone else is too. But frankly we do need President Obama to do something, very soon, to help change how people FEEL about him and what is going on since that debate. It was a huge disruption to the energy of the campaigns and the waves are still being generated. Yes the election is almost a month away but in a lot of placing people are voting already. Or not.

          •  I don't read it... (0+ / 0-)

            did he say he was voting for Romney because in 90 mins the President didn't do...well...didn't look at the camera?

            Or is he saying the President should do better?  Can't imagine everything he dislikes about Romney was overcome by Romney saying never mind to some and reinforcing others?

            What new position does Sullivan agree with?

            “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

            by justmy2 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:24:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, he didn't say that (0+ / 0-)

              he is voting for Romney at all. Yet. And he does not agree with basically any of R/R's positions, as he acknowledges that no one knows what those might be at this point.

              What he said (roughly paraphrasing) is as I wrote above; that he believes the president's lackluster performance at the debate and lack of preparation means that 1. President Obama "threw in the towel" and doesn't want to be president anymore; and 2. that President Obama is guilty of "political malpractice" and doesn't deserve to be president anymore.

              He also said he found it "terrifying" (that is a direct quote) to learn that when Obama first left the stage on the night of the debate, he did not already know how bad his performance was.

      •  They ask you to rate how enthusiastic you are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, duhban

        about voting.  Democrats who were disappointed and discouraged about the debate and miffed with the president might answer a 5 or 6, a Romney supporter might answer a 9 or 10 because they thought he won the debate or liked what he said at the debate.

        I think enthuasiam is hard to measure as it based on a person's emotions on any given day.

        Here is a good example, my best friend , She will vote for Obama for sure, loves him. But she is not enthusiastic about voting for anyone as she hates politics, her blood pressure and anger get too high followin git..so it is not her cup of tea but she does vote.

        But if polled, she would say she is not enthusiastic but same for her coworker who is a Republican but who hates politics but votes.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:15:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank You! (3+ / 0-)
      I dont think its skewed. But that said, I find it hard to believe that there will be a 18 pts swing among women after only one debate . . .
      Jesus, why are so many people ready to eat their own here instead of taking a moment to see if a poll really makes sense?

      Are there people calling the PEW poll bunk because of disagreement? Sure. But there are more people with reasonable questions about the poll than there are "CT types."

      PEW is a reputable poll, but no poll is infallible and no poll is beyond criticism when it produces results that are questionable.

      Obamacare is upheld by the SCOTUS. Time for some Kossacks to eat a plate of crow.

      by kefauver on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:32:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am with you on that, just saying the gender gap (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver

        thing with Mitt making up so much ground in a short amount of time, you have to agree that is at the very least a shock to us..whether it is true or not.

        I was commenting I was shocked on the closing of the gender gap and other factors.  Saying I am shocked is not saying I do not believe the poll or trust Pew.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:19:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I Agree. That is Shocking. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sviscusi, duhban

          That's one of the findings that makes me question some of the poll's validity. I'm not really skeptical of the overall 49-45 number for Romney, as most of the polling was done on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.

          I am just surprised some here are ready to accept the poll as gospel truth without looking at some of the internals and scratching their heads.

          Obamacare is upheld by the SCOTUS. Time for some Kossacks to eat a plate of crow.

          by kefauver on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          I think some of the issue here in the back and forth on this stuff honestly comes down to people not really taking in that any poll can only tell you so much. It's data. It's got underlying assumptions, all of it, always, in the ways that its collection is structured.

          That's true of "happy" polls and "sad" polls.

          When a poll shows a gigantic shift very quickly that is hard to understand within broadly accepted thinking, it's worth questioning whether the poll -- not necessarily via some weird intentional skew, since there are a million factors -- has some part of its process that would tend to skew the data. It's also worth noting that it's possible that the poll is catching an early and important shift. There's not much way to tell which of those things might be true until there's more time and with more data to see whether it's truly an outlier for some reason -- which doesn't mean anything malicious whatsoever -- or whether it was catching a reflection of a huge and real change. And, of course, the likelihood that it's catching something real, but that the data is also either reducing or increasing that effect somewhere -- that's very high.

          There is no perfect poll. They can tell you stuff, and it's not unimportant stuff, but it's also really vital to understand what they can't tell you, especially as individual polls. Data is data, it isn't actual reality so much as an attempt to see what actual reality might look like at a given moment.

          Until there's some way to see an overall trend, it's not dumb to take major and super fast shifts -- shifts that are hard to understand with the rest of the contextual info -- with a bit of a grain of salt. All data sets are open to "does this result make sense?" questioning -- because it's important to keep in mind that polls are never perfect. Which is also not the same thing as dismissing them, at all.

          I'm a wait-and-see person with some of this, though I think it would be silly to ignore the upshot -- that some polling shows some movement toward Romney in the immediate aftermath of the debate. Which is unsurprising, but only time will tell whether that bump is sticky or whether it's a small snapshot that will easily go away again, or what scale of it is really an accurate reflection of anything real.

          Like the diarist, I think an awful lot of people here are quick to simply reject any poll they don't like via amazing feats of selective argument, or come up with ways to justify their set opinions via some kind of ridiculous skewed analysis involving 45th dimensional chess.

          (Perhaps) unlike the diarist, I think that using your brain and the rest of the context of the national discussion to wonder whether the scale of the effect is really real, or is out of line with other information for other reasons, as an anomaly -- that's not denial, that's thinking and openly questioning and trying to understand the limitations of polling.

  •  I know it's a sensitive area, but it has long (34+ / 0-)

    been obvious that:

    [t]hey don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things.
    And yet the President, as if by reflex, always seems to find a way back to this. Remember how he had to be rebuffed in his attempt to surrender on these issues at the time of the tax/budget ceiling "deal?" The "adult in the room" (this theme needs to die), etc.?

    It is not confidence inspiring. Indeed, one theory about these polls that I find plausible is that some of the President's erstwhile supporters became despondent and stopped answering polls for a while.

    We cannot have that a month out from election day. Frankly, we cannot have it ever.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:07:04 AM PDT

    •  I think part of that is (6+ / 0-)

      he's nodding as in, "Yes, I know that's your view." And if this were a polite, intellectual (and honest) conversation around a dinner table at the Grand Hotel, that might be appropriate. But there is this disturbing trend to view someone who wants to rip out his lungs as just another guy with a different point of view.

      I can't believe our election is being decided by people who can't tell the difference between republicans and democrats...that's like letting a dog choose what color to paint your house.

      by PBJ Diddy on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:35:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Remember, every time he has done this (4+ / 0-)

        he has been rewarded by supporters and the electorate....tough habit to break, even if some of us have been swimming upstream trying to call out the problem with this approach with his current opposition...and there are many scars from 2009-mid 2010 to show for it.

        “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

        by justmy2 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:43:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That makes sense. (9+ / 0-)
      Indeed, one theory about these polls that I find plausible is that some of the President's erstwhile supporters became despondent and stopped answering polls for a while.
      I probably would have said "fuck both candidates" if they called me the day after the debate.

      Repubs started up the car, hit the throttle and sent it over the cliff, and now they're complaining that the black guy hasn't fixed it fast enough.

      by Bush Bites on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:44:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  makes a lot of sense plus due to the debate, some (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Subterranean

        of his supporters who wil vote for him, if they do the poll survey, register a low enthusiasm due to the debate.

        Ie they will still vote and be reliable votes but if called after the debate and a few days later even, they may register a low enthusiasm number because they are feeling despondent. But they will show up and vote.

        I know a lot of his supporters , like me, who did not answer the phone for a number of reasons. One is when there is bad news, I like to come up with solutions, ways to cope and one way is to take action. So I did not answer either phone for days as I needed to use the phone for phone banking and I was out talking to voters.

        We were just talking at OFA local gathering that none of us have time to answer surveys and polls by phone right now. We are too focused and busy.

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:25:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ok but what do we do in the meantime? (0+ / 0-)

      As the ground game is important and our volunteer efforts are not wasted, I have been doing this for nearly 4 decades and too stubborn but also too motivated to stop now.  

      For some of us, being more involved with the campaign and helping GOTV keeps us from being angry, depressed, and anxious.

       We know the problem. What can we do?  

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:21:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We criticize the "Media" (11+ / 0-)

    for focusing in the horse race all the time, but what do we do--slap the horse's flank with that crop for all it's worth.  

    I agree with all your points.  Forget the reality of lies versus truth, eleven dimensional chess, etc.  Obama's debate performance was tepid from the standpoint of what the low-information public expects.  Remember, by and large a lot of Americans believe all politicians are liars and there are no real differences between them.  They only care about the "sporting" aspect of the debates. They want a gladiator event; the political content is secondary.

    "The bass player is always right"

    by BigOkie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:09:19 AM PDT

    •  Not just for what the low-information public (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      expects, Obama's debate performance was tepid or worse for what most anyone, even Republicans, expect. Before the debate, I don't think anyone would have said he was capable of being the person "debating" that night. To be sure, it blew a lot of life into the Romney campaign, even if mostly into existing pundits and voters who had become disenchanted and/or discouraged.

      Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

      by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:28:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's all in the gut reaction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GOPGO2H3LL, Subterranean

      Low information voters don't really care too much about information, do they?

      So when they watch a debate, they are looking for a gut reaction–who do I want to be the president?

      They aren't looking for who they want to have a beer with–that's a misconceptualization of that gut reaction. They want to feel good about the guy who is representing them.

      Sometimes liking him will matter, sometimes seeing him fight will matter, sometimes seeing that he is smart will matter.

      The problem with this last debate is that Romney did seem smart, he did seem like a fighter. He didn't seem particularly likeable or truthful. Obama was sorta likeable, and very smart, but not a fighter. So who wins? Depends on who's watching.

      A low information voter is looking at that and his/her gut reaction is telling them how they feel. They are not going to analyze the ideas–they probably could care less about them. To this voter, Romney looked pretty good.

      Slap them silly until they quit being turkeys voting for Thanksgiving and dragging the rest of the country down with them. Twigg

      by Katydid on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:44:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe not quite a gladiator event (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert

      but when Obama said at the end of the debate that he made mistakes but was going to fight for the middle class, that was a punch in the gut.  Who the hell runs a campaign on "I'm not perfect"?  He sounded defeated at that moment.  

      Even worse, Obama shouldn't be telling us he's going to fight for the middle class, he should be showing us!  He had 90 minutes to fight for the middle class in front of millions of viewers, and we didn't see him put up much of a fight.  If that's how he deals with the titans of the financial sector, no wonder he's so ineffective on domestic issues.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:59:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your analysis jibes with Ron Brownstein's (10+ / 0-)

    article that was published in Oct. 1, in the National Journal where it was discovered that white blue collar women who normally vote were supporting Obama in huge numbers but  unfortunately they have the weakest link as seen below:

    Garin earlier this year described the movement of blue-collar women in battleground states toward Obama as “the demographic development of the summer” and the Obama campaign has tracked the same shift. A Republican strategist familiar with the Romney campaign’s thinking agreed that Obama’s improving position among these economically strained, often culturally conservative women has keyed his rise in most battleground states. “The sheer weight of their advertising, and the shows they targeted that advertising on, it is [aimed at] lower-income, white, working women,” the GOP strategist said. “They are being pounded with this stuff.”

    The powerful new Obama ad that airs the audio of Romney’s hidden-camera “47 percent” remarks, for instance, features three different images of working-class women, each of whom are shown without men present. The spectral opening image, which might have been lifted from a Dorothea Lange photo from the Depression, shows a vulnerable-looking woman surrounded by two children on a barren dirt road. The strong implication is that without the government support Romney is denouncing in the voiceover, the family might be bereft.

    The Obama campaign has heavily targeted its ads on daytime shows that attract a large audience of downscale women, including programs like Judge Judy and Dr. Phil, and networks like Lifetime, Bravo, and the Hallmark Channel. “It is just sheer tonnage and carpet bombing,” said the GOP strategist.

    The effect is measured in the dynamics evident in the swing states. At National Journal’s request, the pollsters conducting the CBS News/New York Times/Quinnipiac, NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist Institute, and CNN/ORC polls of battleground states analyzed their findings to show the results in each state among all minority voters, and then among whites divided into four groups: men and women, with and without a college education (see chart).

    In most respects, the state results track national patterns, suggesting that demography usually trumps geography in shaping voter preferences. The exception is the blue-collar white women.

    Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

    by Micheline on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:11:27 AM PDT

  •  There is useful information in the poll (23+ / 0-)

    Obama screwed the pooch when he showed up for the debate as Johnny I Agreewithhim.

    Democrats were dismayed (my spouse was screaming at the TV and lecturing the kids to not be that kind of jellyfish when they grow up).

    Republicans were encouraged.

    "Independents" - policy expert geniuses that they are - were inclined toward the guy - Romney - who appeared more energized and essentially "framed" all the issues (however inaccurately).

    If the Denver Obama is the Obama we see over the next 4 weeks, he is toast, which would validate the poll.

    Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

    by Minerva on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:14:59 AM PDT

    •  That's What Al Gore Did in One of His Later Debate (6+ / 0-)

      with W. He was trying his hardest to try to find things that he agreed with Bush about. It was pathetically comical.

      "The problem with posting quotes off the Internet is you never know if they're genuine."--Gen. George Washington at the Battle of Gettysburg, February 30, 1908

      by Aspe4 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:25:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting as we saw Mitt as a bully, loud (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban

      talking fast, condescending, smug. Myhusband was yelling at Mitt to stop being such an arrogant jerk bully and praising Obama for remaining calm and presidential.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:35:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In the meantime since I cannot do anything to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies

      change the debate last week, in order to feel less discouraged and less depressed, I doubled down on phone banking. I set higher goals. It helped decrease the anxiety a great deal. I need to feel like I am doing something.  I cannot control what the President does but I can control how I react and what I do.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:37:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One question:Why only counting PEw and not Gallup? (6+ / 0-)

    The truth is in the middle.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:15:24 AM PDT

  •  I live in a Southern state (23+ / 0-)

    I was talking to the receptionist in a doctor's office, who is still fairly young, in her 40's, but having bad back problems, and was actually seeing a chiropractor. I had similar problems, which were eliminated by a steroid shot. She said that wasn't an option, since her job didn't offer health insurance.  I was a little stunned at that, given what her job was. I have seen her in that office for years, always working hard. She said she was worried that Obamacare would require her to purchase something she couldn't afford, what with taking care of kids as a single mom, and so on.  I said I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to make sure hard working people like her were covered, and she was surprised that I felt this way. She is exactly the type of person that needs to be swayed.

    "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    by orrg1 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:21:30 AM PDT

    •  bbb nailed the white women figure (11+ / 0-)

      Low info working white women are predisposed to mistrust Obama. Plus most live with low info working white men who are REALLY against Obama. They are easily influenced by non verbal and emotional cues. Obama should have known that . The whole way he approached this first debate is mind boggling. Incomprehensible.

      •  The 2007 video ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Micheline

        Everyone is talking about the debate. But when we analyze the shifts since the last Pew Poll, we have to consider ALL that happened since the last Pew Poll in september.

        For example, a couple of days before the debate, republicans brought back an old tape of Barack Obama speaking to an audience of black people. A tape that many many americans had never seen or had forgotten. A tape where then Senator Obama seems forceful and talks about the injustices towards black people. A tape where Mr. Obama talks with a slightly different accent than usual, an accent that some describe as "talking black". If I'm not mistaken, that 2007 video was discussed, shown on all the main national networks in the days before the debate.

        Can we hypothesize that this is exactly the kind of video that could make low info working white woman uncomfortable? The kind of video that revives race anxiety towards the President ?

        And please, I'm not saying that race anxiety is the main factor in the change of polls. I'm just saying that we have to take many things into account, and the old video may be one among many factors.

        Since the beginning of the campaign, many have said that the bad economy was making the reelection of Barack Obama very difficult. The accumulation of gaffes by Romney, and the ability of the Obama campaign to define him as an out-of-touch plutocrat , all of this gave quite the boost to the Obama campaign. But isn't it time that we acknowledge that some of the support for Barack Obama has been "soft" ?  That many voters just tune in in October when debate season begins ? That the minute Romney appeared on stage, looked somewhat "competent" and act as the slick liar he has always been and told people all that they want to hear, that his numbers would go up ?

        Yes, it's tragic that President Obama was off his game. But are we supposed to believe that if President Obama would have been more forceful in calling the inconsistencies and the lies, that Romney wouldn't have pushed back with more bullshit? And that a combative Romney wouldn't have made gains ANYWAY ?

  •  For some reason statistics in this country (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    environmentalist, wishingwell

    are treated as if they are some great mystery when they are simply piles of numbers added up and divided in a myriad of ways.

    How those numbers are collected is important. But getting all twisted in the brain over when or how something was added or divided really gets on my nerves.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:25:19 AM PDT

  •  It's not about Party ID (9+ / 0-)

    which is volatile, but rather about demographics like 40% Southerners or 78% Whites, which are not.
    And no, most people don't think Pew deliberately skewed their poll, but in a world where just 5% of people even answer to pollster, there can be response bias. So on Thursday and Friday Republicans could have been much wore willing to take a poll.
    Further, it's ridiculous to focus on a single poll when there are others out there not showing Romney with that much of a gain and in fact his bump already subsiding. Pew is not "The One Gold Standard".

  •  i have no idea. (6+ / 0-)

    i thought there might have been some strategy re: letting Mitt hang himself, but if that was a strategy, the numbers aren't showing it worked.

    i am distressed at what passes for a 'win' in our public discourse.  

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:32:03 AM PDT

  •  Seriously. "Be OK with bad news" (16+ / 0-)

    should be one of the first tenets of the Reality-based Manifesto.

    Now let us be OK with accepting that Obama had a terrible night on style, while Romney had a great one, and that's reflected in a poll that shows Romney with a significant lead for the first time in months.

    And now we move on.

    Thank you for saying this, Triple B. Oh, and - Brooklyn represent!

    "Republicans Vote To Repeal Obama-Backed Bill That Would Destroy Asteroid Headed For Earth." 2/2/11 The Onion

    by brooklyns finest on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:37:01 AM PDT

    •  nitpick: not sure what you mean by "significant" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, duhban

      The reason Pew titled this "...Erases Obama's Lead" and opened the report by saying that Romney "no longer trails" is that his lead was within the statistical margin of error.

      I don't believe in "statistical ties." But this result, whatever else it means, was inconclusive.

      Election protection: there's an app for that!
      Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

      by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:42:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes and since we cannot change what happened (0+ / 0-)

      at the first debate and we have little control about what the President and Mittens do at this point, all we can do is decide how we will act, react, and what we can do to help the campaign.  

      For me, it is doubling down full speed ahead on phonebanking here and volunteering whenever and wherever I am asked.  It helps me deal with all of this.

      Now if I could just shake this flare up of health issues due to a number of factors, most of which is a severe drop in temperatures , talk about polls, our temperatures dropped 2o degrees in 24 hours. It was like the polls dropped at the same time the temperature dropped and my body is screaming bloody murder.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:48:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree. (5+ / 0-)

    In any case, GOTV is more important than the polls at this point.

    People are voting!

    Repubs started up the car, hit the throttle and sent it over the cliff, and now they're complaining that the black guy hasn't fixed it fast enough.

    by Bush Bites on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:37:20 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely , the ground game is important, that is (0+ / 0-)

      where the action is and where we can do the most good. We cannot control what the candidates say and do but we can do our part on the ground.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:49:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The poll said two things... (8+ / 0-)

    Romney's performance before push back and UE numbers had an effect.  I am not sure why anyone thinks a poll taken on Thursday and Friday primarily would be great fro the President.  

    Republican enthusiasm went up,  Democratic enthusiasm went down.

    Now, I don't think the debate performance was worthy of mass fits of rage by Democrats from pundits and voters alike, but it happened.  And then people came to their senses a day later.  Too bad that wasn't soon enough.

    It is what it is.

    So this is what you get.  But in the end, I think by the time this week's debate happens, we will be back at the status quo with a minor move towards Romney...

    But as I said yesterday, I hope this once and for all ends the President and his Administration unending goal of gaining consensus through agreement as opposed driving public support to the point where the other side has to come your way.

    Maybe this is a blessing in disguise for post election, but I could understand if people are not optimistic about a move from centrism.  Seems like we are being set up for a major move to the middle again post election, and I can guarantee that will not end well.  Hope I am wrong..

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:39:08 AM PDT

    •  Simpson Bowles. The fix is in. Obama will be (13+ / 0-)

      at the helm. That's something were going to have to accept.

      We will probably have a Republican president after Obama (provided Hillary doesn't run) because the next Republican leader is going to come out foursquare in favor of social security and medicare and run against the Democratic president who cut them.

      •  If they didn't learn their lesson in 2009 (15+ / 0-)

        Stimulus, 2010, HIR, 2011 grand bargain, they all deserve the demolition that is coming to them.  Hopefully we can get some Scotus retirements in the interim before dems are kicked out.  

        The fix is in within the beltway.  But folks like us have to be willing to push back regardless of implication.  I see my role as getting the President reelected, doing my small part.  But I feel zero obligation to support his every move no matter how ridiculous.   That is part of how we got here. Blue dogs had more pull than liberals. They are now gone.  So what is the excuse now?

        “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

        by justmy2 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:00:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I fear you are right. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quagmiremonkey, Mr Robert

          The fact is, it will get worse before (and if) it gets better. I guess the moderates are the reason why falling civilizations wait until they are literally in bondage before they consider a response that is equally asymmetrical to the forces that subdued them.

          Climate Change may well make of this a moot point. Struggle for survival in the "winner take all" model the centrists seem willing to accept, will not be pretty for anyone, though, without a fight, we can be sure that the 1% will get through much more comfortably than most. I understand Bush has purchased a perch on top of the world's largest acquifer for the occasion.

          Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

          by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:01:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  We can't accept it. (6+ / 0-)

        If we accept it we have no hope of stopping it short or long term.

        We have to be prepared to make President and his administration's, the Congress's, and centrists everywhere, including here, LIVING HELL until the social safety net is restored (if not strengthened).

        Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT PONIES, DAMN IT!

        Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

        by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:56:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If this happens, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quagmiremonkey, Mr Robert

        and believe me, it scares me to death that it might,  The Democratic Party will have lost me for life.
         

        Simpson Bowles. The fix is in. Obama will be
        at the helm. That's something were going to have to accept.

        We will probably have a Republican president after Obama (provided Hillary doesn't run) because the next Republican leader is going to come out foursquare in favor of social security and medicare and run against the Democratic president who cut them.

        And no, I will not become a Republican either.  The social safety net is the only thing that stands between the middle class and total poverty.  So if Obama guts the greatest achievements of the Democratic Party and the Dems in Congress go along with him, then I will officially become apathetic and will have lost all respect for Obama.  

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by gulfgal98 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:29:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunate. (0+ / 0-)

        SS/Medicare is one of my red lines.

      •  By the way...I suspect many believe this is (0+ / 0-)

        the case...thus the lack of enthusiasm....

        “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

        by justmy2 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:25:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We blew past the country's middle long time ago. (0+ / 0-)

      The Village's middle is something else again.

      If the fix is in and Obama is bound and determined to do BS,  I'd suggest he not talk about it at the next debate.  He better at least pretend to some concern about the Democratic party platform.

      •  Why do you want him to win by lying (0+ / 0-)

        about his intent to reduce the income that most of will need in our old age?

        Are you, too, interested in cutting SS benefits?

        "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." Barack Obama

        by quagmiremonkey on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:15:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hell no (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quagmiremonkey

          That's one of my red lines.  I actually think he should reject BS, but that appears to be part of his ideology.  But if he's bound and determined to do BS, it really shouldn't be his opening offer.  If he comes out now for no changes and has to change later, it not a lie.  It's just smart bargaining.

          •  But with most Americans wanting SS uncut (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr Robert

            he should easily be able to join with the majority of his party in blocking benefit reduction. It's sad to see him so devoted to cuts that he openly risks losing the enthusiasm and even support of the majority of Americans -- during an election!

            If liberal activists are not willing to send a clear signal to him that his own reelection hinges on protecting and expanding SS/Medicare benefits, then it appears there is nothing to encourage him to do so, given his apparent commitment to  this conservative agenda. We have very little time before he will have everything he wants from us and can do as he pleases.

            "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." Barack Obama

            by quagmiremonkey on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:50:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  SNL skit nailed the debate. /nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

    by kj in missouri on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:41:00 AM PDT

    •  Yes and No, I laughed at some of it but as (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri

      usual, the show is not as funny or in point as before. It is not as good as the days of Darrell Hammond, Dana Garvey as Bush the elder, and whomever played Al Gore and Will Farrell as George W.  Those political skits were hilarious.

      It might have nailed it but the impersonators are not as good as previous seasons and some of the jokes fall flat or are overdone.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:52:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't trash Pew poll, but examine it critically (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chaboard, Cedwyn, kefauver, duhban

    As another diary pointed out, if the electorate ends up being R+5 as reflected in this Pew poll, then Obama doesn't have a chance.  But that's never gonna happen.  In a worst case scenario election, the D/R split will be even.  The reality this year will likely be somewhere between 2008 and 2010 - probably something D+4 or D+5.

    That doesn't mean these numbers should be unskewed, but simply that we should considering them through a critical lens.  I think it's fair to recognize the fact that the bulk of the poll interviews were conducted during the absolute low point of the Obama campaign, and that's probably a significant reason they got an R+5 sample.

    Also, if you look back at the last couple of presidential elections, some of the most extreme polls in both directions came from Pew.  They released a poll in October '08 showing Obama up 15, a definite outlier at the time.  These are things that merit consideration.

    At the same, pay lots of attention to Pew's final poll before the election.  That's where they get it right.

    •  But the "critical lens" shouldn't focus on sample, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      because that is not the issue.  Point-in-time polls, even as a portion of a issue-tracking survey, are subject to the latest news cycle.  

      In this instance, we are fortunate, because these poll results are the product of one, VERY BIG news poop directly prior to the collection of the responses, so it's easy to see what to blame for the shift in opinion.

      These results are an artifact of the first debate.  The job that the "critical lens" needs to complete is to understand what the numbers mean (not how they must be wrong).

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:09:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I really think Nate Silver has nailed it, and in (0+ / 0-)

      2008, he was spot on about nearly everything.

      I think the worst case scenario is that it is very very close and comes down to one state like 2004 but we are the incumbent like Bush in this case. Nate talks about that in his recent column.

      Well I should say of course, the worst case scenario is losing or a repeat of 2000. ..but I refuse to even think that as it is zaps my energy and causes me to lose my focus on GOTV which I need to prioritize.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:55:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What's wrong with questioning the poll? (5+ / 0-)

    The Republicans questioned the UE numbers. Did we think they were foolish, sure. But who got a voice on every Sunday public affairs show? And who got news organizations working to debunk (and at the same time lend partial credence) to their assertions?

    Your diary, like the thinking of so many Democrats, is so keen on being "correct" that you lose sight of what's really happening outside. The very thing you complain about Obama having done in trying to negotiate in good faith with the opposition is precisely what this diary attempts to do. Play by the old rules and old paradigm in which institutions and their products go unchallenged.

  •  Perhaps Pew is simply flawed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    That makes more sense to me.

    Snotty Brown - 2012

    by kitebro on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:42:11 AM PDT

  •  Right on (4+ / 0-)

    The poll isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. It DID reflect the post-debate enthusiasm among the Rs.

    But it's also not skewed as much as people wish to make it. This is the same kind of sample that was giving us those heady pro-Obama numbers. If this poll is off, then so were those old ones.

    Reality matters. This can still work out but only if Obama comes ready to slug it out next time and the time after that. I'm looking forward to seeing Biden go up against Ryan, but in the end this comes back to Obama. If he won't fight, we won't win.

  •  So let me ask: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duhban

    If you have a conservative sample, poll more Republicans and fewer Democrats how the hell does anyone expect a conservative sample packed with more Republicans to produce anything but a Romney lead?

    This poll is why you get a shift among women that the current poll shows.

    Women didn't suddenly shift to Romney. It shows the increase in Republicans.

    "I didn't hear you all trashing the poll last month."

    If they're going to go exact opposite, they should oversample Republicans and skew liberal/moderate.

    The poll that showed Obama ahead was still skewed conservative, and he still came out ahead.

    Unless you're saying the polls should be skewed conservative and oversample Republicans, this poll is bogus. Such a sample would mean Mitt Romney has led all along.

    Sept. likely voters

    Northwest 399

    Midwest 534

    South 804

    West 455

    Conservative 911

    Moderate 741

    Liberal 470

    Conservative Republican 501

    Mod/Lib Republican 159

    Mod/Cons Democrat 435

    Liberal Democrat 338

    Current LV

    Republican 36 percent
    Democrat 31 percent
    Independent 30 percent

    September LV

    Republican 29 percent
    Democrat 39 percent
    Independent 30 percent

    Current RV

    Republican 33 percent
    Democrat 32 percent
    Independent 31 percent

    September RV

    Republican 28 percent
    Democrat 37 percent
    Independent 31 percent

    http://www.people-press.org/...
     

    •  No doubt Obama did worse on Pew. But skew matters. (0+ / 0-)

      Just because a study is internally consistent in design from one time point to another does not mean its samples and results are representative of the actual conclusion it aims to make, nor does it mean the study is immune to other fallacies and pitfalls such as the effect of the time point of a particular polling.

      If the sample group has been more heavily weighted toward Southern White Republicans, that group will be more enthusiastic after a strong Romney debate performance.

      The results of such a poll, especially right after the said debate, will show a bigger Romney-positive result than other national polls with less of a Southern White Republican presence in its sample group. And that's exactly what we're seeing in Pew but not Gallup.

      But what does that really mean for the election, determined through the Electoral College? Romney will now win Texas by a margin of 70% instead of 58%?!

      •  A) a proper tracking survey doesn't have a (0+ / 0-)
        conclusion that it aims to make
        it asks questions, it reports responses and, if paid for, it analyzes the results.

        B) this claim:

        If the sample group has been more heavily weighted toward Southern White Republicans, that group will be more enthusiastic after a strong Romney debate performance.
        is based on some basic and vital misunderstandings.

        -- first, a demographic (such as Southern Whites) can be "over-represented" or "over-sampled" in a survey's unweighted or raw totals, but that larger-than-RW group will then be weighted downward, in order to bring it in line with a nationally representative sample and to reduce any undue influence the oversample would otherwise have on the overall percentages.

        -- second "Republican" isn't a demographic data point.  Weights should never be applied to control for claimed party affiliation -- because "claimed party affiliation" is actually a statement of public confidence in their own party's candidate; it's an indirectly-stated opinion, that is, one of the survey results.

        -- thirdly a level of enthusiasm among some particular demographic would never be a sampling weighting issue; it would be a conclusion that should be reported if the data bore it true.  The assumption of a level of enthusiasm among some particular demographic, however (no matter how apparently reasonable an assumption), is just as begging for trouble.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:06:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Check out Rand (0+ / 0-)

          For a proper tracking survey.

          The problem polls like this have is that response rates vary with enthusiasm. When poll response is very high that doesn't matter much, but when it is low, self selection bias makes these sorts of horse race comparisons very iffy.

          Rand uses a panel which it weights for voting behavior in the last election (2008). That eliminates this sort of partisan ID bias.

          This poll is crap. And I am an expert/ PhD in marketing who teaches Market Research.

  •  I would like to write a diary "they are sad losers (5+ / 0-)

    when they question and decry poll numbers, we are saavy smarties when we do".

    This also reminds me of our disbelief of Bush unemployment figures vs todays right wing "everything is wrong, they're all in on it" scenario.

    We need a mirror check...after the election. In the meantime, just get out and help out.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:55:27 AM PDT

  •  I fail to understand the point in countering (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, wishingwell, duhban

    diaries discrediting one poll.  I don't think Romney is leading nationally by 4.  Romney was never going to stay in the 41-45 range forever.  The debate was a moment where things were always going to tighten...throw in the manufactured media "Here comes Romney" and this is what you get.  It's not like a good Obama debate performance would have given him an additional 3 points.    

    I really don't put a lot of stock in national polls nor the people that argue that they are more predictive than state polls.  I just think modern elections are much more about micro-targeted messages.  Job approval would be the only national number that I would ever consider looking at.    

    1964 Cassius Clay vs Sonny Liston, 1997 Masters Tiger Woods vs Field, 2008 Barack Obama vs Field

    by ZenMaster Coltrane on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:00:05 AM PDT

  •  I was on the phone with a friend of mine (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, Bush Bites, Boston to Salem

    who is also a broker.  We were discussing GM stock.  I said 'it is a stock worth holing onto for about four years since GM takes off during recoveries.  unless Romney wins, then we should sell immediately because all you need to do is watch the sunday Fox business shows and you cen tell the republicans will demand GM be put back through bankruptcy and all the pensions cancelled'

    he said 'that's nuts, Romney can't win'.

    i said: 'yes he can'.

    This ain't over until its over.  Alot of people a desperate for a nice fairy tale of free-market magic making all their problems go away.  And romney tells good tales.

    and their contempt for the Latin schools was applauded by Theodoric himself, who gratified their prejudices, or his own, by declaring that the child who had trembled at a rod would never dare to look upon a sword.

    by ban48 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:00:17 AM PDT

  •  The polls are ALWAYS skewed. (8+ / 0-)

    We just don't know which way any given poll is skewed.  That's why we have more than one poll.  If the polls were dead on, we'd have one poll and that would be the ultimate answer.  Instead, we take multiple polls from all sorts of different pollsters and average them.

    •  Reality is skewed, therefore I don't trust reality (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      What do I trust? What my gut tells me, which conveniently is what I want to hear.

      And no I don't mean those rude sounds it sometimes makes after I had beans.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:42:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Careful With FAlse Equivalences (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, kefauver, duhban, dfe

    I, for one, see a difference between critically evaluating the sample in one or two polls that look like potential outliers and blindly insisting that hundreds of polls by dozens of firms are wrong because they don't match my preconceived notions of party id.

    Maybe that's just me.

  •  Get off your high horse! (8+ / 0-)
    For all you folks trashing the Pew poll, I had better not ever see you tout another Pew poll. I don't care how much the numbers improve, you and Pew are done.
    This was the biggest swing of any of the polls after the debate, and it was very unusual for Pew especially.  I think Pew is one of the best pollsters out there, so when you see something so out of line with their normal behavior, and with the other polls, it's fair to question what is happening.  And when you look at those raw numbers, it's apparent that it is not a representative sample of the country and adjustments need to be made.

    From the 2 snippets you posted, one from this poll, and one from a previous poll, it's apparent  this poll sampled the demographics typically favoring Dems. slightly less (2%).  I also consider Pew to lean slightly Dem.  The sample size in this poll is also smaller.

    So I think their sample is slightly less favorable to Dems, and with the larger margin of error, I think this particular poll is just an outlier.  

    We certainly shouldn't be yelling conspiracy, but it's certainly fair to try and find out why a good polling firm has an unusual poll.  

    When the major pollsters showed a bounce after the debate, there was a lot of disappointment, but few were crying foul.  This was an exceptional poll, it is fair to ask why the unusual results.

  •  Thanks for the sanity, BBB (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mariken, imfunnytoo, Ryvr, blueoasis, JVolvo

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:10:28 AM PDT

  •  Not Skewed (5+ / 0-)

    But an 18 point jump with women to Todd Akin's party suggests an inadequate defense against response bias.

    But honestly, I tire of having to push back against the doomster left fringe who salivate in getting one last shot against a President that they never liked nor supported.  

    Yes Mitt, I do believe people are entitled to food.

    by Rustbelt Dem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:11:13 AM PDT

  •  Basically agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    imfunnytoo, dfe

    It seemed obvious to me at the time of the debate that ROmney would get a bounce, a real, measurable bounce and maybe more.  You'd have to be in serious denial to think Obama won that debate.

    OTOH, it is worth acknowledging that to the extent that some people are interpreting Pew as an indication that Romney experienced an 11 or 12 point swing overnight as a result of the debate (read: Andrew Sullivan), that is basically just as ill-informed and nutty a conclusion given the change in their sample.  When you account for that change, the intra-Pew swing is about the same as other polling outfits, I think.  

    Can't we all just agree that ROmney got a 3-4 point bounce out of that debate, that whether that holds or not is dependent in part on our efforts and in part on the President and his people, and just get back to work?

    "Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it." -- Stolen from homogenius, who in turn stole it from a coffee mug.

    by Mother of Zeus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:15:08 AM PDT

  •  Why are we are talking about (7+ / 0-)

    national polls anyways. Did the national vote do Al Gore any good?

    •  From politico: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, wishingwell, dfe
      Campaign officials said any change will be confined by Romney’s own cautious nature. And they are candid that their electoral map still looks terrible: Romney is behind in nearly every vital state. Ohio still looks very tough to win and New Hampshire, once a possibility, looks very bleak, officials say.
  •  There's a big difference between skewing and a ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, Whitefish, dfe

    ... bad sample. The crosstabs of the Pew poll are questionable to say the least. Doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory just  a bad sample. To believe the Pew poll  is to believe that if I randomly select a White voter between 18-49 that there's a SIGNIFICANTLY  higher probability that I'll find A Romney voter than if I pick a random White voter 50 and older. Whites 50 and older  have consistently  voted for Republicans by wider margins than Whites between 18 and 49 throughout modern Presidential election history. To believe that as a result of 1 debate there is this cataclysmic shift among this demographic is beyond pushing the bounds of credulity.  We should take the Pew poll with a grain of salt - it does show movement towards Romney but the magnitude of that movement as stated in the Pew Poll  is what needs to be questioned.

  •  as I said, nothing wrong with the Pew poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mother of Zeus, kefauver, wishingwell

    it was consistent with what other polls found on Thursday and Friday... but, at this point, the data is old and this poll simply reflects a sweet spot for Romney that other polls suggest has already passed.

    This suggests that the Romney bounce represented more of a shift in voter enthusiasm than a massive shift in the electorate. You may be correct that there was some shift among non-college education white women under 50 but the individual MOE for this microscopic subset of voters is enormous. This is the same reason it's usually silly to go after small sections of the crosstabs in general.

    Alternately, one could argue that this particular subset of voters were unlikely to watch the debate as the debate viewing demographics skewed old, educated and quite partisan. It's more likely the bounce was driven by an intense negative media day for Obama. Keep in mind, it's not just not having a computer at work that keeps these people from following politics but also young kids at home. I'm a hardcore partisan, and I only tuned into the debate after mini-Stroszek had decided to stop bouncing off the walls and go to sleep.

    With that said, you are absolutely right to criticize the President's performance, but this is one data point that isn't telling us anything new and doesn't particularly warrant the disproportionate attention it's received. As another diarist pointed out, the Pew poll represents a valid, worst case scenario where Republicans are extremely energized and Democrats are so demoralized they stay home in 2010 numbers. That's an unlikely possibility but still one that the President needs to guard against.

    HOWEVER, the tracking polls suggest that Obama is being given a second chance and, right now, the electorate mostly looks like it did before the debate.

  •  The Pew poll wasn't skewed, just way off (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stroszek, kefauver

    You fell for a poll that is an obvious outlier with a lousy sample.  It happens to the best of polls.  They were also way off the LAST time they published a poll, showing Obama with an unrealistic lead.  Not sure what is going on with Pew, but they have sucked so far this cycle.  

    Now, why would you fall for, and run with, such an obvious outlier?   Are you aware that Gallup showed a 5% race yesterday?  Rasmussen, a Republican-leaning outfit, showed an exact tie, which is what they showed just a few days before the debate.  Rand's poll showed very minimal movement, and is now showing the opposite.  

    So, for YOU to sell the state of the race in your diary as what the Pew poll suggests is highly disingenious.  Yes, Romney had a couple of very good polling days, Thursday and Friday, but, no, that did not last.  Even PPP made that clear in their state polls (via Twitter they reported that after Friday their numbers went back to pre-debate numbers again) and it is also apparent in the SEIU/Dailykos poll they ran, which culled most of their samples from those two days (75%.)    

    So, yes, acknowledge polls, but let your handwringing and pearl clutching be tempered by the FACTS before your eyes.   Likely Pew had a similar lopsided sample of mostly Thursday and Friday that the PPP poll for SEIU/Dailykos was stuck with.  

    Relax.  You are hyperventilating over an outdated poll that was likely crap to begin with (just like their massive Obama lead last time that nobody else showed was laughable) and that amplified the crap by likely getting a majority of their responses on Thusday and Friday.   7.8% happened since then.  Obama responses to debate lies happened since then.  We are seeing it normalize in the Ras and Gallup trackers, the Rand tracker shows movement towards Obama as well as of this morning.  Later today you will likely see the Reuters tracking poll move more towards Obama as well.   So, with the trackers showing pre-debate, normalized numbers now, you want everybody to freak out over a poll that was done before the weekend, at the heighth of a Romney bounce, rather than see if the bounce lasts (which according to the trackers it has not)?   Why?  What is the purpose of that?  

    Before you go off, YES, OF COURSE, Obama was not good in the debate and needs to do better next time.  That goes without saying.  I don't need a poll from last week to tell me that.  Quit hyperventilating and look at reality.  That reality shows Obama with a 2% lead in the all-important swing states with right-leaning pollster Rasmussen yesterday:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

    Shouldn't you be focusing on THAT rather than going bananas over an obvious outlier of a poll?  Aren't the swing states and polls showing the state of the race there, infinitely more important than national polls?   Even if Romney were ahead slightly nationally,  why would that matter more than what happens in the swing states?  Do you not understand that whether Romney does better in Texas or Mississippi is meaningless when at the same time Obama does well in the states that count because of presence and constant advertising?  

    •  Sorry, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      PPP just confirmed Pew's findings. Obama is down by 2. People declaring themselves Republican are up.

      Do not tell me that PPP is skewed towards Republicans. Please don't even try to go there.

      •  sorry, but you clearly didn't read his post (5+ / 0-)

        He didn't say the poll was wrongly skewed towards Republicans and he mentioned the PPP poll.

        Yes, Romney had a couple of very good polling days, Thursday and Friday, but, no, that did not last.  Even PPP made that clear in their state polls (via Twitter they reported that after Friday their numbers went back to pre-debate numbers again) and it is also apparent in the SEIU/Dailykos poll they ran, which culled most of their samples from those two days (75%.)
        Likely Pew had a similar lopsided sample of mostly Thursday and Friday that the PPP poll for SEIU/Dailykos was stuck with.
        In summary: yes, there was a Romney bounce on Thursday/Friday. Every pollster reflected this. However, pollsters who have been in the field since then have shown a stark reversal of those trends back in Obama's favor. Pew and PPP were echos of polling from late last week, but polls that more heavily towards more recent data (Ras, Gallup, RAND, Ipsos) indicate much stronger numbers for Obama post-jobs report.
      •  PPP also heavily sampled closer to the debates (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaurenMonica, kefauver, wishingwell

        and things were very different immediately following the debates.

        Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

        by Cedwyn on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:45:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  willynel, WHAT? (5+ / 0-)

        No, they DID NOT CONFIRM the findings.  They stated that a vast majority of that poll was in the field on Thursday and Friday (because of callbacks,) so THAT means that that poll has the exact same issues that the Pew poll had.    We ALREADY know that the current state of the race is completely different from what it was on Thursday and Friday, courtesy of the trackers.  In fact, it is almost back to pre-debate levels now.  Gallup had Obama going back to 5% with registered voters, which suggests that Obama had good Saturday and Sunday polling.   Rasmussen showed an exact tie, which means Romney lost two points off his initial bounce, so they showed movement towards Obama as well.

        PPP has already stated that Romney had good Thursday and Friday numbers, but that after those two days they saw polls revert back to pre-debate levels.   Are you not aware of the facts here?  

        •  The stated in the poll (0+ / 0-)

          that more people IDENTIFIED themselves as republican. They didn't just go out and get them some conservatives.

          These people identified themselves as republican, which probably means that the right is showing up again.

          The President screwed up. That's what this poll says, and it is costing him. It might last longer than you think.

          Those number of calls after Thursday and Friday was a lot less.

          Look, I hope you are right, but I don't want to sit in denial over this.

    •  Pew was like this in 2008 as well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, wishingwell

      The lack of party ID weighting seems to make it highly sensitive to voter enthusiasm. Late in the cycle in 2008, they had Obama +14 then +15. Of course, if Obama had won by those margins, Democrats probably won about 98% of the seats in the House.

      I think Pew is useful for balancing out other polls in averages (in this case, their own, unrealistic pre-debate poll), but their individual results are often just crazy taken in isolation.

      •  Yes, I remember that from 2008. Some (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stroszek, wishingwell

        crazy findings.   Indeed, after Pew came out with their outlier poll for Obama showing him with an 8 point lead 3 weeks ago is when the unskewed movement on the right started gaining major steam.    

        In the meantime, the trackers are showing a steady race, no crazy movement, everything is about where it was pre-debate, give or take a point.   ALL OF THEM.  ALL FOUR OF THEM - Rasmussen, Gallup, Rand, Reuters.    Yet, we are supposed to put stock in a poll that shows an unrealistic 12% swing in just 3 weeks?    THAT is crazy.  Unhinged.  

  •  It's one poll (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mother of Zeus, Cedwyn, kefauver

    The sample may have been an outlier.

    We need more data to truly determine trending.

    People freaking over it will insure it becomes the trend.

  •  Are u kidding us Bad Boy? (6+ / 0-)

    So you think that Romney came across as defending WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid?  Please provide me with one sentence from the debate to back that claim up.

    Sure Romney got away with lots of lies.  But, he's hardly the champion of these programs.  If that's what my fellow citizens came away with then there is no way to win this election.  

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:29:25 AM PDT

    •  keep reading -- BBB didn't say Romney did these (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Ryvr, blueoasis

      things:

      They don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things.

      Because otherwise, may as well try out the new guy.

      The diarist said that, without the aggressive support of the incumbent POTUS on these issues, disenchanted voters might well go with the devil they don't know.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:44:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your thoughts contradict themselves. (6+ / 0-)

    You stated this.

    "These are the low information voters."

    Then you go on to say this.

    "What that tells me is that these ladies not only want to hear about policy, they want to see a fighter who is going to go to the mat for them. These women are the ones who are going to have to rely on Social Security and Medicare since a huge number are unmarried. They don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things."

    Really. Low information voters that want to hear policy yet in this poll went with Romney.

    They went against Obama because he shook his head in agreement with the guy who wants to cut entitlements.

    So which one are they. Policy wonks who bought the lies of Romney and disagreed with Obama shaking his head or low information voters who don't know the GOP wants to cut entitlements.  

    If Conservatism was so great you would think they could find a sane person to represent it. Since the only people who represent it seem to be insane. I'm waiting for the day conservatism is labeled a mental illness

    by SharksBreath on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:31:57 AM PDT

    •  I know it is difficult to (5+ / 0-)

      empathize with, but there are people in this country who truly have no idea which candidate will actually fight for them. They go entirely off of presentation and who looks and sounds stronger. That is how we got 8 years of W.  Part of it is lack of education and part, as diarist correctly points out, is simple exhaustion.  I think it is hard for some people to comprehend what the life of a single mother working 2 jobs and trying to keep her children healthy and safe is like.  This is not someone with the time or energy to follow policy AT ALL, even if she had the predisposition to do so in the first place.

      "Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it." -- Stolen from homogenius, who in turn stole it from a coffee mug.

      by Mother of Zeus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:36:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stale argument - (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, wishingwell

        and not buying it anymore.
        i personally know two low information working moms.
        they don't follow politics - and Barack's policies help them.
        NOT me.
        as in his policies help them immensely, and do nothing for me.
        that goes for most of his policies.
        i'm completely  fine with that - it's why i fight for him.
        because he helps those who need it.
        and i really don't need help.

        so these two friends of mine - they read people.
        they read US magazine. they read TMZ.
        while working their butts off too.
        they don't read anything on politics.
        they know all about Suri. and Katie. And the Princess sunbathing.
        and they were thought Romney was awesome and now they really like him! and are probably going to vote for him!! wheee!

        this is played out across America.
        it's reflected in this huge swing in the PEW poll.
        and to make up these tired excuses for them, is no longer even believable.

        if they want Romney.
        they can have him - and when he decimates their safety net?
        I  won't cry- as I did not cry in 2004.

        We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

        by Christin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:01:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You just made my argument for me (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action, wishingwell, itsbenj

          Minus the empathy part.

          "Put your big-girl panties on and deal with it." -- Stolen from homogenius, who in turn stole it from a coffee mug.

          by Mother of Zeus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:16:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I hear you. (0+ / 0-)

          But I also hear Mother of Zeus. You both describe this "low-information voter" well. You have simply lost patience with them. And I completely get that. Completely.

          Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

          by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:05:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So, These Women Believed That Romney (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, crankypatriot

    was going to protect them?  Really?  They must be morons.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:33:10 AM PDT

  •  I think that Kohut lied yesterday on NPR (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    Robert Siegel specifically asked him when the Pew poll was taken, and Kohut replied that the majority had been on Saturday and Sunday, well after the Jobs # report came out. Now it appears that only 13% of the poll had actually been taken on Sunday, obviously not anywhere near the majority of polling.

  •  I think pew's poll captures a real but extremely (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rennert, kefauver, wishingwell

    temporary Romney bounce. It was conducted the 4th through 7th. I don't know how many of the interviews were conducted on the 4th, but when the 4th rolled off of Gallup's 3 day average, Obama's job approvzz;
    al jumped 5 points. Meanwhile, Rasmussen showed him going from -2 to tied in the head to head for the same period.

    `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

    by seanwright on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:38:50 AM PDT

    •  Not so sure it will (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert

      be temporary unless

      a) Romney and Ryan start making huge gaffes again and the media pounces the way it was before the debate,

      b) Biden and Obama capably smack down Ryan and Romney in the forthcoming debates.

      Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

      by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:08:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is similar to what Nate Silver is saying (0+ / 0-)

      to a degree.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:12:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  According to some here (4+ / 0-)

    You are officially predicting if not hoping for Obama's loss, by saying such things. Don't you realize that Obama is the Greatest Debator EVER and that his debate performance was yet another brilliant example of the sort of 22D chess that got us a rock-solid finreg law and Medicare For All? Shame on you!

    Don't believe these polls, especially when they don't tell you what you want to hear and believe in your heart is still true.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:39:07 AM PDT

    •  Kovie, your comment makes no sense at all (6+ / 0-)

      The trackers don't show any of this, and the Swing State polling shows Obama in a consistent lead.  Do you UNDERSTAND that swing state polling is more important than national polling anyway?   But, even if one puts predictive stock on national polling in the ridiculous way done here, do you understand that a poll that is in the field right after a major event (a won debate, a party convention) is NOT the true state of the race, that things tend to settle and fall back to a certain level a few days later?  

      Why are there so many IDIOTS who think that you can take a snap poll of 3 or 4 days, especially after a major event, and BAM, that is then the true state of the race?   Baffling.  

    •  How about letting "some here" speak 4 themselves? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kefauver, sviscusi

      As opposed to ginning up a stupid straw man to try to start a pie fight?

      When I see comments like this, all it means is that no one is actually saying the things you want to argue against, so you have to make them up yourself.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:05:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, they are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action

        I've read and been the target of some of them. My comment was no more of a straw man or pie fight starter than this diary is. If you don't like things you don't like, move on. But jeez louise don't tell me that some aren't denying reality here simply because it displeases them. Obama lost the debate and polls are reflecting that. It doesn't mean he's in serious trouble, but it does mean that he lost and it had a negative impact. Accept it or not, the numbers show it.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:12:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And he did it without a teleprompter n/t (0+ / 0-)

      The only trouble with retirement is...I never get a day off!

      by Mr Robert on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One point you all are missing (0+ / 0-)

    if the polls remain like this on election day, it makes the election that much easier to steal via 'voter fraud' which would be very difficult if Obama were up 8.  

  •  I'm just baffled (14+ / 0-)

    by why we think any of this helps...

    - I don't think trashing the Pew poll helps.  
    - I don't think continuing to talk down Obama's performance helps
    - I don't think talking about all the things he did wrong and what the polls tell us about how wrong he was helps.
    - I don't think talking up how brilliant his strategy was during the debate helps either.
    - I sure as heck don't think us arguing over anything helps us all that much.
    - And if I'm blunt, I'd say I really don't think us opining about what Obama's gotta do now is even all that helpful.  I think his campaign has been pretty brilliant so far, he's owned his own lackluster performance, and I think they know very well what they need to do now.

    Sure, we can go on and on and on (and on) about it all, but all those things do is keep that old narrative alive - not our best moment in this campaign.  Why are we not trying to move on to bigger and better things to increase Democratic base enthusiasm, and things that will keep the narrative on our issues, our agenda, and how our guy is the guy we need?

    •  what you said. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, vespers, wishingwell

      and thank you for saying it!

      "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

      by kj in missouri on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:43:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Puppets. (9+ / 0-)

      Daily Kos Members are puppets of the villagers and the media.
        Simple as that.
      And it's embarrassing and painful to watch.
      And as much as we gloat the media is dead - LOL.
      No they are not. They drive the story. They pull the strings.
      They set the narrative.
      They decided that this was all boring, and after having their fun with shredding Romney, they moved on to to their new plaything, the president.
      They could have made the story that yes, Obama could have showed more fight in the debate, while still reporting on the massive amount of lies and falsehoods uttered by MR.

      But nope - they decided they were having none of that.
      It's okay to attack Gore for sighs, but not Romney for his lies.
      Okay.
      Now we hear it's not their job to call MR on his lies.
      it's Obama's job.
      They just report on great body language!

      And DK and others follow the pied piper.
      Cringe worthy.

      We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

      by Christin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:52:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, Christin

        i don't understand what's wrong with saying yeah, Pres Obama should have been more present, and yeah, Mitt was unhinged and letting him get all crazy on camera might well have been a smart decision at the time, and saying yeah, what the hell Ed Schultz, come down off the ledge, it was the first debate out of three!

        it's the winner, loser mentality, Charlie Sheen on steroids.   that's all this dimension seems to want to acknowledge.

        blogs used to be the echo chamber.  now it's Twitter.
        and Twitter ran with Big Bird.  

        the Big Bird Bounce.   who polls that?  :-)

        i need more coffee.

        "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

        by kj in missouri on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:08:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Honesty. (5+ / 0-)

      Some people like to keep it real. Efforts to stop that seem to be:

      1) pretending Obama is on target, when, in fact, because of issues like Simpson-Bowles, he clearly is not: it feeds the enthusiasm gap you would otherwise like to address. It's no aberration that Obama does best when he mimics a populist. That's what people want. Doing or being anything else feeds the enthusiasm gap. Hard to stop the tire from losing air without plugging the hole. Let's face it, Simpson-Bowles is a big, ominous, birthmark on the dark underbelly of the Obama campaign at this point. It's emblematic of the betrayal that at least some of the "gappers" are trying to hope is not coming. Simpson-Bowles kills that suspension of disbelief.

      2) pretending Obama (and the Democratic Party) are invincible, when they are not. This feeds the sense that the centrists don't believe they have to answer to anyone but themselves, that anyone who does not fall in line without question are fools, even if that causes centrists to fail to meet their (our) objective: win the election.

      3) pretending that Obama has not given an important breath of fresh life to the Romney campaign, from within the Republican Party -- Republican pundits, Republican voters and other Republican candidates, many of whom were discouraged, disenchanted and/or disgusted -- makes envisioning a satisfactory recovery, necessary even more for the down-ticket races than the Obama race itself, I believe, far less plausible.

      Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

      by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:23:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent comment! Bravo American in Kathmandu (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      American in Kathmandu

      what we can control is we can GOTV, volunteer, the ground game is where it is at.

      I think it is like the Serenity Prayer in a way that is said at the end of AA meetings.

      Serenity to accept the things I can
      Courage to change the things I can
      And the Wisdom to know the difference.

      We cannot control of change past events. We cannot control what the President does.  We can change what we do for the effort in terms of getting voters to the polls.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:17:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The issue is not with the poll itself (12+ / 0-)

    The issue is that the news media is using one poll, and one poll only, to drive a narrative (Romney leads, is Obama toast?  Horse race!  Whee!) without any explanation or caveats (other polls don't agree, this poll was taken mostly in the days immediately after the debate, the poll sample changed significantly, etc.)  I accept the Pew poll for what it is, but we need to look at the big picture... and the news media definitely isn't.

  •  the pew poll was legitimate but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christin, vespers, wishingwell

    It was only one poll, and should be viewed in the context of all polls:

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    Note: I liked Obama's performance in the debate, but it was a loss given that many didn't (including many of my friends and loved ones).

    I kept thinking:  "wow, Romney got caught lying again" but this debate wasn't for me or for my informed Republican friends.  

    "Obama won. Get over it."

    by onanyes on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:53:32 AM PDT

  •  A sudden 12 point shift (4+ / 0-)

    is hard to believe, that's all. I think that this is an outlier and that Pew's later polls will trend a little more in Obama's direction.

  •  Sorry, bbb, poll internals matter. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inkin, doroma, kefauver, sviscusi, KroneckerD

    Throwing up your hands and saying "Math is hard!" when it comes to party ID numbers changing in polls is silly.

    Don't give me this "He said she said" crap.  Just because some conservatives were making stupid statements about the party splits in some polls does not render the entire subject of party splits in polls unknowable or delusional.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:04:07 AM PDT

    •  claimed party ID is resultant opinion information, (0+ / 0-)

      not control demographics or weighting information.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:10:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why it needs to be normalized. (0+ / 0-)

        A shift in claimed party ID can show an actual shift, or it can be an artifact of a sample population that is different from the last sample population.

        It would have been better for Pew to reweight their results to a demographic breakdown comparable to their last poll, or at least to some expected turnout, to get an apples-to-apples comparison of both Party ID and Presidential vote.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:18:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  absolutely not. never weight on opinion. If you (2+ / 0-)

          want to control for party affiliation, conduct a comparative trend analysis between party affiliates.

          Injecting assumption into a survey methodology that is generally reliable and has remained consistent is far, far more likely to produce bullshit than is keeping a watchful eye out for statistical aberrations that can occasionally happen.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:24:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I just said exactly the opposite of "by opinion." (0+ / 0-)

            I said that they should re-weight on demographics.

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:43:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  not when you say: (0+ / 0-)
              That's why it needs to be normalized.
              and the "it" is claimed party ID, no.

              if you mean to say they should use demographic weights to make certain the sample remains representative from one survey period to the next, then, as HudsonValleyMark mentioned, they do just that.

              weighting that provides comparable samples will not guarantee the exact same survey results (results such as claimed party ID), nor should it be expected to.

              separately, rather than re-weighting to some expected level of electoral turnout as you suggest, you might as well save some money and just write an op-ed piece, because you're merely filtering every piece of data through an assumption you've arbitrarily agreed with anyhow.

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:01:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  they DID weight to demographics! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Murphoney

          AFAIK we don't even know what their weighted party ID split was.

          Election protection: there's an app for that!
          Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

          by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:33:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  On the lighter side... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri

    Here's another debate cartoon for the reality-based community.

    Unfortunately, it is what it is, and it ain't pretty. It really was a reset for many of the Republican and voters who were souring on Romney and their chances of victory. Fresh off the heels of a "victory", they feel a renewed sense of purpose and hope that they can win and spread their manure on the rest of us.

    Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

    by Words In Action on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:07:09 AM PDT

  •  Why not write a diary about how to improve? (0+ / 0-)

    Is this really a newsflash to people? Romney got an increase in enthusiasm and the Democratic Party worked like crazy over the weekend to smack it down.

    I would like to see a good diary about how President Obama can improve.

  •  BBB you are speculating wildly (5+ / 0-)

    with absolutely NO evidence to back up any of your claims. You are projecting your own issues when you say "women want a fighter who will go to mat for them"

    That's just crap.  As a woman I feel very insulted when a man is trying to tell me how and what criteria women are using to judge presidential candidates. Furthermore, it's insulting to women's intelligence to think that they would suddenly change their vote over a relatively trivial issue as an un-energetic debate performance when they have been making decisions based on each candidates policies and record all along.

    Have you surveyed a representative sample of women and asked them exactly how the debates affected their positions on each candidate? No you haven't. Yet you are pushing a questionable polling data because YOU have your own ego and agenda where this President is concerned (you always have - I know your history).

    •  He was referring to low-info working class (6+ / 0-)

      female voters, who have NOT "been making decisions based on each candidates policies and record all along". As for what sorts of qualities such women like in a candidate, unless you have numbers to back up your own beliefs, then you're just as guilty as BBB of projecting your own bias. Just because you want to believe that these women base their voting decisions on thoughtful study and analysis of the candidates and issues doesn't mean that they actually do. At this stage of the campaign, anyone who hasn't made up their mind is, almost by definition, low-info and disengaged. Which is why a single debate might sway them. It's literally the most "substantive" exposure they've had to either candidate.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:20:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually, kovie (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, kovie


        I think what Hopefruit is attempting to address here is the presumption implicit in BBB's comments about 'ladies want a fighter to go to the mat for them."  It is a very paternalistic assumption and it isn't based upon any actual poll question.  If there had been a poll question like "Do you believe that the Republican candidate will fight for you?" and there was a tally of replies to this then it would be a legitimate conclusion to draw.  But it appears BBB is inventing this out of thin air.  I think it is a legitimate point to call him on baseless assumptions.  Maybe the reason why Rmoney's numbers went up with women is because he was wearing a red tie.  Maybe they found him sexy.  Maybe it had to do with his lying through his teeth and running away from his record.  There's just as much evidence for any of those 'reasons' as any other.  And just as baseless.

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:26:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think he got it half-right (0+ / 0-)

          I think that swing voters of both sexes tend to prefer candidates who SEEM to be tough and decisive, especially if they're low-info and/or working or lower middle class (read: less educated and politically sophisticated). I also think it's wrong to typify most voters, of any demographic group including gender, as predominantly influenced by any one single quality a candidate shows or fails to show. But voters who remain undecided or not strongly committed this late in a campaign tend to be very influenceable by single factors such as an apparent lack of toughness.

          We're dealing with "bright shiny object" voters here, of either gender.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:23:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that may be true kovie (0+ / 0-)


            however, the way BBB stated it, the large swing of white women means that 'ladies like a candidate to go to the mat for them.'  And that is creeping far into stereotype territory.  It is just as likely that white voters who have not been enthused about the election so far smelled blood in the water from Mitt's aggressive stance and signed on to a horse race.  Which is the whole reason why right-wing TV and radio have been flogging the horse race line: because it gets people involved and watching.  And nothing to do with 'what ladies want.'  And besides what's with this 'ladies' wording?

            "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

            by louisev on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:55:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  A poll that has a 29 point advantage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rennert, wishingwell

    for Romney among whites ages 18-49 has problems.

    This is where Romney's lead comes from, and it's not realistic.  It's important to apply a sanity check to these things.

    The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

    by Inkin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:12:44 AM PDT

  •  one thing has gone down for sure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell


    and that's the complacency level on DKOS!  Relax and read Nate's blog, he puts the Pew poll into context and does mention that the majority of the poll numbers are Thurs/Fri numbers.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

  •  i read that more than half the respondents to the (0+ / 0-)

    pew poll were from southern states. is this not true?
    that would be a skewed poll if true.

    mitt romney: gettin shit done for rich people... in quiet rooms

    by titotitotito on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:16:42 AM PDT

  •  I agree, it's not the polls. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    It's the narrative that the polls are creating. Flapping our hands over the polls only perpetuates that narrative as opposed to going out their and actually setting our own narrative.

    Polling is a data point, spending the next month navel-gazing over them it is worse than counterproductive.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mohandas Gandhi

    by 2dimeshift on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:21:02 AM PDT

  •  Calm down. This is just 1 poll, after 1 debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    Polling right after a debate is always sketchy. It's not that the Pew methodology is sketchy: it's the TIMING of the polling that skews the result and its relationship to how people will vote.

    The respondents on Thursday and Friday are likely the ones buoyed by the debate (or, more accurately, what the PUNDITS are saying about how the debate went, which amounts to "I have no teeth and can't chew, so I can only wait for the pundits to mouth-feed me on what I should think").

    So if you poll right after a debate, you end up with results more based on

    "I think __ won the debate!" instead of

    "I think I will be voting for __."

    It's human nature to confuse the two questions right after a debate, especially in 2012 (far more than in 2008) when media basically repeats what one another say and amplify with barely any original analysis. Any polling during times of that confusion will give results with less relevance to how they will vote.

    As for "Pew didn't change its methodology so it's believable:" neither did Gallup and the other national polls showing Obama bouncing back. Where's the diary about their results?

    Just one poll. Calm down.

  •  Ultimate low-info white female for Rmoney > (2+ / 0-)

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:23:13 AM PDT

  •  Jack Welch just tweeted about the Pew poll: (4+ / 0-)
    "Salt Lake City guys will do anything. . . . Can't relate to real people, so changed the numbers.''
    Well, actually, not really.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:23:19 AM PDT

  •  Pew is a swiftboating (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    live1

    ...and media hungry for ad dollars are playing along.  Unfortunately, that includes Nate, who didn't have the guts to write anything real about it.  NYT referred to it in their morning news story too.  Pew changes its methodology with every poll, and this one was engineered to make up for the last one, which was an outlier in the other direction.

    "Hibernate between 45 and 65 if you can."--VS Pritchett

    by joseph on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:23:36 AM PDT

  •  Could I rec this diary another 100 times? (4+ / 0-)

    Honestly, enough with the mass denial.  President Obama sucked in the debate and it's had an impact that has thrown this election into doubt.

    Anyone who thinks he can afford more performances like that is nuts.  Never assume that all voters are paying as much attention to the election as D'kos members. They're not.  Not even close.  

    So yes.  GOTV and all that.  But more importantly: President Obama show the American public you are a fighter and call out Mitt Romney on his lies - during the debate.  

     

  •  There is absolutely no way... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    live1, Inkin, crankypatriot, Whitefish

    ...a single debate performance shifts likely women voters as much as you say it does. Absolutely no way. No, this is simply a fucked poll, period.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:29:38 AM PDT

  •  Nate Silver has your back, B-cube (3+ / 0-)

    Rasmussen adjusts poll results to fit a pre-determined Republican / Democrat breakdown. Nate says that is wrong, because party ID is fluid. One of the ways a Presidential candidate shows improvement is that more people are willing to identify themselves as members of his party.

    So, not only do you have to hate Pew from here on out, you have to like Rasmussen.

    Or ...

    You can accept that Pew's polls are done reputably, they show a result we don't like, and the best you can hope for is that their results are skewed toward one end of their stated margin of error.

    Romney economics: Feed our seed corn to the fattest pigs and trust them to poop out jobs.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:38:23 AM PDT

    •  But a skewed sample will skew debate enthusiasm (0+ / 0-)

      into poll results. It's the possibly temporary effect of the post-debate excitement that a skewed sample will be more susceptible to show. And

      Extreme example: go and poll the shoppers at one of the numerous farmers' markets in Portland, OR, before and right after the debate. Will there be any Romney bounce? Doubt it. Might even be some firming up of Obama support, with disgust toward Romney's lying while smirking performance.

      Your methodology of polling might be exactly the same before and after, but that's not a foolproof way to have an all-meaningful study: whom you choose to poll has significant effect on how your result may be swayed by events, especially if the Pew polls are taken within the 1-2 days right after the debate.

      Does not mean the Pew numbers are fake, unbelievable....but the relevance of this Pew poll to what the election might bring should be tempered by the knowledge that it's more of a snapshot of Republican enthusiasm than a national exodus toward Romneyland.

      Should we also have a diary to extoll the great Obama bounce back because Gallup and other national polls say so? Oh wait....there are already SEVERAL diaries like that.

  •  I Came Away from the Debate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, mightymouse, Mr Robert

    With the sense that Obama mostly agrees with Mitt Romney on the issues, but that Romney will work harder for America.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:39:25 AM PDT

    •  then you didn't pay attention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      to the lies?

      •  The problem is not many low info (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RichM, mightymouse

        Voters do. I was yelling he's lying in my living room but no one else but my husband could hear me. Obama needed to forcefully call out romneys lies but he didn't. Hopefully Biden then Obama will hammer that ticketing in the next debates. It really needs to be done.

    •  That was my... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TJ, mightymouse

      'objective' position.  If I filtered everything out, all I know about both candidates, and just went by the debate: one could say, 'hey, this guy ain't so bad, I could vote for him'.  Which is why I thought it was a train wreck.  Obama spent an entire summer carefully crafting the image of Rmoney as an aloof, out of touch plutocrat.  That's not what we saw in the debate.  Rmoney came out and said 'I am not proposing $5 trillion in tax breaks' Obama should have POUNCED on that.  But he let it go.  And he kept trying to find consensus with the guy.  He may yet recover.  He does have the electoral math.  But, damn...

      Why is Mitt Rmoney so happy that an American embassy was attacked? Why does he hate America?

      by RichM on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:37:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Straight up, BBB (9+ / 0-)
    They don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things.

    Because otherwise, may as well try out the new guy.

    For all you folks trashing the Pew poll, I had better not ever see you tout another Pew poll. I don't care how much the numbers improve, you and Pew are done.

    The selective nature is also prevalent when Obama clearly refers to another Greenspan commission which raised full retirement to 67 and cut benefits, but I had some people in my last diary claiming their benefits weren't cut.

    I think the President will still pull it out because the electoral college will save him, but I expect the polling to worsen if he agrees to anymore cutting SS rhetoric as well it should because that's BS. It's a flagship Democratic program though some people "got theirs" an are perfectly willing to skew polls, ignore their own benefits cuts, even claim they are saving SS for the President.

    Deluding one's self show skewed priories and a skewed view of reality to fit an election year narrative of cognitive dissonance. Not helpful to anyone.

    ‎"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin / Check out The Obvious Report

    by priceman on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:40:21 AM PDT

    •  The President did not nod his head about cutting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vespers, Catte Nappe, sviscusi

      Social Security. This meme has been pushed since the debate. The President spoke about tweaking in terms of making the program stronger but stated clearly that SOCIAL SECURITY IS SOUND. The President also spoke of his concern that others would want to undermine the program which so many people have paid into. He addressed this by referring to his grandmother. Here are the President's words:

      "She [The President's grandmother] worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go. And that’s the perspective I bring when I think about what’s called entitlements."

      Please stop pushing the meme that Barack Obama wants to cut social security. The President did not say this. I think the President will win this election despite individuals such as this diarist who constantly seek out ways of criticizing and discrediting this President.

      I will not forget his jumping ahead of the bus to criticize the Obama administration, just like Romney had done, over the statement that was put out by the US Embassy in Egypt when word got out about the death of the Ambassador in Libya.  Then he later tried to recover with diaries supporting the administration. Nothing new here.

      •  Nonsense (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TJ, quagmiremonkey, Mr Robert, priceman

        and a perfect example of Dems denying reality like the Pubes. Obama has on multiple times said SS needs "tweaking", so am I to assume he did not mean it? Or are you full of it?

        I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

        by Jazzenterprises on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:43:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Show me the words I WANT TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY! (0+ / 0-)

          Or show me where the President has said, "I WANT TO GET RID OF SOCIAL SECURITY!"

          Do you have those words handy? No? Look, if you want to vote for Mitt Romney go ahead, but please stop misrepresenting what the President said.... Let me show you again what the President actually said in terms of his approach to Social Security or Medicare. These are his words not some fantasy about what he said.

          "She [The President's grandmother] worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go. And that’s the perspective I bring when I think about what’s called entitlements."

          Stop with the propoganda....

      •  True or false? (4+ / 0-)

        Obama said he supported Bowles-Simpson.  Because that contains what most people regard as SS cuts.

      •  Obama said he and Romney agree on SS. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, TJ, itsbenj, Mr Robert, priceman

        Whether that is true or not, it's what Obama.

        He had an opportunity to create some daylight between himself and Romney, and instead he choose not to. Why? We'll never know.

        Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

        by Scott Wooledge on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:58:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Greenspan commission (0+ / 0-)

        You had this problem in my diary, too. You need to study that commission and read real careful what the president said. Tip O'Neil didn't agree with everything Ronald Reagan believed about SS either, but he agreed to the commission which cut SS benefits by raising the retirement age. These are historical facts and facts as part of the transcript I provided for you in my diary where the president provides this as the context of tweaks.

        I'm sorry absolute facts upset you.

        ‎"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin / Check out The Obvious Report

        by priceman on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:25:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  On Saturday..... (4+ / 0-)

    I knocked on almost every door in one of my town's "projects".  Out of over 100 identified Obama supporters.... the only people that said they were voting Romney in this extremely low income area were white women, most likely in the demographic you just described.  I think you hit the nail on the head with this.

     I'd also go further and say that I noticed there was some doubt among many people of Hispanic origin.  A lot of undecideds and a few arm twists by their sons and daughters to identify as Obama supporters.  I was surprised to see some doubt among the younger generation as well.

    "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."--Justice Louis Brandeis

    by Spiffydigs on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:40:28 AM PDT

  •  The voice of sanity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action, brooklynbadboy

    Thanks.
    Now it's time for us to get out there and work to get the President re-elected

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. Mohandas Gandhi

    by onceasgt on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:43:19 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for stating what should be obvious (9+ / 0-)

    Pew is not nefarious.

    Pew simply got a snapshot of an electorate which was less friendly to the President than prior surveys revealed.

    Here, in case anyone wishes to understand better their methodology, is how Pew handles matters of voter age, race, geography by weighting to reliable data from the US Census. In the same article they clearly articulate why it is absolutely wrong to try and weight to party ID (you know, like Ras is said to do!).

    While it would be easy to standardize the distribution of Democrats, Republicans and independents across all of these surveys, this would unquestionably be the wrong thing to do. While all of our surveys are statistically adjusted to represent the proper proportion of Americans in different regions of the country; younger and older Americans; whites, African Americans and Hispanics; and even the correct share of adults who rely on cell phones as opposed to landline phones, these are all known, and relatively stable, characteristics of the population that can be verified off of U.S. Census Bureau data or other high quality government data sources.

    Party identification is another thing entirely. Most fundamentally, it is an attitude, not a demographic. To put it simply, party identification is one of the aspects of public opinion that our surveys are trying to measure, not something that we know ahead of time like the share of adults who are African American, female, or who live in the South. Particularly in an election cycle, the balance of party identification in surveys will ebb and flow with candidate fortunes, as it should, since the candidates themselves are the defining figureheads of those partisan labels. Thus there is no timely, independent measure of the partisan balance that polls could use for a baseline adjustment.

    Now I might take some exception to the age demos in Pews polls as unrealistic for a modern electorate (Their 18-29 share is pretty low). But, I have to say, they are consistent in the model they apply. Furthermore, as you note, these same demos yielded a sizable lead for Obama in prior surveys. The poll shift then is not attributable to a weighting failure.
  •  Im not worried (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica

    The game is far from over, and one poll never reveals much.

    We must not allow ourselves to get affected by one poll, good or bad. We must assume that we are doing extremely badly.

    Yes, that should be our assumption from the start. We go in thinking the polls show us doing badly. Nearly a guaranteed loss! And we go and do everything ew can to ensure that loss reverses.

    I know we're not losing, that in the end Obama does come out ahead. But the republicans know this too, and they are pushing like  you would expect the person behind to do.

    We must do the same. Because if we don't, some day the polls might really show Romney ahead. And that is not acceptable.

    Then you came out all of a sudden and said, "You're Prism Indigo!" but I don't get it...

    by kamrom on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:55:52 AM PDT

  •  How about this? Does this matter? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, Fury

    As of October 9:

    http://www.electoral-vote.com

    Obama 332.

    Still unchanged.

    Obama is the chair and James Hetfield is the table. Who is the lamp?

    by alkatt on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:00:35 AM PDT

  •  BFD (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action, Fury

    Team: we're afraid!
    Obama: mistakes were made.
    A white horse ridin',
    Here comes Joe Biden,
    Let's make some lemonade!

    Chop wood, carry water.

    by Allequash on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:01:42 AM PDT

  •  Thank you (6+ / 0-)

    Pew does not put out bunk polls.  Everyone should be concerned by what the poll is saying, but don't panic, for God's sake, there's still a month to go. Pew correctly weights by Census Bureau demograhics and uses random digit dialing to get cellphones.  they are the gold standard of polling in the same way Nate Silver is the gold standard of predictive modeling.  

    They took a snapshot of the electorate at a time when Democrats were extremely discouraged and Republicans extremely fired up by a lopsided debate.  Their results may or may not reflect a permanent change in the direction of the electorate, but at that particular time, they noted a 10% or more change in partisan self-identification.  This is not due to faulty partisan "weighting".  This is part of what they are measuring.  It goes hand in hand with the change in partisan enthusiasm that they found.

    The most important change that happened in the Presidential race in September is that the Democrats closed the enthusiasm gap.  All that changed in a single night.  Now, if you want to win it back, you need to re-light the fire that was there last month.  Part of that is up to the President to not embarass himself in the remaining debates, but part of it is the responsibility of the grass roots, too, to not let Dem voters lose focus because of a single debate performance.

  •  Tipped for reality (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    icebergslim, Words In Action

    A well needed slap in the face.

  •  REALITY BASED (6+ / 0-)

    I said over the course of this year that all that early polling don't matter and it did not.  I said AFTER Labor Day is when it matters and anyone bullshitting this polling off might as well go to that "unskewed" poll site.  The Obama Camp knows this, they are doing internal polling, they know they fucked up an opportunity last week.

    Barack Obama did this damage to himself.  How he and his debate team did not take Mitt Romney seriously, is what we see now.  A real bounce for Romney.

    This first debate hurt and we are feeling it.  Stop with your heads in the sand and look at this the way it is.  Mitt Romney saved his ass and will have a boatload of superpac money his way, remember they were abt to write him off.  And Obama should have cut Romney off at the knees last week and he did not.

    Lastly, agreeing, nodding your head in agreement with your opponent to SS, Medicare, Medicaid was a dumb ass move.   You don't stand on a stage and agree with a dangerous person like that, what the HELL.

    And yes, the Obama Camp know that the supporters are angry.  He either get it together or a Romney Presidency can be very real.

    •  Well, the neolibs are already telling Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      owlbear1, mightymouse

      that he can save himself by going full BS in the next debate.  See Andrew Sullivan.

    •   especially (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vespers, sviscusi
      He either get it together or a Romney Presidency can be very real.
      with "supporters" such as yourself reveling in the opportunity to be negative.  

      "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

      by SottoVoce on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:37:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, there is no reveling here. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, itsbenj

        A missed opportunity happened last week and now we see a real bounce in the polling less than 30 days out.  Obama got 2 more debates and he better not show up like he did last Wednesday or a real Romney presidency can be real, especially for voters who tuned in last week for the first time and saw a missing POTUS and a lying, sack of a salesman in Romney whose SHIT sounded real to them.  Big difference.

        LAST WEEK CAN NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.

        •  I agree with the body of your post. (0+ / 0-)

          I disagree with the subject line.  There is a great deal of reveling going on here in the past few days.  The relish with which the President's detractors have climbed in the "Failure! Failure! Failure!" bandwagon is as distressing as it was predictable.  

          President Obama is a man who, for all your collective contempt (and refusal to accept that he's a human being who sometimes stumbles) learns from his defeats.  He is also incredibly competitive.  I'm sure he'll bring his A game to the next debate--a town hall format that is better suited to him than to Romney--even without his so-called supporters' scolding and re-scolding and re-scolding......

          "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

          by SottoVoce on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  hmmm. I've not been following the weepin' (0+ / 0-)

            and a-moanin' and a-gnashin of teet'![/super beagle] but some bigtime "suxxors" have been way more sanguine about this than me (to my shock!), so I've not seen what you're saying at all.

            This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

            by mallyroyal on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:14:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  From this diary alone: (0+ / 0-)
              Because of Obama's inept performance in the debate, the hopeless pre-debate fool now appears much less of a fool to a whole lot of people, many of whom will now be contributing, openly supporting Romney in the media, and willing to identify with Romney with more commitment and less embarrassment than before.  

              Obama sucked its that simple

              But it's OBAMA's fault there's an enthusiasm gap. Sigh. Again, I sometimes wonder why I even call myself progressive.

              I wish that Obama could go into hiding for a month and let Biden and Clinton do the campaign stuff.
              Clinton would mop the fucking floor with that liar Romney.  Obama?  Fuck.

              I probably would have said "fuck both candidates" if they called me the day after the debate.

              Obama screwed the pooch when he showed up for the debate as Johnny I Agreewithhim.

              I Came Away from the Debate
              With the sense that Obama mostly agrees with Mitt Romney on the issues, but that Romney will work harder for America.

              If Obama doesn't score very well in the next two debates and he loses the election pretty much everyone will attribute to the first debate.
His performance was that bad. He should have adjusted his game plan on the fly but he didn't.

              Obama missed a golden opportunity last week to put away his GOP challenger.  Oddly enough, Obama also flubbed the golden opportunity he had in his first 2 years to put away the GOP all together.  
              I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama.  But I'd be less than honest if I was to say I'm not sick to my stomach after listening to Obama say he and Romney agree on Social Security reform.  

              "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

              by SottoVoce on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:05:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that's fine but I have a short list of kossacks (0+ / 0-)

                who, seemingly unfailingly, see negativity when it comes to anything Obama... and all of them have suprised me in the last week.

                This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

                by mallyroyal on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:11:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some of that list (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mallyroyal

                  are represented in the comments here.  But if you are seeing less negativity in the last week, I'm glad to hear it.

                  One thing I do know: the President is hyper-competitive, learns from his mistakes, and doesn't need us to tell him what he did wrong, or that he needs to improve.

                  Cheers to you, as always, Mally!!

                  SV

                  "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

                  by SottoVoce on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:16:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  I hear what you're saying, but there's a (0+ / 0-)

    difference between trying to explain why one poll is an outlier and saying that allpolls except one are wrong.

    But it is a very good point that the previous Pew poll didn't smell all that trustworthy either. Perhaps their methodology just tends to exaggerate things.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:31:07 AM PDT

  •  So, get off your asses and work to get (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vespers, lgmcp

    Obama reelected if you are so angry at him and in such despair. We are adults and should respond to problems with solutions not bitching and moaning and shouting about reality. Get off you asses and change the reality if you think things are so awful. Get up. Work. Donate. Call. Door knock. Be like Ghandi and make the change you want to see.

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:32:01 AM PDT

  •  It was embarrassing when Republicans (10+ / 0-)

    "unskewed" the polls, and it's even more embarrassing when we do it also. Let's be the reality-based community we are.

  •  The cognitive dissonance on this site (0+ / 0-)

    is extremely distressing. Democrats are quickly turning into the same looney c-t, Republicans.

    Anything for victory I suppose.

    I don't even recognize the Democratic Party anymore... we are a softer version of the crazy Republicans.

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

  •  BBB, you rule the roost (0+ / 0-)

    This place might as well be called BlueState.

    It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in decades to come, Presidential candidates way behind before the first debate can hope their opponent 'pulls an Obama.'

  •  Finally, a non-delusional Kossack (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mr Robert

    What's the world coming to?

    Seriously, I love this community, but there are times when I have to shake my head. Thanks BBB for breathing a little reality into this supposedly reality based community.

    "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

    by Phil In Denver on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:49:21 AM PDT

  •  I know this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    If Obama doesn't score very well in the next two debates and he loses the election pretty much everyone will attribute to the first debate.
    His performance was that bad. He should have adjusted his game plan on the fly but he didn't. He may have thought it was a bad move at the time for what ever reason.
    He may have a huge strategy for the next two. Lets hope so.
    But if he doesn't bring it on and he loses it will be his fault.
    Its a sad thing that our society currently will choose a leader based on only a few minutes of TV but that appears to be the reality.
    Another thing. If he loses due to the debate, for years to come anyone who runs for POTUS will be practicing and preparing for debating the moment the run is even considered.

    peace

    "Love is what we were born with. Fear is what we learned here." Marianne Williamson

    by Canadian Green Card Alien on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:53:23 AM PDT

  •  Oh lord! Saying a poll might be an outlier doesnt (6+ / 0-)

    mean believing its skewed. ABC poll is a reliable poll yet they had 3 outlier polls this year.

    Enough with the false equivalence already.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:54:05 AM PDT

    •  Well, DKOS polling is coming out... (4+ / 0-)

      is that an outlier, end of the week WSJ/NBC/Marist, will that be an outlier?  The reality is compute all the polling thus far and the trajectory is that Romney had a bounce at our expense.  And less than 30 days, polling is important.  The next 2 debates Obama can not be like he was last Wednesday, MIA, that is unacceptable.

      •  DKos poll is already out and pollster said it was (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inkin, Fury, disconnect the dots

        mostly done btw Thursday and Friday which were bad days for Obama.

        Im not questioning Romney's lead, of course it was expected but The others polls but Pew dont show the end of the gender gap. Thats why Im tending to believe that the. 18pts swing among women suggest that this Pew MIGHT be an outlier. I dont say it is an outlier but MIGHT be.

        "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

        by LaurenMonica on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:11:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, someone had to say it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp
  •  Pew is fine. Their results reflect when they took (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    decembersue, Fury

    the poll, before Romney's bounce started to fade.

    Brand new favorite RSS feed of Daily Kos Radio Podcasts http://kagrox.libsyn.com/rss
    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

    by We Won on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:00:51 AM PDT

  •  Good one. This reality based site (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    disconnect the dots

    needed a good dose of reality.

  •  ahhhhh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, Broke And Unemployed

    nothing like good fauxgressive emoprog whining in da morning!

  •  This is a Dylan's Mr. Jones Moment (0+ / 0-)

    We know there's something happening, but we don't know what it is.  I went all Kubler-Ross during and after the debate and have come back to accept the idea that Obama did not really participate in the debate.  If what we saw last week is "just who he is" then the brain will have to adjust to the phrase "president elect Romney."
      I prefer to think that is not "just who he is."  I prefer to think the advantage in expectations is now on the Obama side, especially if Biden does well.
      In each of the next two debates my guess is they have to come out swinging since most of audiences will start to dwindle after 30 mins.
      Romney will not be the old Romney substance-wise, but he will be the old double downer.  He will deny being a liar and relish the thought of a black man challenging a white man's veracity.
      Team O has to remind women of what a disaster the gop would be for them.  What a disaster they will be for education.  What a warmongering disaster they will be in foreign affairs. What a disaster they will be for seniors and what an absolute catastrophe they will be for the environment.
      If they don't come out swinging the polls will continue to move the other way.  We will lose social security, Roe V Wade, the EPA, PBS, OSHA, and god knows what else.  Romney will be Bush on acid laced steroids.
      It's sad.  Sometimes here at DKOS it is like a cozy little room full of smart kittys.  Then they hear a dog bark in the other room and they all attack one another.
      I fully expect Obama to right his ship and for this site to be a jubilee on 11/7/12.

  •  Standing Ovation! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevej

    Obama missed a golden opportunity last week to put away his GOP challenger.  Oddly enough, Obama also flubbed the golden opportunity he had in his first 2 years to put away the GOP all together.  

    I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama.  But I'd be less than honest if I was to say I'm not sick to my stomach after listening to Obama say he and Romney agree on Social Security reform.  

    Damned right women want a fighter and there was none of that last week from Obama.  

    Maybe he can recover and maybe he can't.  The fact is you only get one chance to make a first impression.  

    Here's where the damage was done to Obama:  He passively stood by and let Romney present himself as a reasonable alternative.  That leveled a playing field that should have been greatly tilted towards Obama.  

    I've heard about chess games and long games ad nauseum for the last nearly 4 years.  FYI, you need game to win.  Catch up isn't a good game to play when the stakes are so high.

  •  The polling companies certainly are making (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Broke And Unemployed

    themselves irrelevant.

  •  The poll shows a 28 point (6+ / 0-)

    swing toward Romney among white voters under 50.

    28 points.  Now O 34, R 63.

    Anyone who thinks that doesn't deserve question and skepticism doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about.

    The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

    by Inkin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:19:44 AM PDT

  •  Seriously... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury, Broke And Unemployed

    and as you look closer at the various polls what stands out to me is that Obama's numbers didn't move down so much as Romney's moved up. Hardly surprising. Obama did not have his best night but he didn't screw up. Romney was full of shit but he's a good salesman of bullshit and Obama didn't really effectively challenge his bullshit. He presented well in other words.

    And the over all numbers are back where they reasonably should be... Obama with a small but consistent lead that will likely result in a strong electoral college victory but hardly a landslide.

    I'd love to have seen Obama's post-convention numbers hold but that always seemed unlikely and wishful thinking to me.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:41:11 AM PDT

  •  Thank you, BBB (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    Happily the polling triumphalists, who assumed for no good reason that Undecideds would all go to Obama or split evenly, have had to go silent in the past few days.

    Thank you for taking on the polling nihilists, for whom every polling they don't like is fatally defective and every polling they do like obviously done well enough.

  •  OK, You convinced me it's over. Where do we go to (3+ / 0-)

    sign up for the QUIT campaigning list?  I've encouraged Democrats all week to pick themselves up and GOTV, but I guess I was wrong. Mea Culpra!

    Hello, President Romney! It just kills me to think of having have another sabre-rattling President.

  •  What I want to know is where (0+ / 0-)

    were we at this point in 2008?

  •  I'm done talking about anything to do with this. (7+ / 0-)

    except to say that you didn't hear any of those excuses from this hardcore supporter of the prez.

    This comment is dedicated to my mellow Adept2U and his Uncle Marcus

    by mallyroyal on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:03:44 AM PDT

  •  This is me; and this is soo many women. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fury, Deejay Lyn

    Me:

    they want to see a fighter who is going to go to the mat for them. These women are the ones who are going to have to rely on Social Security and Medicare since a huge number are unmarried. They don't need to see a President Obama nodding his head in agreement about cutting Social Security. These are the ladies that need WIC, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and they want someone to fight for these things.
    And don't think it's only unmarried women, either! After the last 5 years, many, many of us are in this boat.

    Including many women like this, possibly including my own D-i-L:

    ...probably don't watch the news very often because after busting ass all day and taking care of kids, who wants to? The debate watch number was huge...60+ million.

    These "low info" voters include smart and well-educated but very, VERY busy working women and moms who just don't have the time, energy or inclination to follow politics -- right now.

    I was in this boat from ages 18-29. I had marriage, baby, divorce, college, grad school, cheap jobs, moving, and NEVER enough money! I voted in Presidential years, always Democratic, but would have to have been described as a very casual voter.

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:09:58 AM PDT

  •  Right on about the polls (0+ / 0-)

    but I believe the swing among white women is much more simple:  they saw an alpha male on stage at the debate, and it wasn't Obama.  Romney was a domineering man in control, and that's what many women respond to instinctually.  

    The chances of Obama wiping out the first impression among instinctual female voters of Romney is not good.  There are few things more repulsive to women than a man who is passive, weak, intimidated by other men, and muddled in speech.  Those are the guys who sit out the prom, and a presidential election is basically a prom to these low info voters.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:15:31 AM PDT

    •  "Instinctually", really? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inkin, Stroszek
      domineering man in control, and that's what many women respond to instinctually
      Way to go with the biological essentialism.  (Yech.)

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:32:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This might be among the dumbest (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lgmcp

      and most offensive post ever on DKos, and the competition is not slight.

      The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

      by Inkin on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:42:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not PC if that's what you mean (0+ / 0-)

        If I'm wrong, then why do alpha male bullies never have trouble getting dates?  I'll tell you why, it's because there's a subset of females who are attracted to those men.  It's not rocket science, most people learn this in high school.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:49:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No skewing, just noise (0+ / 0-)

    Noise, which happens all the time in polling.

  •  Obama lost the debate. Check. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Broke And Unemployed

    This blog has degenerated into a quagmire of upset and demoralization. Check.
    I and others like me who want Obama to still win the election
    need all the energy we can muster, and much of that energy is dissipated here arguing with others. Check.
    Do we need to split this bring-down of a site and GOTV?

    CHECK.

    "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical."--Spock, in Star Trek IV.

    by Wildthumb on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:00:29 AM PDT

  •  Lessee, believe you, or Nate Silver? (4+ / 0-)

    Hmmmm... tough choice. Or no. It's not. Not at all.

    is it really likely that Mr. Romney leads the race by 4 points right now? The consensus of the evidence, particularly the national tracking polls, would suggest otherwise... The other valid line of inquiry concerns the timing of the poll... The last thing to consider is that the fundamentals of the race aren’t consistent with a 4-point lead for Mr. Romney.
    And yes, it does involve a skewed party affiliation. Nate makes it clear that it's not the job of the pollster to be careful about taking polls purely during short periods of time that aren't reflective of where the race is or where it's going. That's his job, to critique that occurence. But it is accurate to say that way of operating skews a poll and makes it an outlier.

    You're behaving no better than a traditional media news model, looking for validation by beating down people who know what they're talking about on the left so as to boost your own reputation as a "sensible person."

  •  BBB, you are awesomeness and sanity, DEFINED n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:10:49 AM PDT

  •  Complete agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw

    I was noting how much we were sounding like Republicans a couple of weeks ago. It's a poll and they're going to go up and down. Let's hope the next debate is better.

    "Until one has loved an animal, part of one's soul is unawakened." Anatole France

    by Pam LaPier on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:30:15 AM PDT

  •  It's hard to hold back the rising tide (0+ / 0-)

    of confirmation bias, bbb. I'm restraining my inner King Canute until early December when some folks here will be telling us that the simpson-bowles grand bargain is actually the brilliant move of an 11-dimensionalist master ninja...



    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

    by chuckvw on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:40:37 AM PDT

    •  confirmation bias works both ways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi

      All of the tracking polls showed positive movement for Obama yesterday. The Pew result was not surprising given that everyone showed Thursday and Friday were huge days for Romney, but those selectively ignoring the trends we've seen since Saturday so they can pat themselves on the back for being "realists" are just as silly as those insisting that there's a poll conspiracy.

      •  That's the point (0+ / 0-)

        Confirmation bias does work both ways, turning susceptible people into human pretzels.

        Up in the polls... Yay! Polls are great! Down in the polls... Boo! Polls are skewed...

        I don't pay much attention to polls that fluctuate more or less within the margin of error. They'll go up... slightly... and down... slightly. Now, if you see a change of 10 or 15 points simultaneously in several polls that might be significant.



        Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

        by chuckvw on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:01:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  One thing. The Oct. 5 jobs report catches only.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..the latest couple of days sampled in the Oct 4 - 7 PEW poll, so we'll have to wait to see the full effect.
    While the Pew report has swung in Romneys favor, without the delay taken into account the full effect of the BLS report may not be as fully realized yet.

  •  If there's evidence that the polls are skewed... (0+ / 0-)

    ...then they quite possibly are. There has been evidence that the polls are skewed older, whiter, and more Southern than the general population.

    In my case I believe most polls are ineptly done. So yes, I believe this poll is skewed, and I'm not afraid to say it.

    OK, I'll never give any weight to another Pew poll again. Their credibility is zero with me.

    PEWPEWPEWPEWPEW!!!

    "I read this- Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of $#!^ I'm never reading again!"-Officer Barbrady

    by Broke And Unemployed on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:25:51 AM PDT

  •  so you're saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howarddream

    white women with less than a college degree are attracted to wealthy white men who are full of shit?

Bob Johnson, social democrat, fly, bink, davej, Angie in WA State, lojo, Joe Bob, democrattotheend, Cederico, Armando, Nobody, RF, hester, lowkell, lanshark, yellowdog, BrooklynJohnny, Bendygirl, roonie, Subterranean, daninoah, Snow Camp, madmsf, BigOkie, Reino, Hartley, bosdcla14, cici414, kpardue, hyperstation, DCDemocrat, LEP, Aspe4, oysterface, eeff, dsb, ltsply2, Bryce in Seattle, SallyCat, grover, expat germany, bookbear, Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal, geordie, highacidity, Xapulin, stevej, chuckvw, shanikka, Transmission, farmerhunt, Nate Roberts, Iberian, lirtydies, Cardinal96, Cardinal Fang, Quege, recontext, SneakySnu, tomephil, dejavu, psnyder, Ryvr, TexDem, NYC Sophia, young voter, brainwave, exiledfromTN, Catte Nappe, betson08, liberte, The Walrus, lawstudent922, 313to212, faithnomore, bwintx, Sembtex, Curt Matlock, mungley, lonespark, Pam LaPier, justmy2, cartwrightdale, pontechango, Armand451, environmentalist, Julie Gulden, Los Diablo, Recovering Southern Baptist, maybeeso in michigan, 3goldens, cetylovx, red clay dem, jrooth, Jeffersonian Democrat, Explorer8939, HudsonValleyMark, democracy inaction, demimondian, andgarden, BCO gal, kitchen sink think tank, basquebob, stitchmd, EJP in Maine, Laurence Lewis, ratzo, imfunnytoo, Kayakbiker, jeff in nyc, noemie maxwell, WisePiper, berkshireblue, peacestpete, JanL, mightymouse, zozie, accumbens, golem, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, Gorette, raptavio, dougymi, aggieric, rhetoricus, pengiep, fou, blueoasis, triv33, praenomen, TalkieToaster, gooderservice, Bush Bites, Native Light, PapaChach, JVolvo, middleagedhousewife, zhimbo, Temmoku, cpresley, pgm 01, xgz, Haningchadus14, EdSF, puakev, jds1978, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, sfbob, dissonantdissident, FischFry, newpioneer, bnasley, Kentucky Kid, bluehen96, Midwesterners, ubertar, letsgetreal, bobswern, jhop7, pioneer111, CT Hank, uciguy30, journeyman, leonard145b, Assaf, El Mito, South Park Democrat, TomP, gizmo59, TruthFreedomKindness, glutz78, pravin, Argyrios, NotGeorgeWill, Steve15, MikePhoenix, poligirl, crescentdave, Involuntary Exile, Cat Servant, Laughing Vergil, tofumagoo, hwmnbn, icebergslim, Jake Williams, pademocrat, temptxan, luckylizard, priceman, Ellinorianne, statsone, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, Ran3dy, danoland, J M F, Glacial Erratic, Scott Wooledge, CanyonWren, Don Enrique, maryabein, mkor7, SaintCog, mHainds, RageKage, ThatPoshGirl, ThinkerT, jfromga, astral66, Leftcandid, Words In Action, cassandraX, sneakers563, rb137, FogCityJohn, David PA, stegro, Captain Marty, jethrock, Progressive Pen, alguien, Anak, Eddie L, gulfgal98, ItsSimpleSimon, Mariken, sharonsz, Micheline, Murchadha, wrpereir, ThankGodforAtheists, Berliner2, angstall, Egadfly, Front Toward Enemy, coquiero, ban nock, Jazzenterprises, cv lurking gf, donaurora, Zutroy, jkay, deeproots, EagleOfFreedom, LSmith, CherryTheTart, Empty Vessel, PhilJD, disconnect the dots, cap76, bloomin, smirking, MikeBoyScout, dradams, Chitown Kev, Kurt from CMH, annecros, No one gets out alive, quill, 2dimeshift, IndieGuy, rexxnyc, a2nite, congenitalefty, Horace Boothroyd III, Mr Robert, TheLandstander, Mike RinRI, Rizzo, BRog, Murphoney, New Minas, George3, Dr Swig Mcjigger, Kvetchnrelease, onceasgt, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Eric Twocents, poopdogcomedy, Jerry J, The Hamlet, paccoli, JosephK74, Smoh, NJInd, Hey338Too, jplanner, Kombema, grubber

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site