Skip to main content

Latest update from Rand Poll indicates trend upward for Romney, not weak bounce.
Like some of you diehard political junkies, I too watch the polls carefully. However, I don't mesh them altogether or look at this number over that one. I try to just look at overall trends from reputable pollsters. To me, the trend tells the tale.

One of the things I've been looking for in the wake of last week's debate was a sign that Romney's bump was short lived, or weak. Now, I don't think so. It looks like real movement in the electorate. I've read the Obama Campaign's case as reported by Halperin and others and I think they have it correct: groundgame is banking the vote and we've seen some minor movement for Romney in the toss up states that matter. But, what I do see is this unmistakable trend overall: Romney has regained almost all the ground that he lost over the Summer.

Now, the lack of significant movement in the toss up states could mean that the movement we are seeing in the national numbers is occurring in states that are uncontested. There is some evidence of this.

For example, in Massachusetts, a PPP poll of the Senate race there also noted Romney gained +4 points in Mass. According to a New Jersey poll, Romney gained three points there post debate. Yet Obama remains comfortably ahead there 51 to 40.

In the Red states, PPP found Obama trailing Romney in Montana by 5 points prior to the debate. Now, they find him down by 11. I suspect if they went into the field in any of the deep red states in the South, Romney probably picked up similar margins there too.

If you look into the last two Pew Polls, you'll see a healthy chunk of movement in the polls were in two regions of the country:in the South where Romney gained a dramatic 13 points and in the Northeast where Romney gained 8 points. Of course, these two regions are for the most part uncontested. It doesn't matter if Romney is up 8 or up 20 in Alabama. Nor does it matter if Obama is up 6 or up 30 in Vermont.

So, it is clear to me that Romney has gained some ground and that there wasn't just a temporary bounce here. However, I stick by my contention that this swing was mostly among non college educated white women, mostly unmarried. These are voters that can be won back if Romney is exposed for the fraud he is. But, I speculate a good chunk of them are in states that are uncontested. Where the campaign is heavily engaged, these key swing voters already know who he is.

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

  •  A big enough gain is sure to spill over ... (8+ / 0-)

    into the right places. See Nate's latest entry whose title, Obama’s Swing State ‘Firewall’ Has Brittle Foundation, kind of says it all.

    "The smartest man in the room is not always right." -Richard Holbrooke

    by Demi Moaned on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:14:10 PM PDT

  •  I dunno - what about FL, NC and VA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, flatford39, davidkc

    THere's been significant movement toward Romney there. MAybe even New Hampshire but I'm waiting for someone other than ARG to tell us so.

  •  All I can think when seeing the polls is that (7+ / 0-)

    we let an opportunity go in the first debate. I don't know if the second and third debates will be enough to reverse the trend even if President Obama does a great job in them.

    I'm just hoping for an October surprise to utterly demolish Mitt Romney at this point. I thought the 47% video might have been it, and it really did the job, but we clearly need something else to swing this race back in our favor.

  •  Why is this a "contention"?: (4+ / 0-)
    However, I stick by my contention that this swing was mostly among non college educated white women, mostly unmarried.
    I should think data exist that would confirm or deny; no contending required.

    Also, Florida is now Lean Romney; Ohio is MOE.  The debate eroded Obama's lead, and Romney's gains are not bouncing back down.  (Nate Silver)

    We're in a dogfight until Election Day.

    And we know how Mitt feels about dogs.

  •  Interesting theory -- a funny story to share (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluedust, CroneWit, llywrch, elmo

    Not a bad theory, thanks for the data on some of the uncontested states, like my own of Massachusetts.

    Funny story -- I was on the bus in Brookline Mass yesterday and was in the vicinity of an amazing statistical anomoly -- an African American man, middle aged, in blue blue Mass who was waxing poetic about how Romney is gonna win because he's so honest blah blah. I just about choked. Then it all came full circle when the truth really came out -- this gentleman is a Mormon and really wants another Mormon as President. (No doubt he is on board with the Muslims all getting together to elect a Muslim President who will implement the Muslim agenda? Riiiight).

    Anyway, made me laugh. And I would imagine folks like this guy who live in deep blue areas felt more bold after the 1st Prez debate to openly announce their support for Romney.

    That said most other residents of Mass still remember his craptastic half term as Governor -- he pulled a Palin before Palin did! -- which is why his approvals here remain in the gutter.

    "The country we carry in our hearts is waiting." ~ Bruce Springsteen

    by abs0628 on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:20:45 PM PDT

  •  BBB, is it possible that some of those women (0+ / 0-)

    could swing back to Obama if they heard Paul Ryan talking about the abortion issue last night?  As social issues were not talked about in the first debate?

    Could some of those women in that squishy swing vote middle move back to Obama due to womens; issues that are now getting more attention?

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:22:12 PM PDT

    •  I think I made a comment somewhere else that (5+ / 0-)

      I think we may be misreading the issue matrix for these voters just a bit. I suspect these women, more than any other group, don't like GOP position on abortion. It's mostly married, upper income white women where you find the opposition to abortion in the better gender. However, I don't think this is the only thing that is important to them.

      But it certainly wont hurt Obama to do what he didn't do in the last debate: clearly define the difference on women's issues.

      That was the one big thing I took away from that debate was him just not bringing up the entire "war on women" issues we've been running on all year.

  •  time will tell (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, Supavash, doroma, bleeding blue, llywrch

    but I agree with BBB that mostly, Obama has fallen but staying pretty close to the steady state he's been in all summer, except for the convention bounce and better than average period that it lasted through September.

    We may be seeing, especially in the South and West some Republicans coming home, lifting Romney, tightening the margin, but not really changing the eventual outcome.

    I read the same Nate Silver post that Demi Moaned references, and the outlook is a lot gloomier than before the debate, but if you look at the lines on the charts, again it is more Obama returning to steady state and Romney gaining.  

    What we don't have yet is a good picture of independents strongly moving to Romney.  I think there is a good possibility on Romney's movement is the base coming home.   After all, watching a debate reminds them its a family loving white man against the black KenyanIslamoFacscistCommunist who isn't really an American.

     Some voters in non-swing states that aren't being bombarded with ads that show Romney on both sides of an issue may also not be picking up on the lies.  Lying Romney is a plausible moderate if you don't know anything.   The movement in swing states with lots of advertising has been less, which has been noted in several of the poll blogs.

    •  I just don't think it's all the debate though (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think a LOT more people believe the Birther and Muslim crap than we realize plus I wonder how much damage the 2016 movie did?

      •  if we lose because of racism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        after four years and none of the craptastic predictions coming true,  it will be a terrible step backwards.  Further, Romney-Ryan will truly make the country worse off, so we lose doubly.

        We can't change the cards in the deck, but we can always play more skillfully.  The Obama campaign understands ground game and grass roots door knocking.  It will help.

      •  Or they are simply more AT EASE with a white Pres (0+ / 0-)

        They may think President Obama is a good and honorable man, but they simply "prefer" Romney because at a more subconscious level, it's all about racial identity. And even if Romney's policies concern them, they tell themselves that he will "moderate" the policies, because in the past this is what has always happened. They don't BELIEVE that the extreme right will get what they want. If God forbid Romney was elected, they'll have buyer's remorse, that's for sure.

  •  it makes sense that swing state (4+ / 0-)

    voters would be harder to move because they've seen so much of these candidates already (in ads, local news, etc)

    voters in places like Texas and Vermont have probably seen about 10% of the election coverage that voters in Ohio & Virginia have seen.

    now obviously on the internet people can see endless coverage no matter where they live.. but really the only people who spend time doing that are people with very strong political beliefs who are definitely not going to be changing their votes (like people on this website for example.)

  •  Romney has peaked, Obama holding WI, OH, NV, (10+ / 0-)

    NM, MI, MN and New England states. ARG is an outlier on NH. (Electoral-Vote refuses to include ARG because they are so bad.) Any rate Obama can hold NV and OH, or VA, and reach 270. 20% have voted in OH and Obama has 2-1 advantage in those votes. NV has huge Dem registration advantage. This is why the prediction markets are still strong on Obama.

    •  I hope you are right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We'll know in a few days as more polls come out.

      Frankly, I am concerned that Romney is actually ahead and that the polls are just catching up to measuring this new reality. Which means we have to step up our ground game in Ohio, big time.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:52:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You could be right, BBB (5+ / 0-)

    This story on HuffPost from out here in Ohio indicates that Romney is going to have a hard time convincing working-class people that he really cares about them.  If Romney picks up support in red states, it won't matter.

    Everyone knows that a Zinger is nothing but a snack cake.

    by Kurt from CMH on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:36:07 PM PDT

  •  The one thing Nate is missing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Berkeley Fred

    is that if you look at the swing states there has been pro romney movement but the majority of it is coming in non midwestern swing states. Ohio hasnt really budged. Two great polls showing Obama leading. Wisconsin has budged but we had room to move.

    What absolutely could save us all from a Romney presidency is the strong possibility that over the last 4-8 years Ohio has moved away from being a slightly republican swing state to actually being a blue state.

    Ohio has had a net loss of movement away from the state over the last 8 years. Its not hard to explain why. Jobs arent there like they used to be. Itf the people moving away were more republicans than dems its not hard to see Ohio just becoming a blue state in general. similar to how Penn just basically became a blue state and really is no longer much of a swing state.

    If we win Ohio. We still possibly can win the EC and lose the popular vote.

  •  The abortion comments by Ryan were not received (5+ / 0-)

    well by the women on the CNN undecided tracking line last night. It dipped a great deal. I think it may be possible that more Democratic and Independent women will now show up to vote once these womens health issues are the topic like the end of last night.

    If the white working class women liked Mitt being strong, energeitc, aggressive, they would also love Joe being strong, energetic , aggressive.  Time will tell.

    I know all the experts say the VP Debate does not move polls. But after 36 years volunteering and doing GOTV, it sure as hell fires up Democrats like few debates before.
    I think this VP Debate may just be different in that Joe was that strong on all the issues and he was full of passion. Voters like to see passion and someone fighting for them. They got that last night in spades.

    I would not be shocked to see Obama gain a point from the Biden debate as strong and passionate as Joe was.

    And if the President does well Tuesday , but I doubt the media will give him credit as more than half the media thinks last night was a tie, we may see some movement in that squishy miiddle as often swing voters go back and forth several times before settling on their choice.

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:39:32 PM PDT

    •  Well, I think we all knew Romney was going to be (5+ / 0-)

      called the winner of last week's debate regardless of what happened. But that didn't matter. The problem was that Obama didn't defend himself, make his case against Romney, or outline why he deserved to be reelected or that it was necessary to reelect him.

      Had he done that the media would have called it a draw or whatever like they did last night. But it wouldn't have mattered. Those folks who were "eh...maybe Obama" would have said "definitely Obama" and this race would be over.

  •  Today's Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwjjd, brooklynbadboy, doroma, wishingwell

    has Romney leading 46-45, down from a lead of 47-44 yesterday.



  •  anything's possible... (3+ / 0-)

    but if you're banking on it, you're playing to lose

    The real deal is that race is in a state of flux right now and that the next two debates could take things one of three ways:

    1. Obama resurgence, it all ends up looking like 2008 all over again, maybe minus NC or plus AZ or some little change like that

    2. Romney surge.... he basically replicates a Bush map (maybe even becomes the first Republican to win without Ohio).  Needless to say, this could be disastrous.

    3.Deadlocked election day:  national polling average within a point, the campaigns fight for every last EV.... everybody's up late on election night. After some recounting, either Obama wins with a map that looks like John Kerry's + OH or Romney wins with a Bush-like map.

    Your scenario is relevant only in scenario three, and it's still too far out to game out what happens in a deadlocked election. It's just too far out and a lot could change.

    One misconception that a lot of people have is that the battleground outcomes are all statistically independent. This is flatly not true: They see mostly the same ads, definitely see the same debates, and exist in the same national news climate. They are not perfectly correlated,  but they are certainly correlated to some degree. The way I look at it, the national polling climate is like a "wind" that pushes the states in one direction. Each state has a "lean" but a strong wind can over power it.

    It's our job to give Obama a strong wind at his back.

    FWIW, it is perfectly possible for Mitt to win without Ohio. You have to give him a lot of battlegrounds (NC, VA, FL, CO, NV, IA, NH) but he can hit 273 without Ohio. I'm not sure how much of a national polling wind behind his back he needs to pull this off (3-4 points would probably do it), but it's not impossible, just hard.

    Again, we just have to give Obama that strong wind at his back and hope he can catch it in his sails.

    •  Campaign now feels like 2004 reversed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I can now see Obama winning 50-49-1, with ~290 EVs and massive struggle for OH. That would be a 'worst case' scenario pre-debate, but is now a disturbingly likely outcome.

      The good news is that even with Obama's fall, the Senate races still look pretty good. In a worst-case scenario, the Senate will be a firewall to any future Romney SC picks...

      ...gah hate myself for even thinking it! Forget what I just said, Obama WILL win.

      •  I can see the 2004 reversed scenario.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Berkeley Fred, Supavash

        ....especially if Obama does "good enough, but not great" in the last two debates (thus following GWB's footsteps on debate performances).

        HOWEVER, even in the deadlocked scenario,  if Obama carries Ohio,  I think he'll pick up a few other states and have more than a bare majority.  Probably NV, VA, IA, NH... Why do I think that?

        I just think that this is Obama's nadir and he's got nowhere to go but up, unless he completely immolates (in which case he loses by more than a hair).  Even if "up" is just back to the 1.5pt lead of the summer, he becomes favored in a lot of states.

        I guess if the race stays exactly where it seems to be today, it would be deadlocked with a good chance of "everything on Ohio".   But, I'd really rather not stay here.

        •  Agree 100% (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If OH is steady, WI should follow, along with IA.

          The polling for NH and VA seem all over the map, but they should go blue. Obama will have to make effort there, however.

          We have to keep making an effort for FL and NC, but in my heart of hearts I think the debate turned these states red.

          I personally find the shifts to Romney in NV and CO most alarming of all, but I also believe these states can be brought back into the fold.

          Like you said, the results in these states are not independent of each other, they will rise and fall on the performance of Obama in the next debates, and on GOTV.

          •  any particular reason you feel that way about FL? (0+ / 0-)

            NC always felt like a stretch to me this year.... (Obama won strongly in 2008 and NC was really close then.... I don't expect to win NC unless everything we've got the thing in the bag....)

            but why do you feel that way about FL? any reason why you think that the debate shut out our chances in FL?

            only thing that I can figure is some kind of race-based "they won't give him a second look" phenomenon. They were iffy about him to start, and then he falls apart and confirms their worst suspicions, and there's no way to get them back. I say it's race based 'cuz, well, that kind of "no second chances for you" thinking is a common form of racism, and it would explain a difference between FL/NC and the other battlegrounds.

            Then again, I pretty much pulled that out of my behind.

            •  Two things (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              1) Voter suppression and outright fraud - FL is so important, and so in the clutches of Scott et al. This is the only state I think GOP dirty tricks will matter (assuming a close election)

              2) Muddled message on SS and Medicare - for some reason the Obama campaign can't seem to effectively discredit Romney / Ryan's lying on the issue. If Obama doesn't effectively hammer them in the next debate it might be too late.

              Mind you, I have no special knowledge or analysis, just based on what I read about the campaigns on Kos and elsewhere on the Internet. Call it being pessimistic/cautious/realist.

          •  why do people assume VA will go blue? (0+ / 0-)

            they have a hard right governor that everyone tells me is very popular. That says something.

  •  Another question for BBB..since I do not know (0+ / 0-)

    polling methodology, is it is possible that Democrats become more energized as a result of Joe firing them up last night...thus are more prone to say they will vote. I wonder if after some were discouraged with the Presidential debate, some Democrats might have said they were going to stay home. Could that factor into polling?

    Would more Obama supporters be more apt to pick up the phone and take a poll this week than last as they feel more fired up and feel much better now after Joe lit the debate on fire?  

    We know some of that Obama support was soft but could some of that soft support return, granted not all , but if even a third of that soft support returned based on being more fired up now that Obama was their original choice and they come home.

    Ie are Democrats coming home too or will they if the President does Ok next week or at least lands a few hard shots on Mitt and lands some great punches?

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:43:23 PM PDT

  •  alternate theory from Rasmussen (6+ / 0-)

    is that the race never really moved from where it was mid-September, but Romney's awful month meant he took a huge hit in some LV models. This is partially reflected in the fact that there really hasn't been too much movement in national RV polls.

    Ras (rightfully) gets a lot of criticism for trying to push pro-GOP narratives, but interestingly, he's one of the few pollsters saying a Romney surge has been illusory.

    Of course, he may very well be trying to boost his credibility, but then again, he's got some evidence to support it now.

    With that said, Obama obviously didn't help himself with the debate. An energized GOP base means more money, volunteers and word-of-mouth exposure for Romney. In that regard, things are certainly harder than they should have been.

  •  Well today we know one of them! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    I stick by my contention that this swing was mostly among non college educated white women, mostly unmarried

    He's [R] also gained slightly in CT & CA since the end of September and recent MI & PA polling has been closer, but again that has much to do with the pollster and their 'preferences' and their general all year polling averages... The problem with the swing states has been the predominance of R leaners that seem to pop out polls three times a week and therefore "spam" the polling averages with their narrative, while once every so often we get some variation on NBC/Marist or PPP shining some more credible light on the race...

    "Never trust a man who, when left alone with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on!!"

    by EcosseNJ on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:46:05 PM PDT

  •  Depends on nature of swing states (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brooklynbadboy, wishingwell, wu ming

    My theory is that there are many subgroups within the electorate, and most of them will move rather uniformly with regards to supporting R or D in a Presidential election. What happens in the campaign will have varying positive and negative impacts on the support of each of these groups.

    In other words, the types of subgroups in the electorates of swing states are not fundamentally different than non-swing states; you will find plenty of conservatives in CA, and liberals in TX. It's just that the relative percentages of the key subgroups are such that the the overall partisan alignment is closer. Why this is is an accident of history, and not static, it can clearly evolve.

    Applying this theory to the facts, if Romney's support among non-rich white males increased substantially as a result of the debate, for example, you could argue that it would tend to inflate his voting total in the South (NC, FL), have a moderate effect in the midwest (OH, WI), and less so in western and East Coast swing states (NV, CO, NH). If it was non-rich white females, that would probably hurt Obama substantially more.

    If we were going to generalize about who the swing electorates are in 2012, it would be people dissatisfied with the economic performance of the Obama Administration, but not yet fully convinced to support Romney. Because most minorities are strongly opposed to the GOP's racialist tint (a euphemism for racism) regardless of economic class, these swing groups are probably substantially white, working class/lower middle class, and neither conservative Christians or seculars. They are also probably more male than female, but that is less important.

    When Romney came across in the debate as somewhat less than the picture of a cold corporate tycoon (even though he is), whose policies may not be as radical as pictured by the Obama campaign (truthfully IMO remember!), that probably led to a significant movement towards Romney. You would expect the most impact in places like NC, VA, FL, and IA, WI and OH.

    We have clearly seen movement to Romney in NC, FL and VA. On the worrying side, NV and CO have swung more to Romney than I would expect given this model. On the plus side, OH and WI are still supportive of Obama, which is reflective of the strong campaign work done by Obama in OH especially.

    The bottom line is that unlike African-Americans and Hispanics, the swing electorates in 2012 can still be persuaded, but Obama will have to both present a specific, compelling vision for the second term, and tear down attempts by Romney to portray himself as moderate (i.e. refute his lies). He needs to do both.

    Finally, of course, GOTV still trumps all!

  •  From the Northeast (0+ / 0-)

    I tend not to watch a lot of over the air TV but when I do watch there is a very conspicuous absence of advertising by the Presidential candidates.  I've seen a few for Obama and far fewer for Romney.  We get advertising for local candidates and being in the Boston / Providence market that is almost exclusively ads for Massachusetts Senate.
    There really is no influence on public opinion outside of debate and speech coverage and thus I wouldn't be surprised if people wavered based solely on the news of the day.  
    I've long felt that Romney was a much more formidable foe than many of the DK community believed.  In my area the electoral votes are a given, there's no question that MA, RI and CT are for Obama even if Romney were to get a 5 or 10% bump it does him no good.  
    Just as an observation, nothing that Romney said in the debate should have been remotely attractive to Obama's base; that Obama would lose the unmarried white women vote strikes me as the biggest load of horseshit.  Romney would be particularly destructive to this group. The economy is very clearly improving.  There is more to this than meets the eye, that Romney should be gaining such significant support as a result of 1 debate defies logic.

  •  have you looked at RAND intention to vote? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I hadn't looked at RAND in a few days. So my first reaction was, "Damn." Which was valid.

    My second reaction was to notice that the drop from 10/9 to 10/10 largely owes to a steep drop in Obama supporters' intention to vote, which had actually been edging up (probably because some unlikely-to-vote Obama supporters were becoming non-supporters). I'm not sure how to interpret that, especially when it depends on who is rolling off from the previous week. But it's interesting.

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

    by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:51:22 PM PDT

    •  Doesn't look good for now. (0+ / 0-)

      I was waiting until today to get a full look at Rand since by now it is not accounting for Thursday and Friday of last week.

      You'll notice Friday dropped off and still there was a drop in intention to vote. That could mean that the Obama Campaign has some sort of messaging issue that isn't firing up core Dems. I can't even begin to speculate what that is.

    •  One thing we could speculate on as to why (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      this is happening is that people have already voted via Obama's early ground game and that therefore they would have to respond "no" on intention to vote since they've already voted. I don't know. That could also mean 100% yes, depending on how they read it.

      Rand needs to account for the fact that not everybody is going to vote on election day.

      •  right, it "should" be 100/100... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but looking at the survey, people might have to deduce that it should be 100/100. I didn't immediately see anything in the methods report about early voting.

        I did see that they weight to reported 2008 vote -- which perhaps is not a great idea, since people's reports of past votes aren't necessarily accurate. Then I sternly told myself to get out of the weeds.

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

        by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 02:25:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If only they could run full-throatedly (0+ / 0-)


    Financial Reform
    Social Security
    Trade Reform

    For one reason or another all of those arrows in our quill have been blunted... the arguments obfuscated or compromised away. It is Obama's - the centrist village Dems' - ambivalence that is snatching a narrow, ambiguous victory from the jaws of possible historic triumph...

    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

    by chuckvw on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:55:28 PM PDT

  •  I think Romney's bounce is helped with the fact (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Supavash, Lovepolitics2008

    that the media seems to pimp him

    "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 Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:56:51 PM PDT

  •  5 McCain signs, zero Romney. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And two for President Obama. I was shocked to see one of the President Obama signs. This time in 2008, we had 5 McCain signs in my residential area. We have zero today.

    I believe that these national polls are a waste of time. Think about it. Even with all of the fancy mechanics, there is still the problem of enthusiasm, of respondent participation in roughly 40 states.

    How many people in New York or Texas want to participate in a survey? And the GOP is more consumed with that stuff than Democratic supporters. They live for the right wing noise machine.

  •  Really good point. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So Rombot's advantage in Texas goes up a few percent.  Do we care?  At this point, I only really care about Ohio, Virginia, Florida and maybe Pennsylvania.

    If Obama wins there, there will be no joy in Mittville, Might Mittens has struck out . . .

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 02:13:17 PM PDT

  •  The irony is that Romney energized the GOP base (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    by moving to the middle.

    And those fuckwits aren't even coherent enough to know that they're getting all excited about the governor from Massachusetts that worked with Democrats and passed tax increases, Romneycare, and "cares about the poor."

    I'm STILL laughing at that fact. They are THAT stupid.

    "Fortunately, I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, uh, limber." The Dude

    by Methinks They Lie on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 02:13:30 PM PDT

  •  Good analysis, but it does impact down-ticket (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    races too.  

    If Obama loses by only 5 in Montana instead of 11, then Tester has a slightly better shot at keeping his seat.  

    The down-ticket influence is likely not that great but it may be enough to make a difference in a few of the following senate races:  Montana, Arizona, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc., as well as some house races.

  •  all the swing state moving to Romney nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  If this is what's really happening, I wonder if... (0+ / 0-)

    it means the President's team has actually accomplished something in the states they've focused their firepower on. I tend to think a lot of the money that goes into TV ads is wasted since your average tv viewer just tunes them out. There's been a significant increase in production values and straightforward messaging. Maybe the President's ad team created enough suppressive fire in the swing states against the resurrection of Mitt Romney's character.

    "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

    by 2020adam on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 04:02:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site