50 Days Until Election, President Obama Still In Lead
With a little over 50 days to go President Obama still leads Mitt Romney by 3% according to Real Clear Politics average of polls. Mitt Romney is running out of time to convince Americans they’d be better off with him in the White House instead of Obama.
Romney's convention bounce could only pull him even with Obama. Obama's bounce reclaimed that lead and he's held pretty steady since going from a peak of 49.0% to 48.7% as it stands today.
Anyone who knows me knows I love polls. But for most people there is a love/hate relationship with polls. The definition of political polls is probably something like this:
The best way to measure the standing of your candidate or issue unless of course the poll differs from how you feel your candidate or issue is doing in the public eye.
We see that on Watchblog almost every day. This morning I noticed Josh Marshall at TPM had made this statement:
I've been watching elections professionally for going on two decades.
From a fair amount of experience I'll say one thing: if your theory is based on some sort of systematic error on the part of most pollsters, you're almost certainly in for a really long election night.
I agree. What is striking to me and should worry conservatives is how accurate RCP's average of polls has been over the last 2 elections. In 2004 they had Bush leading by 1.5% and Bush won the popular vote by 2.4%. In 2008 they had Obama leading by 7.6% and Obama won by 7.4%. Being off by less than 1 numerically each time is pretty good in my book.
There will always be debate about certain polls depending on the outcomes and methods used but you can't deny a trend this big. If it continues this way as it did against McCain last time out then Romney has a lot of reasons to worry in this final stretch.
The Republicans might not be noticing Congress slipping away at the same time as the White House. RCP has the leadership of the House coming down to 63 leaning or tossup states even as Democrats surge ahead in the generic ballot riding what is most likely the Obama convention bounce still. Over in the Senate there are only about 15 seats truly in play and the Democrats have the advantage there right now as well somehow.
The GOP is hoping economic uncertainty and conservative enthusiasm will make the difference in this one and they just might. So far though the public is not in agreement with that view even when measuring likely voters over registered voters. All we know right now is that the White House, House and Senate could all three change hands next year, or not. The Democrats have to like the position they are in right now but neither side will be resting until it's over.
Posted by Adam Ducker at September 16, 2012 6:38 AM
The Obama strategy to trash Romney personally early in the process worked well. It is hard to overcome, especially with the generally Obama-friendly media echoing the Democratic line.
IMO, liberals should just stand down. It is in the bag for you all.
The Democratic good fortune is that Romney is not a very inspiring candidate. He is no Ronald Reagan.
The Democratic strategy is simple. They more or less admit that Obama has failed, but they claim it is not his fault and that Romney is bad. It is not a good way to win an election and will result in indifferent post-election results. If Obama wins, he will have done so by dividing Americans into aggrieved groups rather than uniting them in common purpose. With an Obama victory, the next four years will resemble the sideways movement of the last four years.
The Republican strategy is equally simple. It is to hold Obama responsible for his record. So far Democrats are doing better at pushing their narrative.
I am not optimistic about this. IMO, if Obama is reelected our country will recover much more slowly from the recession. Obama spends most of his time campaigning, pandering to particular grievance groups and playing golf. It is well know that he does not bother to meet often with his jobs advisers or even get security briefings. He is not a very good leader at a time when we could benefit from clear direction.
The Democrats have fallen into the party of complaint. I really hated it when Elizabeth Warren said that the American system is rigged against working people. Besides just not being true, this kind of leftist talk used to be limited to the lunatic fringes. I am afraid that Obama also believes it, although he is too clever to say it out loud. Without the discipline of another election, Obama will begin to indulge the loons and his administration will increasingly take from the productive people to give the complainers. That is my fear, at least. It makes sense that if you believe that the system is rigged, you would take the kind redistributive action that would hinder economic growth and job creation, but would sound good. When things work as you can project they would, the Democrats will again blame the “rich”. It sets up a viscous circle poor growth - blame - poor growth - blame.
Never had a good feeling about Mc Cain in 2008. I didn’t believe he would win. Romney, and Ryan I think are going to suprise everyone, and win in a big way. We still have the debates, and Obamas record to keep hammering away at. I think other than his most liberal base people are through with him and his excuses, and poor policies. Stick a fork in him……he’s done.
C&J: “The Democratic strategy is simple. They more or less admit that Obama has failed, but they claim it is not his fault and that Romney is bad. … The Republican strategy is equally simple. It is to hold Obama responsible for his record.”
Don’t kid anyone here. The Republican strategy is to make the public forget that the worst conditions of this economy and the debt happened on their watch and by their own policies and to pretend that trying their policies again now will somehow end up with a different result than we got under Bush. I’m sick and tired of you brow beating Democrats to try and get us to accept responsibility for not cleaning up your garbage fast enough or in a way you agree with. Obama should accept fault for things that are his fault and nothing more. That’s the bottom line.
“Besides just not being true, this kind of leftist talk used to be limited to the lunatic fringes.”
Warren is right but I find your talk of fringes a bit ironic right on the heels of the lunatic Values Voters Summit where Paul Ryan spoke.
Dbs: “I think other than his most liberal base people are through with him and his excuses, and poor policies. Stick a fork in him……he’s done.”
But 89% of Democrats and 45% of Independents support the president right now. That seems like he’s hardly “done” to me. I agree there’s time for Romney to turn things around though. We’ll see.
“Don’t kid anyone here. The Republican strategy is to make the public forget that the worst conditions of this economy and the debt happened on their watch…”
Hence my characterization that the Democratic strategy is to admit that Obama failed but claim it is not his fault.
Re Warren - My experience is that hard work and reasonable intelligence generally work to make people not poor. There is a lot more random chance in our lives than either side likes to admit. I am not saying that all can become rich or that the system is 100% fair, but it is not rigged against any particular group of people. To the extent that there is any “rigging” it tends to be done by government.
If you want to get a no bid contract with the Federal government, you must have minority or female ownership. I have seen contractors that can do the job and would work for X amount. But in order to hire them, the Federal government demands they work for a minority owned firm. So there are minority-women firms that pick these guys up. They charge the government x+y, get the contract and pay the actually worker x, maybe a little less. This is certainly a type of rigging and should stop. Tell that to Obama and Warren, but I doubt they would listen since their idea of justice is to expand such preference programs.
There is the bigger rigging of Obama’s crony capitalism.
So I guess Warren has a point; she is just pointing in the wrong direction.
The problem with hammering on Obama’s record is that Obama’s record is pretty good. It only works with those pre-disposed to hate Obama. GDP continues to show slow but steady growth, inflation and interest rates remain low, and the stock market continues to go up. The vulnerabilities are with the unemployment rate and real estate prices. It’s hard to attack those without bringing up the Bush years.
I’ve said all along that Romney’s best bet was hammering on a poor economy, but that never meant it was a sure bet- just the best available.
Romney might have done better if he had effectively used the GOP convention. He did not. The divergence in RCP and other polls takes off with the conventions.
The GOP convention was not bad- but it was not good, either. Other than a dislike of Obama, there seemed to be no theme among the various speakers. Ann Romney gave a decent speech, but failed to connect with women by addressing women’s health issues. I thought Chris Christie gave the best speech because it was passionate and watchable. But after Ann Romney’s talk about love, Christie gave an ‘you’re on your own’ speech, and it was more about himself and 2016 than Romney; in fact, he didn’t even mention Romney until the absolute end of the speech.
According to a poll, the most memorable moment of the convention was Clint Eastwood and the chair. Nuf said.
Romney gave an ok speech, but he missed his great opportunity. He had the chance to directly address the voters without filters, live, but he failed to use it effectively. He gave reasons to vote against Obama, but no compelling reasons to vote for him. There was no policy, no theme, no big idea, just a fundamental negativity at the heart of the entire convention.
The Democratic convention, on the other hand, brimmed with enthusiasm. The speakers were on the same page. The issues were hammered at with regularity. The best speeches came, not from Obama, but from Bill Clinton and Obama’s wife. When that convention ended there was an almost palpable sense: the deal was closed. They made their case. The Democrats did it.
The polls reflect this assessment.
Romney missed yet another opporuntiy re the unrest in the Middle East, and the deaths of the Americans in Libya. He didn’t really have to do anything, just express concern, sympanthy for those who died at the Embassy, devotion to American unity, willingness to help the President, and determination to bring the Libyan killers to justice.
It was easy. All Romney had to do was say the right things, adopt the right facial expression, and wait to see if events would tank Obama.
Instead… He blew it. He did none of the things he should have done, acted in haste, made an inaccurate statement, said nothing about the deaths of Americans even though he already knew at least one had died, and accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with the attackers.
And he delivered the entire thing with a smirk.
It was an absolute disaster for Romney.
Pehaps events abroad will somehow help Romney in the future, but I doubt it. The unrest will die down and soon be forgotten, although there may be some underlying lessons the State Department will need to assimilate. Some good people died in Libya, and hopefully they will be avenged, and in the longer run, perhaps some good will come if there is a backlash among Muslims and Libyans. Despite the small number of demonstrators, the Libyans seem inclined to be friendly towards the US, and I think that will hold true elsewhere, especially in Egypt. It will take time, and it’s not the sort of attitude that makes a good magazine cover, but be patient.
We have the worst recovery in living memory. All the assessments of “good” depend not only on blaming his predecessors but also assuming that the Obama folks own assessments were way wrong.
Re real estate prices - there was a bubble and prices had to come down. This bubble took place during the Bush years but was not primarily the product of Bush policies.
Just as Obama would shift blame to Bush, if Bush were running he would shift blame to Democrats in congress, confluence of world events, Fed policy etc.
But Bush is NOT running. Nobody from the Bush administration is on the ticket. So we are looking at Obama policy versus the hope of a change for the better.
Re conventions - you are right about the contrast. In doing so, however, you inadvertently attack an idea you all push. If Republicans are in “lockstep” why can’t they be united? On the other hand, Democrats are all “on the same page. The issues were hammered at with regularity.”
Looking at these facts, as you present them, a reasonable person would conclude that Democrats are the ones who march in lockstep.
Re trouble in the Muslim world - my opinion has not changed. It is more them than us. You guys blamed Bush. But our Muslim colleagues behave pretty much the same whether its is Bush or Obama, don’t they?
I don’t believe the sentiment that swept democrats out of power in the house, and cost them senate seats in 2010 has changed. I think Obama will have problems in the debates. He doesn’t do well when put on the spot. Biden is IMO be completely out classed by Ryan. QE3 will cause enrgy and comodity prices to again rise. Faced with an increased cost of living the voters will turn on Obama and place the blame for this anemic recovery and high energy prices where it belongs, squarely on his shoulders.
Polls have often been wrong about the eventual winner. The most reliable polls I have seen show a tight race. A sitting president with all the accomplishments dems shout about should have double diget leads by now.
In past races the lead has changed the nearer it comes to November, and sometimes by large margins.
I love it when the dems get too cocky. Their fall makes a beautiful sound.
C&J…Elizabeth Warren is right. The system is rigged to the benefit of the banks and Wall Street. It was just legalized gambling until Rubin in the Clinton administration proposed letting banks start operating as brokerage companies which allowed them to hedge on crude, and deal in derivatives for their own personal gain. They got bailout money, refuse to loan it out, combine it with their customer’s deposits, and use it to make billions while driving up the cost of oil, food commodities and almost everything else.
The Bush administration all but turned their backs on banks and WS, allowing them to further have their way with us. These guys buy votes from both parties, so don’t plan on any big changes in regulatory laws. The ones O is beating his chest about are rudimentary at best.
With regards to O’s 3% lead…big deal. It’s early yet. We haven’t heard the last of this embassy raid stuff, the jobs market still sucks, and the debates could prove damaging for O. If I was running the Repub campaign, I’d run a video of O making all those unkept campaign promises he made over and over again. Remember? No lobbyists. Open meeting ….blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
C&J: “Hence my characterization that the Democratic strategy is to admit that Obama failed but claim it is not his fault.”
Obama will always fail to meet the expectations of Republicans who said Obama was a failure on day 1.
“Re Warren - My experience is that hard work and reasonable intelligence generally work to make people not poor.”
Growing up rich helps too. Just ask President Bush and Mitt Romney.
Dbs: “I don’t believe the sentiment that swept democrats out of power in the house, and cost them senate seats in 2010 has changed.”
The problem is your side seems to think the sentiment was mostly anti-Democrat instead of just against Congress in general. Americans hate Congress right now. It’s a worthless batch of folks and it could cost the GOP the same as it cost them in 2006 and 2008 and the Democrats in 2010. We’ll just have to see.
Royal Flush: “Polls have often been wrong about the eventual winner.”
I’m not suggesting that Obama will win in November because he leads today but I’m suggesting that RCP does not miss by much when they average the results and Obama currently has the advantage.
“The most reliable polls I have seen show a tight race.”
There you go. By reliable you mean those that agree with you, I suppose?
“I love it when the dems get too cocky. Their fall makes a beautiful sound.”
I feel good about Obama’s chances but I know Romney has plenty of time. There’s always a chance that whitey tape will finally surface…
C&J….the system is rigged to the detriment of working people. WS and banks are manipulating markets. When you have no intention of ever taking delivery of crude, and can buy millions in futures with basically no money in the game, the system is rigged. It drives up cost of goods and makes them billions. What about this do you not understand?
“Growing up rich helps too. Just ask President Bush and Mitt Romney.”
It helps. Of course, we should add the Kennedys etc.
But it is possible in the U.S. to start poor and become rich. 80% of millionaires are first generation. And it is very easy in America to become not poor. In fact, I am convinced that any reasonably able bodied person who remains poor for more than a few years is a screw up.
Re crude - I have no problem with people speculating in oil futures. Those that bet on oil futures this year made money. Those who bet on oil futures last year lost money.
I understand that money flows among and between these guys. Sometimes they serve a useful purpose, as when a farmer sells a future contract to lock in his prices. Those that want to take the risk buy the risk from those who do not.
The system is not rigged against you, but if you choose to participate in this market, you stand a good chance of losing your pants if you don’t know what you are doing.
It does not drive up the price of goods in the long run. We have seen various attempts to corner markets. Some people make money for some time and then it ends.
What drives up the price of gasoline is lack of refining capacity. The underlying price of crude is not a free market, but speculators have a very small role to play here as the vast majority of crude is controlled today by governments.
Obama has had a pretty steady lead in the national polls for a few weeks. Romney is not doing himself any favors after putting his foot in his mouth over the embassy attacks then, when realizing it was in his mouth, trying to shove it as far down his throat as he could. Also, not having a plan on anything isn’t helping. He won’t say what tax loopholes he’ll close, he won’t get into specifics about his economic policies, his foreign policy is a laughable “confidence, clarity, and resolve.” Ironic since “clarity” is right there in his statement but he has offered nothing approaching clarity … on anything. I think his advisers convinced him all he had to do was be vague on specifics and let the state of the economy sweep him into office. Well, that didn’t happen. He hasn’t been able to shift gears.
As to C&J’s comments about Obama running a negative campaign and that all he’s been doing is trashing Romney. Well, yes he is. Romney has been trying equally as hard to trash Obama it’s just not really working out for him. I live in Virginia and we’re getting pummeled by campaign ads and none of them are positive, none of them. I am sitting here watching a football game and the candidates have been pretty much alternating trashing each other. I think it has worked for Obama for two reasons, first, Romney was something of an unknown. Romney was doing his best to remain the vague better alternative to Obama and wasn’t defining himself so the Obama campaign took the opportunity. It worked. Obama, for good or ill, is already a known quantity. Romney is trying to define someone who is already well defined. Those ads might help to rally the base but it’s not going to turn any Dems red and it doesn’t seem to be working on the undecided voters. If they believed those ads they would already be in the Romney camp since he’s essentially saying nothing new. I think his campaign made a tactical error in being vague and a poor attempt to define Obama. His other problem is that others control so much of his message. All these super pacs are giving him huge money advantage but the ads aren’t the kind that are going to appeal to an undecided voter. They’re all red meat ads painting Obama as an evil socialist and not American. The undecideds with brains know this isn’t true and if nothing else are going to be turned off by Romney. The supi … err … ingora … err those undecided voters who have bad luck with thinking are probably going to be split between those that believe Obama’s attack ads and those that believe Romney’s. Considering his place in the polls he needed to find some message that appealed to the more intelligent undecided voters but squandered that opportunity.
Romney really needs to hand Obama his a** in the first half hour of the first debate or it’ll be live boy/dead hooker phase for Romeny (if Obama is caught with either of these Romney will have a chance otherwise not). Ohio looks to be ready to turn light blue on the map and Wisconsin is probably not going to go red. That makes a pretty tough road to 270 for Romney. I think North Carolina is the only swing state that Romney seems to have been consistently holding a narrow lead. That ain’t getting him into the White House.
C&J… Bart Chilton, the Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner, appointed by Bush and retained by Obama has this to say about what hedging adds to a tank of gas.
May I also point out to you that while you blame a lack of refining capability for high fuel prices, facts prove you wrong. Manipulation, maybe, but not lack of refining. The U.S., for the first time in modern history, has become a net exporter of refined fuels. Travel down to the Gulf Coast and watch all the tankers cruising out low in the water.
If I could boil down the problem for both Romney and the Republicans, it’s that they have been counting not on something Romney or Ryan or anybody else is doing or leading in order to win, but instead on other events so battering down Obama that he loses.
Instead, his active efforts have been towards keeping the Right on his side.
How many elections can Republicans win with the general public, if they force GOP candidates to make their issues and their stands the priority in the general election? How well can Republicans really inspire if they’re allowed to do little beyond fulfill the anti-government paradigm of the GOP? It might seem unfair, but many people want more from their politicians than that.
But Bush is NOT running. Nobody from the Bush administration is on the ticket. So we are looking at Obama policy versus the hope of a change for the better.
Not only is GWB not running he seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. Why wasn’t he at the repub convention supporting Romney? For that matter where was Cheney and Rumsfeld? But I guess it doesn’t make any difference that GWB isn’t running because the conservatives have just thrown another businessman into the ring. Another businessman who as best we can tell is GWB part II. How can anybody claim this is a change let alone a change for the better?
C&J and John IMHO you are both right. Speculation drives up the price of oil. The refinery bottleneck keeps prices high. Exporting oil over seas also keeps the price of oil high.
This labor day I was thinking gas prices would go down as they traditionally did at the end of summer, but instead prices rose due to a problem at a refinery, how fortunate for the oil companies.
“How many elections can Republicans win with the general public.” All of them. It requires a plurality of voters to win. When Republicans win, they represent the general public.
Bush retired generally. He has not participated much in public events, nor criticized Obama.
John an J2t2
Re oil - the paradigm is rapidly shifting, as we are getting more and more energy, mostly natural gas but also oil, from American sources. This was completely unexpected. In fact, in 2000, experts estimated that we only had enough gas to last until 2010.
Speculators can affect prices in the short term, but in the long term, unless they can get government to interfere, the underlying forces bring prices to market levels, higher or lower.
The big interference with the price of energy is government, principally unfriendly ones. The interesting thing is that they don’t agree. Iranians want higher prices. Saudis want to lower them, since they fear changeover to natural gas, which is much cheaper, but still lacks a distribution network for transport.
C&J: “In fact, I am convinced that any reasonably able bodied person who remains poor for more than a few years is a screw up.”
I do get that sense from you: The system is not rigged, and if you stay poor it’s your own fault. It’s a nice bumper sticker. I grew up with hard working poor people though and I’m sure they’d love to hear you think they are a screw up.
As I said last week, the polls will come to reality during the last two weeks before the election. The RCP polls are merely a reflection of the daily polls, and the daily polls by the media are meant to throw the election to Obama. How can anyone believe Obama is really doing this well with the American people when foreign policy is in meltdown, gas and diesel prices are @ $4 a gal, we are facing another recession, unemployment still above 8%, and we are facing drastic cuts to our military and the ability to protect ourselves? Even at that, none of the polls show Obama above 50%, and it takes 50+% to win an election.
As I have stated in previous posts, I am a retired, black, businessman. I talked to my wife just a few days ago and I asked her a question. We travel quite a bit, our lives are very social, meaning we are in contact with many people of all persuasions, and I asked her, “how many people have you met or talked to who support Obama”? We both came to the conclusion there are very few who are happy with Obama and plan to vote for him. Many of our friends voted for Obama 4 years ago, but do not support him now. So, I do not believe the polls. In 2008, Rasmussen was rated as one of the most accurate polls and Rasmussen shows a dead heat; but even at that, it is a dead heat at about 45%; which means there is still about 10% who are undecided or voting for another candidate. Who in their right mind believes there are 10% who are undecided? I will say this, based upon personal experience; our white friends are very concerned about being called racist if they say they support Romney over Obama. Therefore, they say they are undecided when talking to pollsters. But in reality, they are not undecided.
So the polls will begin to tighten up in the next few weeks; the pollsters and the MSM will be force to declare that Romney is “unexpectedly” pulling ahead in the polls. If they don’t, these pollsters will be discredited in future election.
“The RCP polls are merely a reflection of the daily polls, and the daily polls by the media are meant to throw the election to Obama.”
How does a poll change an election? That’s what you’re not saying. What good is an inaccurate poll to anyone?
“We both came to the conclusion there are very few who are happy with Obama and plan to vote for him.”
Next time you’re on a long trip and you have some downtime read about anecdotal evidence. Your entire story stinks of elaborate fantasy you’ve cooked up to make the world around you fit your own narrow and ill informed world view. You draw your conclusions by discrediting in your own mind everything you see that disagrees including polls and economic data.
C&J…speculators will affect the price at the pump even if the price per bbl drops. They make refined products more expensive regardless. They are still trading when the price is up; they are still trading when the price is down. They are doing so with no skin in the game. They are doing so with no intention of ever taking ownership of the oil. it is no different than Vegas for them…except their line of credit is much greater.
If we fueled trucks with natural gas, we could be energy independent…even with cars still running on gasoline. This would remove some volatility from the equation for us when there are ME conflicts that drive up prices. Big Oil and WS speculators don’t want to see this because it would drastically reduce their profits.
I agree that most that don’t trust polls are simply wishing for inaccuracies. But, at the same time, those that think today’s poll numbers mean anything are just as blind.
At this point in the polls in 2008 (according to RCP), Obama and McCain were deadlocked. McCain has slipped from his lead, and Obama had subsequently surged. The seven point margin was entirely built after the 50 day mark.
So, while it is interesting to see what the demographics are today, they mean very little in the actual election.
For the record when I don’t see comments I just refresh the page a couple of times until I do. Posting a new comment just to see the newest comments may not be needed.
I disagree, it was without a doubt anti democrat/ Obama sentiment. Just like 08 was anti republican/Bush. I believe the anti democrat sentiment is still strong. The house has passed plenty of legislation Reid just refuses to take it up in the senate. It isn’t what Obama wants, so he tries ti paint reps as obstructionists.
Adam: “At this point in the polls in 2008 (according to RCP), Obama and McCain were deadlocked.”
Fifty days doesn’t matter so much as when the convention bounces happened. It was later for McCain because he gave his speech September 4th and his bounce lasted a week or more and started to fade around this time in 2008 to reveal the trend going forward.
I think based on just pure speculation on my part from looking at previous polls that what we see today in the post-convention bounce polling could stand up until the election. Of course it’s a shallow gap so Romney could make that up in a few news cycles.
I hedge a lot on this because it’s clear that this election is still up for grabs. The point of my post was simply to say that I have a high degree of faith in RCP averaging based on the previous two elections and I think that it’s somewhat significant that at the 50 day mark Obama has the advantage going forward.
I think 2006 was very similar to 2010. Republicans gained greater control in 2004 and the public lost faith. The 2008 election is different because you had a strong Democratic candidate and a great deal of Democrat enthusiasm and then in turn better support for Democrats in Congress. I am unconvinced still that 2010 was anything other than a reflection of the public’s continued lack of faith in the US Congress that has only grown deeper since then.
It’s not a long shot for Democrats to re-take the House. I will be pleasantly surprised if they do but not shocked. We’ll just have to see where the generic ballot stands before the election. I think it will give us a good sense of where the public is leaning on who they want in control. It only takes a 1 or 2 point swing in that ballot to really shake things up every 2 years.
What I mean is, if Republicans insist that candidates continue to veer hard right after the Primaries, to ignore what people center or left want, how can they win general elections? The Republicans will not succeed by insisting that everybody thinks and votes their way.
If we’re going with anecdotal evidence, let’s take the informality all the way. You seem rather aggressive when you argue with me about Obama. Is that something you only do when you’re here arguing with me?
See, there’s a possibility that you might not be considering. That possibility is, folks might not want to discuss politics with you anymore, and as such, your friends and family might do their best to avoid the subject.
Additionally, the polls have and advantage over you: They’re random. When they talk about six degrees of separation (or more formally Small World Theory), in terms of a person’s network of friends and family, the fact of the matter is, most people in your inner circle know most other people.
This is where a concept called “The Strength of Weak Ties” comes in. I’m not that far away from the Late Jerry Falwell, and therefore anybody he had a relationship with, because I knew a professor who had gone to his school. It’s not one of my closest relationships, though I do value it, but because he’s outside my inner circle, because he knows quite a few people who I wouldn’t, and his connections put me a closer than I otherwise would be.
What we’re talking about here are the folks we’re acquainted with, but not quite so close to. Weak ties, but stronger connections to those who are more remote from ourselves.
Randomization of polls came about, in part, because polls that relied on samples, say, from customer bases and other kinds of common groups, often carried with them the bias of those groups. You assert your common group represents something greater, but does it? Or does it represent itself?
The trick with dealing with the nationwide leads is that you don’t need to win that to win the Presidency. The President opening up a lead in Ohio is your man’s big problem. Without Ohio or Florida, the path to winning the electoral college will require a lot more victories altogether.
And I will submit to you that the main reason the GOP loses, if it does, is that it’s become utterly reliant on breaking down the opponent’s ties to other groups, and very reticent to create ties to anybody but those in their own inner circle. Republicans don’t want to choose the option of expanding their ranks, if that means diluting their ideology.
Their hope is that the rest of society can be persuaded or bullied into joining up, but the Demographics are working against that.
Sorry guys, government dependency, media, pandering to special groups, propaganda based campaign of lies, and fear, all point to Obama winning. IMO, probably by around 5%.
The countrys best hope is for the House and Senate to not change and, as Adam shows, that is a possibility.
2012 will go down as one of the most tragic years in our nations history. Our exceptionalism will be a thing only found in history books.
Kctim: “2012 will go down as one of the most tragic years in our nations history. Our exceptionalism will be a thing only found in history books.”
Folks have been saying that every election for years and yet here we are still, doing OK all things considered. Conservatives love to talk about how great America is but apparently it’s a country so weak that the potential for 4 more years of a man you disagree with is all that’s needed for you to invoke doom and apocalyptic imagery.
Adam, the difference is that the concern today is over fundamentally changing the country, not stupid things like tougher abortion laws.
Losing our freedom of choice is not “doing OK all things considered.”
You don’t cherish that freedom as I do, so you do not look at what losing it will cost us as a nation.
When Obama wins, the ACA is guaranteed to infect our nation and stripped away our freedom of choice. THAT is a fundamental change in the way our government is supposed to be ran. THAT freedom of choice was a major reason why we were exceptional.
That is NOT “doom and apocalyptic imagery,” it is fact.
But hey, as long as it makes you feel good, rights are really all that important anyway.
What are you losing? What choice?
“How does a poll change an election? That’s what you’re not saying. What good is an inaccurate poll to anyone?”
The goal is to attempt to discourage the right with polls that show Obama sweeping the election; just remember Adam, I said the polls will really tighten up within 3-4 weeks.
“Next time you’re on a long trip and you have some downtime read about anecdotal evidence. Your entire story stinks of elaborate fantasy you’ve cooked up to make the world around you fit your own narrow and ill informed world view. You draw your conclusions by discrediting in your own mind everything you see that disagrees including polls and economic data.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 17, 2012 9:18 AM
It is not a fantasy to see people furious at Obama. I have close to 500 friends on FB, from all walks of life and all ages; I bet I don’t see 1 pro-Obama comment a week; but I see many shared pro-Romney/anti-Obama comments. If you don’t like what I say, that’s fine, but don’t sit there and call me a liar you asswipe! Whatever I said in the comment was exactly true, so you can kiss my ***.
“I hedge a lot on this because it’s clear that this election is still up for grabs. The point of my post was simply to say that I have a high degree of faith in RCP averaging based on the previous two elections and I think that it’s somewhat significant that at the 50 day mark Obama has the advantage going forward.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 17, 2012 10:53 AM
How can you have faith in RCP, when their averages are based upon skewed polls?
If we’re going with anecdotal evidence, let’s take the informality all the way. You seem rather aggressive when you argue with me about Obama. Is that something you only do when you’re here arguing with me?
See, there’s a possibility that you might not be considering. That possibility is, folks might not want to discuss politics with you anymore, and as such, your friends and family might do their best to avoid the subject.”
Nice try dumbass. I’m “aggressive” with you because you are an Obama worshipper. You have no ability to think. It’s hard to debate with someone who is a fanatic; and you are a fanatic for Obama. I have yet to see you make one single statement declaring your disapproval of anything Obama has done. In your eyes he is perfect, and therefore a messiah. You are a good one to talk about anecdotal evidence, when we have to listen to your life stories about your IQ, college degree, movie and production successes, writing fictional successes, and how you supported your family when they were drawing food stamps and welfare. You have already told us, many times, of the mental problems you had and that you had no friends when growing up, and how you were bullied, which left lasting mental problems. So, I would imagine I have more friends than you do.
“And I will submit to you that the main reason the GOP loses, if it does, is that it’s become utterly reliant on breaking down the opponent’s ties to other groups, and very reticent to create ties to anybody but those in their own inner circle. Republicans don’t want to choose the option of expanding their ranks, if that means diluting their ideology.”
You mean like Obama giving up on white blue collar workers, gun owners, evangelicals, and married women; but instead trying to fire up his base of blacks, queers, Hispanics, baby killers? I think I understand what you are saying SD.
“Kctim: “2012 will go down as one of the most tragic years in our nations history. Our exceptionalism will be a thing only found in history books.”
No it won’t kctim; the liberal revisionist historians will make sure nothing goes in the history books.
What are you losing? What choice?”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 17, 2012 3:14 PM
kctim, it would be a waste of time answering this question. Socialist liberals cannot understand the Bill of Rights and freedoms, to them it is a flawed document.
Adam, with the ACA, do I have the freedom to choose to not to have insurance, without fear of punishment? No, I do not.
Under the ACA, premiums will go up, taxes will continue to rise and care will suffer. This will lead to mandated government run health care, “universal” as you guys like to call it. There is no choice with a government mandate.
As government will then be “paying” for our health care, it will need to manage costs. The most effective way to do that is to direct or limit our lifestyle choices. Eating, tobacco use, sodas, vaccinations etc… Choice does not come with that either.
As with all government mandates, this one will lead to others. What else will the government want to mandate and tax us for?
Frank: “The goal is to attempt to discourage the right with polls that show Obama sweeping the election…”
Hilarious but in no way based in reality. Most Americans will not see or care about polls in deciding on the election. Is everything a conspiracy for you?
“…just remember Adam, I said the polls will really tighten up within 3-4 weeks.”
If they tighten up it will be because the undecideds broke for Romney or the debates changed the direction of the election. It will not be because the pollsters feared being discredited in future elections.
“If you don’t like what I say, that’s fine, but don’t sit there and call me a liar you asswipe!”
I didn’t call you a liar. Your statements just aren’t based in fact but rather almost meaningless anecdotal evidence. My community is very conservative. I have very few liberal friends. My church is packed to the gills with right wing Christians. I rarely see Obama stickers on cars in my county. But what does that say about Obama’s support in the country or his chances for reelection? Nothing. Nothing at all. Swear all you want. You’re wrong…as usual.
Kctim: “Adam, with the ACA, do I have the freedom to choose to not to have insurance, without fear of punishment? No, I do not.”
That depends on your lifestyle and your job mainly. For some there is no choice but the very vast majority of Americans do not fall into that group.
“I grew up with hard working poor people though and I’m sure they’d love to hear you think they are a screw up.”
I also grew up with hard working poor people … and many less hard working. I would explain HOW they screwed up. Much has to do with attitude. When I tried to better myself, my father would tell me not to bother, since only rich kids could succeed. He was wrong, but he believed it and it was that belief that kept him and lots of my friends and relatives from succeeding.
The fact is the system is NOT rigged. Poor people do not have to stay poor. Many, maybe most, do not. If you can stay poor for many years, you are either into poverty for ideological reasons or you are doing something wrong. It may not be your “fault” but the only think consistent in all your failures is you.
“They are doing so with no skin in the game.” It is impossible to invest with no skin in the game. If you buy an option and the price goes down, your contract is worth nothing. You lose the money you invested. If you buy a future contract, you might even lose more than you paid. If you borrow the money, eventually you need to pay it back.
Re natural gas – I love it. It is the biggest game changer in the energy market in my lifetime.
“What I mean is, if Republicans insist that candidates continue to veer hard right after the Primaries, to ignore what people center or left want, how can they win general elections? The Republicans will not succeed by insisting that everybody thinks and votes their way.”
It approaches a tautology. In 2010 MOST voters chose Republicans. They appealed to a majority of voters therefore represented the will of the people. If they fail to appeal to a majority they will indeed lose, same as Democrats. The way you write is that you somehow believe that Republicans do not appeal to majorities. This is wrong, as the 2010 elections and the recent recall in Wisconsin show. We will see what happens in November. To the extent Republicans win, they have appealed to the majority.
Re polls – yes, Democrats have it in the bag. No need from your effort-challenged electorate to get too busy. Let them do things they would rather do on November 6.
I hope the polls show Obama strong. I hope they show him winning until the last one that we hold on November 6.
Adam, claiming it doesn’t affect a somebody if they already have insurance does not take away from the fact that a person is punished through taxation, a penalty, if you choose to not have health insurance.
And saying it’s ok anyways because the IRS won’t be able to enforce, also does not take away from the fact that it is a government mandate that takes away choice.
Are you seriously saying it’s all ok because most people already have insurance and the IRS won’t be able to collect anyway?
If your arguing that it doesn’t take away freedom of choice, that is a very weak argument.
Thinking poor people are poor by their own fault probably does make it easier to get mad about those fractions of pennies we pay per paycheck to social programs at the state and federal level.
“Your statements just aren’t based in fact but rather almost meaningless anecdotal evidence….
Swear all you want. You’re wrong…as usual.”
Frank’s, and his compatriots out there on the far right fringe problem is their hatred for Obama is so profound that they don’t care about facts or even being right. If it makes Obama look bad, they’re all for it, and it doesn’t matter if it’s even fake information.
Obama has made enough mistakes that could be used against him without making all this s**t up.
But somehow, the weirder and more outrageous the claim is the more they seem to believe it.
“If they tighten up it will be because the undecideds broke for Romney or the debates changed the direction of the election. It will not be because the pollsters feared being discredited in future elections.”
Do you honestly believe there are any undecided’s at this point in the game? If you do, you’re naïve.
“I didn’t call you a liar. Your statements just aren’t based in fact but rather almost meaningless anecdotal evidence. My community is very conservative. I have very few liberal friends. My church is packed to the gills with right wing Christians. I rarely see Obama stickers on cars in my county. But what does that say about Obama’s support in the country or his chances for reelection? Nothing. Nothing at all. Swear all you want. You’re wrong…as usual.”
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 17, 2012 5:08 PM
You did call me a liar. My statements are based on my facts and I was not talking about my community. Let me say, one more time, I am black and guess who most of our family and friends are….you guessed it…black. But I am telling you from my experience, they are not happy with Obama and many of them voted for him 4 years ago. I told you, my wife and I travel quite a bit, we associate with many people, and we have yet to see people claiming they will vote for Obama. Sorry, but that’s the facts…you don’t like it or disagree, too bad. When you say my life experiences are wrong, you are calling me a liar.
“Frank: “The goal is to attempt to discourage the right with polls that show Obama sweeping the election…”
“Hilarious but in no way based in reality. Most Americans will not see or care about polls in deciding on the election. Is everything a conspiracy for you?”
Well Adam, why don’t you explain to us how the leftist MSM polls are showing a landslide win for Obama and yet is a few weeks these polls will completely change. Even Pelosi and Bill Maher, both just claimed the race to be over; that Obama was an automatic winner. Why would they say this 50 days out?
Adam Ducker, polls mean nothing; but a picture is worth a thousand words and pictures change elections:
Kctim: “If your arguing that it doesn’t take away freedom of choice, that is a very weak argument.”
No, to clarify I’m suggesting what little freedom is lost is worth it by a long shot. Your slim chance of paying a tiny tax for not having insurance isn’t a very strong argument for the coming end of American exceptionalism and slippery slope is not a logical form of argument.
Freedom of choice is somewhat of a red herring when it comes to health insurance. Do hospitals have freedom of choice to reject patients unable to pay who present with life threatening conditions?
Is this a one way street?
Frank: “When you say my life experiences are wrong, you are calling me a liar.”
Cry me a river Frank. You’re not lying, you’re just giving evidence for your argument that isn’t valid other than as an opinion. That’s how anecdotal evidence works.
“Well Adam, why don’t you explain to us how the leftist MSM polls are showing a landslide win for Obama and yet is a few weeks these polls will completely change.”
I don’t see any polls that show a landslide. RCP averages out to +3%. One of the biggest margins this week is in a FOX News poll showing Obama up over Romney nationally 5% with 7% of likely voters undecided. I know you don’t believe there are undecideds out there for some reason and that these numbers are a liberal conspiracy but once again the actual reality differs from your opinion of reality. The polls will change as folks change their mind and the undecideds trickle out. That’s just how polls work. It’s not evidence of “leftist MSM” polling.
I give as much money in charity as I pay in taxes. I just don’t like to piss it away. The problem of the poor is mostly a problem of behavior and attitude. If you want to help the poor, change their behaviors and attitudes. I want to protect the poor but I hate the institution of poverty that keep people poor and provide excuses.
“No, to clarify I’m suggesting what little freedom is lost is worth it by a long shot.”
Which is the difference between you and me, liberals and people to the right: NO freedom or right is worth losing.
“Your slim chance of paying a tiny tax for not having insurance isn’t a very strong argument for the coming end of American exceptionalism and slippery slope is not a logical form of argument”
Our individual rights and freedoms are what make us execptional. Taking those away, even if only a little here and a little there, leads to the end of that exceptionalism.
Social Security was a government mandate to help orphans and widows, it is now touted by government as a retirement plan and taxes to pay for it have only gone up.
Government mandate started out as a way to control the types of arms individuals were permitted to own, now we have bans and permission through something that is basically registration.
The natural progression of government mandates is to grow and control more and more. With that growth we lose more money through taxation. With that growth we lose more and more of our rights and freedoms.
That is not a slippery slope argument, that is fact.
“Freedom of choice is somewhat of a red herring when it comes to health insurance. Do hospitals have freedom of choice to reject patients unable to pay who present with life threatening conditions?”
Do you honestly not see a difference between regulating how a business operates, and mandating how an individual lives?
You know, maybe government wouldn’t feel the need to mandate taxes to pay for hospitals treating life threatening conditions if it allowed hospitals to reject every cough, sneeze, fart and headache that comes in daily.
Anyway Rich, when it comes to the rights and freedoms of ALL of us, YES, it is a one way street.
kctim: “Which is the difference between you and me, liberals and people to the right: NO freedom or right is worth losing.”
What about for instance the right to shoot water fowl with lead shot? You lost that right years ago. One more step closer to banning all ammo and in turn guns, right? I’m sure folks on the right argued that back then. Legislation takes our rights away all the time but I’m not sure I buy into this idea of a steady erosion and apparent tipping point for you centered around the 2012 election.
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,