1 Week Out, Romney Still Not Catching Up
Romney still leads by 1% in the national polls but at the state level he’s been spinning his wheels for the last week. President Obama not only grew his lead in several key states but he gained on Romney in states Romney has to win.
Last week we had ten tossup states according to Real Clear Politics but Romney's lead in North Carolina decreased slightly putting it in the tossup category as well.
To believe Romney is still in the race many on the right have had to question the quality of polls or suggested they lean one way or another in what is sometimes called the "house effect." It's my belief that the larger number of state polls cancels out the "house effect" for the most part and so the RCP averages probably are pretty strong at the state level.
What polls showed last week was either President Obama growing his lead or largely holding on to his lead. In states he lost ground in the average loss was just 0.5%. His average in the states he grew in was about 1.1% growth.
The path to 270 for Romney has grown increasingly harder each day. He has 191 solid electoral votes right now. Florida and North Carolina gets him to just 235. The race is tied up in Colorado and Virginia, two states Romney wanted to win, but let's say Romney wins both of those. That gets him to 257.
This is where it gets tricky. Romney would be left choosing between seven final battleground states where President Obama is the favorite to win and is near the 50% mark already in polling. He'd need about 70% to 100% of undecided voters to break his way to flip these states. He would need more than one state in most cases unless he could win Ohio. Wisconsin is a state Republicans would love to win but he'd still need one more state after that.
Because of the continued state level shift toward President Obama last week Nate Silver currently gives him a 74.6% chance for victory and he gives Romney slim chances to win OH, PA, or WI. Without winning one of those states Romney is sunk.
At this point conservatives should be in panic mode but they're still holding out hope. They hope that all the polls are wrong and Romney is really instead heading toward a massive landslide win. Or Romney's continued advantage in national polls will help him. I'm not sure it will for the most part. He's leading by only 1% and he's well under the 50% mark with about 5.6% undecided voters. He just doesn't have the kind of lead nationally anymore to really make me think the states will swing his way in the next week.
There are no more debates to be had, the economic news coming out has largely been positive, and President Obama's job approval rating is pretty strong. I think the events in Libya have harmed the president's approval over the last week but it seems to be on the rebound now. The storm in the East could have an impact but it's hard to think about it in terms of the election when so many people are at risk from it right now.
One thing is certain. We're running out of days to speculate. The election is just days away now and there is clear evidence that President Obama is on control still and is the favorite to win a second term.
Posted by Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 8:31 AM
And if the President does win the electoral college but loses the popular vote, I think it will be interesting to see the hypocrisy on both sides complete their full circle. It has already largely happened with the warmongering president of the left getting a pass on the death and destruction he has rained down on ‘our enemies’ while expanding the government’s reach into spying on Americans being supported by the same party that excoriated previous presidents for lesser crimes. The defense of the electoral college by Democrats will be highly expected.
Of course, the media will largely ignore this as they have all of the other instances of blatant hypocrisy that has been on display for the past few years…
If Romney were closer to 50% than he is I might think that. I think flaws in measuring early voting and issues with the likely voter models polls are using right now make it very unlikely that the winner of the Electoral College would win without the popular vote.
Romney’s lead right now in RCP is largely built on older polls with Romney ahead, and newer Gallup and Rasmussen polls where Romney was way ahead. Gallup and Rasmussen polls have started to return to the pack a little lately.
The estimated undecided vote is 5.6% right now. Most likely if Obama keeps his lead in the states he will edge out Romney by 1% or so.
Here in Ohio the polls are about dead even, where last election, up in the northern area around Lake Erie where I live, lawn signs for Obama were like weeds, now I hardly even see one, and I live in a Democrat stronghold county, that kind of tells me something. The southern part of the state is where you need to look because that is the swing area and at last I heard it was a dead even race.
My sense is the stock market dictates the national mood and it looks like it will continue trending lower. Good news for Romney. I predict well get to see what “I know what it takes” means. It wont be as good as it sounds.
Obama leads in most polls but there is a Rasmussen poll out today with Romney up 2%. Obama’s average lead there is 1.9% from RCP right now. Romney needs help from somewhere to pull out a win. Early voting is said to strongly favor Obama there as well. I’m not sure how accurate those measurements are though.
Well there it is. No need to vote this year as Obama has it in the bag. I doubt my man Johnson could have pulled it off anyway.
George in SC:
We’ve heard that snarky comment all election long. The horse is dead.
Adam, Rasmussen and Gallup both have Romney leading Nationwide. In Ohio the race is tightening. As I stated in my last comment I live in a highly democrat county and from the people I talk to Obama is not as well liked as he was. The economy will tell it all come next week Tuesday. The southern part of the state is where most of the swing is. I voted early and it was for Romney and so did my wife and my wife is a Democrat, me I’m an independent.
Neigh, we should beat it some more. ;-)
Just looking at Ohio it doesn’t seem to me like Romneynhas much of a chance. Almost 1/4 of the state has already voted and polls of those people have Obama with a 60% - 30% advantage and the rest split even. Romney would have to win a statistically unlikely high percentage to make up that deficit. Recent VA polls have Obama up a few points here in my home state. Romney’s first debate bounce is getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror everyday. Now we have a major weather disaster hitting the East Coast and shutting down the campaigns (thankfully) for a couple of days.
It’s storm might be a final deciding factor. If Obama blows the response in any way he’ll start looking like Bush after Katrina. Romney, the guy who chose to try to politicize the protests and terrorist attack in Egypt and Libya is certainly not going to hesitate to take advantage of people’s misery in the storm whether or not Obama’s response is competent. There is really little for a challenger to do in these situations other than spectate or else he’ll look like Robert Redford on the candidate on the scene of a disaster only to get knocked aside when someone who can actually do something shows up and steals the show.
Romney seems to think that projecting confidence is going to put him over the top pretending that he still has momentum when obviously it has stopped and stopped after the second debate. We’ll see if this works better than Obama’s ground game in Ohio. I wouldn’t put my money on pretense.
KAP: “In Ohio the race is tightening.”
The race isn’t tightening. With the new Rasmussen poll Obama is ahead 1.9% when this time last week he was ahead 1.9%. What has happened in that time is some undecided voters have decided and they split 50/50. Romney needs more than 50/50 to catch up. He needs nearly all undecided voters to break his way.
Obviously this Hurricane is sent by the Mormon God to smote the evil, immoral Democrats in Northern States and decrease Democratic turnout. It will largely miss the Republican states and regions and it will probably not even rain on your house if you’re a Mormon.
This thread is just Adam Ducker praying out loud. He believes whatever poll makes him feel better.
Chip, chip, chip. Peck, peck, peck. That’s the sound made every time another independent thinker decides that Romney is the real deal.
I’ll take their “Mormon God” over your Government God anyday.
John Johnson: “Chip, chip, chip. Peck, peck, peck.”
That’s just the sound of John running out of relevant things to add to the conversation. It started sometime last week and it’s getting worse and worse. He should probably see a doctor soon.
But our Government God gives us free cell phones!
every time another independent thinker decides that Romney is the real deal.
Thant’s funny! You can call him a ‘job outsourcer’, ‘money skimmer’, ‘1 percenter’, ‘tax hider’ ‘mathematically challenged’, ‘bullsh**ter’, ‘lier about jeep jobs moving from Ohio’ or many other things -
but ‘real deal’? That’s like saying he’s someone who knows what he stands for and doesn’t waiver.
Don’t mention that Obama phone thing or your fellow liberals will call you a racist.
Re the dead horse, you guys keep on saying you will win, we are just taking you at the word.
BTW - I saw an interesting (snarky) poster. “the dead may tell no tales, but they voter overwhelming Democrat.
You talk about early voting; I bet the cemeteries in Chicago have already gone out for Obama.
I am a racist. I’m only voting for Obama because he’s black. Otherwise I’d be voting for Mitt Romney. It’s the white guilt. Gets me every time.
I think we will win. We still need to vote though of course.
If the dead are voting in Chicago they’re wasting their time. Let’s bus them down to Florida to vote.
Re the dead - I am sure they would if they could. This is actually one of the arguments for the electoral college. Crooked politicians cannot run up large numbers in a few big cities.
Re racist - your liberal friends bring that up if a conservative talks about Obama phones. I don’t think it makes any sense at all.
Adam, Like I said I LIVE IN OHIO, in a democrat county people are rethinking what they did in 2008. The city I live in is overwellmingly democrat and a lot of them have changed their thinking since 2008, Obama isn’t asa vwell thought of as he was 4 years ago. Like I said the southern counties of Ohio are the swing area. But up here in the northern counties they go Democrat. When Democrats up here change their mind Obama is in trouble.
You yourself are a member of the group of conservatives who see Democratic voters as largely just those who are ignorant, poor, and dependent on government. Your side finds videos that are the exception and you make them the rule so you can continue to feel like the Republican Party is the party of givers, not takers, workers, not freeloaders. It goes back to the Reagan years.
This sums up my state of mind today:
“We’re winning this race,” senior adviser David Axelrod told reporters over the phone on Monday. “And I say this not on the basis of some mystical faith in a wave that’s going to come, or some hidden vote. We base it on cold hard data based on who’s voted so far and on state-by-state polling.”
I’m from Southwest Ohio and I can tell you, the excitement for Obama has failed. There are a few inner city Obama yard signs, but most of Hamilton County is covered with Romney signs. Obama certainly does not have the support he had 4 years ago. The Southeastern OH counties, that normally vote Democrat (coal miners) are now supporting Romney. I don’t know where the polls are coming up with Obama leading, but I don’t see it happening. I have stated several times that I travel all over the state of Ohio, and I do not see evidence of Obama support. Unless you want to count the Somolians that were being bused by the dems to the polls in Columbus, and told her to vote for; by the way, most of them could not speak english.
Adam Ducker; why would you bring up the Mormon issue? Are you one of the liberals that will resort to attacking Romney’s religion. I think your comment ar disgusting.
Anecdotal evidence is no substitute for scientific polling.
TomT: “Obama certainly does not have the support he had 4 years ago.”
I agree. He won by almost 5% last time. He’ll be lucky to win by 2% this time.
“I don’t know where the polls are coming up with Obama leading, but I don’t see it happening.”
We’ll just have to see. It’s still considered a tossup for a reason.
News Flash just in Rasmussen poll of likely voters in Ohio Romney 50 Obama 48. So much for anecdotal evidence Stephen. Sometime that anecdotal evidence needs to be taken more seriously. Especially if the person giving that evidence has first hand knowledge of what going on. By the way hows Texas polls going.
Rasmussen has always had the race off slightly from other polls. It will take more than one poll for that to show Obama’s lead gone. Here is what Rasmussen also says in that poll:
Nearly one-in-three Ohio voters (32%) have already cast their ballots. Obama leads 62% to 36% among these voters. Romney has a large lead among those who still plan to vote. The question of who wins Ohio may come down to whether enough Romney voters get to the polls on Election Day to overcome the president’s lead among early voters.
Romney will have hard time winning Ohio. He needs a big shift in polls this week to make me think he can.
I wouldn’t dismiss the anecdotal reports about yard signs. People want to believe Romney knows some sort of magic where cutting back govt spending results in a private sector boom. The reality is actually the opposite. Won’t be the first time people got duped - or the last.
Adam, Start with the excuses, Rasmussen is off, as I said I LIVE IN OHIO, there is very, very little hype for Obama now compared to 2008. More and more people are going to the Romney side. Obama might lead in the Northern Counties of Ohio but not like he did in 2008. IMO Obama will just barely win in the Northern Counties but lose big as you go farther south in Ohio.
Yes, you said you live there multiple times. Every state Obama needs to win and is winning is filled with conservatives with stories just like yours. The polls aren’t in agreement with you in Ohio though. Rasmussen leans conservative. The average all recent polls has Obama on top by 1.9% and he’s overwhelmingly winning early voters. There’s also suggestion that polls without cell phones may be dramatically understating Obama’s support. I think everything we know points to Obama leading now and going on to winning the state. But again, it’s unlikely but possible that that could change in the next week.
An interesting analysis: if Obama wins the states that have been blue the last five elections, and if Obama wins NM & NV, which show large leads, that puts Obama at 253. That leaves the remaining swing states: Florida (29), Ohio (18), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Colorado (9), Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4).
Out of all those states, the following result in an Obama. Win FL (282)
Win OH (271)
Win NC + any other swing state
Win VA + any other swing state (excluding NH)
Win CO, IA, NH
I guess what should worry conservatives is that Obama has multiple paths to victory, and Romney just a few. Romney victory means he needs a whole lot of polls to be wrong or a whole lot of Democrats just to not show up on election day, or both. That RCP, a conservative leaning site, would be showing a no-tossup victory of 290 electoral votes forObama using today’s numbers, is apparently meaningless compared to driving down the road and looking for yard signs.
Certainly the majority of Democrats are good, hardworking people. But Your party does depend for its margins on the mobilization of the shiftless ne’er do wells who live off the fat of the land. That is why you all spend all that time organizing in cities where lots of these guys are found. If you can get them to the polls and if they can figure out the ballots, they vote reliably Democratic.
I admit that I am not enthusiastic about such voters. I would not be proud if they voted Republican and I do not want to encourage their participation in general. If these guys do not vote primarily Democratic, there should be no effect on elections if they stay home.
I will quote former Democratic state Rep. Hudson Hallum. According to the indictment filed by the U.S. attorney’s office in Little Rock, Hallum told co-defendant Phillip Wayne Cater, a West Memphis, Arkansas City Councilman, “We need to use that black limo and buy a couple of cases of some cheap vodka and whiskey to get people to vote.”
They only paid $2 a bottle for the vodka. Anybody who can be enticed to the polls for a $2 bottle of vodka is unworthy of our democracy and I prefer he not get to the polls. I won’t stop him from voting, but I would do nothing to facilitate it.
I think everything we know points to Obama leading now and going on to winning the state. I think everything we know points to Obama leading now and going on to winning the state.
No, everything you want to know points to that. You dismiss what you don’t agree with, throw in the ‘cell phone’ thing (which we’ve heard the past several elections) but choose to ignore one key factor that you seem to miss in your ‘analysis’.
In 2008, the party affiliation used by polling firms was Democrats +8. Now, from both Gallup and Rasmussen, it is Republicans +1. Which is the main reason they ‘poll more conservative’, they do the research and skew the results based on party affiliation. Their job is to sell polling information, if their polling info is off, they lose money. Of course, all polls do that, but many polling organizations just use last election’s numbers, very few are actually seeing what those numbers are today and changing to meet them.
We won’t know for sure how the numbers are going to add up until next week.
The fact is that this election is going to be much closer than the last one, there will be no ‘landslide’ for either candidate. Sure, Obama may win, but it is obvious that he has lost support that he had four years ago from those who voted for him then. Spin it how you will, those are just the facts.
BTW, phx8, I’m not sure how the left can ‘deride’ Rasmussen and Gallup and then point to ‘electoral-vote.com’, which is a left leaning site… Seems a bit, oh what’s the word, hypocritical? Maybe that’s just me.
RCP, a conservative leaning site
In what world is RCP a ‘conservative leaning site’? I’ve heard that once or twice before but everything I’ve seen from the site (and I’ve used it for several years) is that they are as even handed as any that exist…
One thing true. If Obama is reelected, he can justifiably blame the mismanagement in the previous term for the failures he will not doubt produce in the next.
Electoral-vote.com includes Gallup and Rasmussen polls. The editorial commentary may be to the left, but the numbers are just that- numbers. Is there something factual about what I posted that you do not agree with?
There are a lot of questions about the accuracy of sampling. Today, 32% of voters have cell phones only- no land lines- and they are not included in many of the polls. Those people are younger, poorer, and more likely to vote Democratic. That number is likely to increase to 50% in the coming years. According to Pew Research Center, in 1997 it took three residential calls to find one responder. Today, it takes ten calls.
Another important question revolves around the question of how many Registerer Voters show up, versus Likely. Polls consistently show a large margin for Obama among RVs. But will they show?
And just to make it really interesting, a huge storm is hitting the East Coast. Who knows how that will play out?
Personally, I love the election season. It’s both important and endlessly interesting. A lot of people seek to influence the narrative- some by honest means, others, not so much.
Are early ballots counted by who the vote is for, or by the Party of the voter?
Well DA, what would you expect the lying peice of crap like Axelrod to say anything else?
Anecdotal evidence is no substitute for scientific polling.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2012 1:05 PM
Another dumbass comment by Stephen Daugherty. The lefties on WB spend all their time discrediting any polls that show Romney in the lead as being “Unscientific” and inacurate, and now we have SD telling us that physical evidence is also “Unscientific”. Tell us….Oh worshipper of Obama…what do you actually consider scientific?
C&J: “But Your party does depend for its margins on the mobilization of the shiftless ne’er do wells who live off the fat of the land.”
There’s not as many of these people as you pretend, but they have as much of a right to vote as you do. Democrats wanting to get out the vote for groups that vote for them doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.
Rhinehold: ” You dismiss what you don’t agree with, throw in the ‘cell phone’ thing…”
I don’t dismiss anything. I just think one Rasmussen poll is not a trend, and that Obama’s head his ground for the last week. Republicans hoping for a secret Romney lead somewhere in there are grasping at this point.
So you’re going to say cell phones don’t matter? It’s a growing area of concern in polling. I don’t own a land line phone and haven’t in 7 years. Many polls account for cells now and I think that’s a stronger model.
“Their job is to sell polling information, if their polling info is off, they lose money.”
I couldn’t agree more. But two polls come out of the same likely voters over the same span then who is right and who is wrong? The right loves Rasmussen, not because they are accurate but because they consistently show favorable for Republicans. It helps them keep hope I think.
Rhinehold: “In what world is RCP a ‘conservative leaning site’? “
The real world. I don’t mean to suggest this is a Fox News style bias but I like RCP because I can generally cite it without conservatives suggesting it has a liberal bias.
My comments may be unscientific; but I’m telling what I am seeing. 4 years ago there were cars with Obama Hope and Change bumper stickers and Obama signs in all the yards and they are not there now. Not in my area in SW Ohio and not in the areas of the state that I have traveled.
How is RCP considered a conservative site? Doesn’t RCP simply average all polls from the left and the right? If they use Gallop and Rasmussen, they also use PPP and other liberal polls. So how are they conservative? In fact RCP does no polling of their own, do they?
The polls have always taken a lrger sample of Democrats than Republicans.
I might also add to what KAP has said about most of the Obama vote coming from the Northern Ohio counties; the bad weather will effect the Obama turnout in those counties. C&J are correct, the democrats spend all their time trying to get their base to go vote. Bad weather is enough reason for the freeloaders to stay home. Unless Obama can somehow gt the inner city blacks to become outraged and I don’t think that is happening.
I stand by my original comment; Obama will lose Ohio.
TomT: “My comments may be unscientific; but I’m telling what I am seeing.”
I think it’s fine as a conversation, but if you’re suggesting you think scientific polling is wrong because of what you yourself see with your own eyes, then you’re running into trouble.
“Doesn’t RCP simply average all polls from the left and the right?”
I’m a really big fan of RCP poll reporting and I don’t have any issues with it. I believe the average cancels out a lot of the “house effect” though there is a bit of trouble sometimes (as Phx8 and others have pointed out) where Rasmussen polls more frequently than other polls so their “house effect” may not get cancelled out as much as needed.
“The polls have always taken a lrger sample of Democrats than Republicans.”
Most pollsters do their own weighting of party ID because it’s weak as far as polling goes. This has always been the fallback on the right and left when confronted with a poll you don’t like. Some have similar concerns with likely voter models but I’m not complaining too much about that.
I am not ready to break out the champagne yet…but from what I read and see I would rather be Romney than obama at this point.
Electoral-vote.com includes Gallup and Rasmussen polls. The editorial commentary may be to the left, but the numbers are just that- numbers. Is there something factual about what I posted that you do not agree with?
There are numbers and then there are numbers that are more accurate than others. electoral-vote includes polls like are more biased and unscientific. Look at some of the polls that they site and then look at a) their track record and b) their methods/questions/etc. That they are included in the ‘averages’. At least RCP does a good job of only using reputable sources.
As for RCP being a ‘conservative biased’ site, you are basing that on the fact that conservatives don’t cringe when you use it? If you look at the site closely, you will see editorials from both sides, one after another, and their polling is as unbiased as you can get. If you call RCP biased, I am curious what you think isn’t… MSNBC? HuffPo?
I stand by my original comment; Obama will lose Ohio.
Maybe, maybe not. The problem is that the hurricane is going to let Obama to appear ‘presidential’ and unless he flubs it up like he did with the recent hurricane in Louisiana it will probably edge him up in the polls. I’m sure he’s learned his lessons and will be playing this for all it is worth, while ‘appearing’ not to as he did on TV today.
The question right now is will Romney take Wisconsin. If he can take WI and OH, Obama is hurting. Many on here will ‘scoff’ at that suggestion, but they are the same who was sure that the recall would gain them a new governor in WI, that machine that cranked up even more votes during the recall than the original election is still there an in place, I wouldn’t bet against that just yet…
Polls can only report what those polled say they currently think and what they say they will do come election time. We have witnessed polls being wrong many times. I still remember the headline…DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.
I believe we will all be surprised come election night and the talking heads will be scratching theirs.
Electoral-vote.com uses the six pollsters:
The Gallup Poll
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
I’m fine with RCP. I’d just point out the obvious, that if one organization conducts more polls than the others, it can influence the average; and that if Rasmussen is removed from the mix, the average moves 1.2% closer to Obama. Maybe your comment was directed to someone else?
“but they have as much of a right to vote as you do.” Yes they do. They have the right. I respect that right. But, as I wrote, I certainly would not help them do it. I have a right not to help.
I don’t know how many there are. Democrats seem to think there are lots of them, however. BTW - I was mistaken about the vodka. The crooks did not actually carry out that particular plan, but …
“Folk gonna vote for whoever pay them,” Carter was quoted as saying.
The conspirators did not end up following through with the plan to trade vodka, but did allegedly trade money and food, determining that “$20 to $40 was too much to pay for one vote … but was acceptable to pay for the votes of multiple members of a household.” In addition to offering goods and money in exchange for votes, the indictment alleges that Hallum and his father even opened unsealed absentee ballots — and the ones that were cast in favor of his opponent, Kim Felker, were “destroyed” so they wouldn’t count.
Hallum received a lopsided landslide in the absentee ballot count, garnering 394 votes to Felker’s 67…
And they also talk about absentee ballots.
Court documents detail Hallum’s “absentee ballot strategy,” which included submitting absentee ballot applications on behalf of voters, tracking when they were mailed, assisting voters in completing the ballots, and in some cases completing the absentee ballots without regard for the voter’s choice.
I know for certain that many on the left felt it was in the bag for obama after the dem convention. Now, despite their bravado, I suspect that secretly they know their guy is losing.
BTW, I’m not sure what Adam is using to bolster his view that OH is trending Obama, the latest polling I’ve seen shows it either a dead heat or Romney in the lead, when you throw out PPP (there is a reason there is a D after PPP on RCP). If you look at the PPP polling data, you will see that they appear to be using Obama contributors to call for their poll… :/
If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify with another party, press 3.
Independant / Other 21%
Most other polls I read show that number to be much closer… For example, a recent Ohio Newspaper poll which has the race at a dead heat found:
The party breakdown of the randomly selected respondents: 47 percent Democrats, 44 percent Republicans, 10 percent independents. The data were weighted to correct for potential sampling bias on gender and region of residence for respondents.
if one organization conducts more polls than the others, it can influence the average; and that if Rasmussen is removed from the mix, the average moves 1.2% closer to Obama.
And if one polling firm is more historically accurate than others, taking out their results will not get you closer to accurate results, it will take you away from them….
Royal Flush: “Now, despite their bravado, I suspect that secretly they know their guy is losing.”
First of all, speaking for myself, if I thought Obama was losing I’d say so.
Second, what makes you think Romney is winning?
Rhinehold: “BTW, I’m not sure what Adam is using to bolster his view that OH is trending Obama…”
At the time I wrote the article Obama had gained +0.2% over the last week in the RCP average. Now with the Rasmussen poll he’s gained 0.0% over the last week. Both candidates have gained 1% a piece in that time. Obama is inching closer and closer to 50%. Take a look at the chart and tell me it’s it’s not trending Obama.
Adam…do you recall how confident the left was in the Wisconsin Governor recall election? All sorts of polls were used by them to convince themselves that the Governor would be defeated. What happened? You were blasted out of the polling water.
The information I have coming out of both Wisconsin and Ohio is that Romney will take both states.
Royal Flush: “All sorts of polls were used by them to convince themselves that the Governor would be defeated.”
Using the same methods used for predicting this election, RCP predicted Walker +6.7 and it was Walker +6.8. Not too bad. It was a heavily polled race and the average was about as good as it gets.
“The information I have coming out of both Wisconsin and Ohio is that Romney will take both states.”
What information is that?
Adam…you have a memory of convenience. What information? That Romney will take both Wis and Ohio. I have sources you don’t…too bad.
Royal Flush: “Adam…you have a memory of convenience.”
Really? How so? I don’t deny liberals said Walker would lose. All I’m saying is I don’t see what that matters here since my reporting on Obama’s lead leans entirely on RCP average which was spot on for Walker.
“I have sources you don’t…too bad.”
Here is Karl Rove in 2006 saying the Republicans will hold the Senate and the House just a few days before Democrats roasted Republicans from coast to coast:
I’m looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I’m entitled to THE math.
I can’t help but think of that moment when I see you say funny stuff like you have sources I don’t, too bad. Karl Rove wasn’t looking at RCP, that’s for sure. RCP had a Generic Ballot of +11.5 for Democrats.
I like RCP generally but these polls are better at showing trends than telling of exactly where the race is at that point in time. The other problem with RCP and other averaging polls is that outliers get averaged in too. I’m sure there’s a good statistical reason to it but it would seem to be problematic. If most of the polls show a 1-3 point spread and another shows 5 points I’m more inclined to believe that 1-3 is right. Gallup has Romney up 5 points where all the others are about balanced between 1-3 points and split on whose winning. I take that as basically a draw withnamslight national edge to Romney. If I were doing the average I’d toss Gallup out because it appears to be an outlier.
Fretting over this national number is not where the angst should be. Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia is where we and both candidates should be focused. I think it’s pretty Iikely that Romney will edge out the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Virginia is beginning to swing back to Obama only Fox and Rassmussen have Romey ahead though my wife, mother-in-law, and I might be the only Democratic votes in Giles Co :) I don’t think that the Post poll having Obama up by 4 is right though.
Romney is getting desperate in Ohio as evidenced by his latest pack of lies in an ad trying to scare voters with this Jeep to China nonsense. With the early vote numbers heavily in Obama’s favor, it may be a foregone conclusion.
Don’t forget that these polls all have a margin of error. If most of the polls say 1-3 and one say 5 then the likelihood that the 5 result was off by at least some of that margin of error is probable.
Let’s have some fun with estimating the national debt in four years if…
obama wins $21 Trillion
Romney wins $14 Trillion
Obama $13 trillion
Romney $32 trillion
That presumes Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire. It takes the model of the Clinton years as a basis for projection.
The Romney projection works the same way. It presumes an additional 20% across the board tax cut, doing away with most social programs and deductions through a “pick a number” approach, and includes at least one additional Neocon war. That happened before during the previous Republican administration, and it generated a doubling of the national debt- it seems a logical premise if Romney somehow followed through with a similar program.
“That presumes Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire.”
I know obama has already exceeded his constitutional power, but there is still a congress…at least for now.
Should obama win, I will switch parties to be on record as a democrat and get some of the free “stuff” that will be passed around. I might as well get mine before the country goes broke. After all, this is the attitude of obama voters now.
Polls are close in many states. If you have this many toss ups, you can produce all sorts of outcomes.
The election could go either way. I think that our liberal friend need to prepare for an Obama loss. It could well happen. The liberal history is that when they lose, they blame nefarious forces. This is bad for our country.
I don’t really see much use in arguing about which polls are closer to reality. The fact is that either could legitimately win.
Let’s make this deal. Liberals and conservatives both pledge to not only accept but celebrate the victory of the of the other candidate should he win. None of this BS about “our” voters being excluded.
We should all accept these conditions. After all, we all think our man will win, so anybody who will not pledge this now is a liar about his/her projections of the future.
Royal Flush: “I know obama has already exceeded his constitutional power, but there is still a congress…at least for now.”
That will be the 1st thing Obama gets rid of come January. The do-nothing Congress will finally get a real mandate to do nothing but go home or die. Then it will be Christian bibles and all firearms. Resist? Good. We’re gonna need those Obama youths he indoctrinated the last few years and those FEMA camp guillotines.
Jack writes; “Let’s make this deal. Liberals and conservatives both pledge to not only accept but celebrate the victory of the of the other candidate should he win.”
NO…I don’t think so. I would have to burn my flag and my copy of the constitution as well if I were to celebrate this tragedy.
I can’t guarantee I won’t claim fraud if I think fraud took place that changed the outcome place based on reasonable evidence.
I won’t celebrate a Romney victory but I’ll certainly respect Romney as President of the United States if he manages to win. None of this “your guy” junk or “your messiah Romney” crap. One thing to do will be to make sure we use President Romney instead of just Romney when we speak about him. And none of that “Resident Romney” garbage.
>blockquote>Romney is getting desperate in Ohio as evidenced by his latest pack of lies in an ad trying to scare voters with this Jeep to China nonsense.
You mean like Obama’s lies? So, does this mean that Obama is ‘getting desperate’ too?
A new Obama campaign ad repeats old distortions in a homestretch appeal to voters.
The ad claims Romney would make “catastrophic cuts to education,” but the ad cites an editorial that says Romney has promised to cut discretionary spending — not necessarily education.
The ad repeats the claim that Romney’s tax plan includes a massive tax cut for millionaires “while middle class families pay more.” Romney insists he won’t do that. The ad cites an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, which has cautioned against misinterpreting its report in just this way.
The ad — running in the swing states of Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia
I’ll certainly respect Romney as President of the United States if he manages to win.
You mean, like the left respected President Bush when he was elected?
Oh, wait a second…
Obama $13 trillion
Romney $32 trillion
I’m not sure where you are getting this at all… There is no doubt that no matter who wins, in four years the national debt will be around 30 trillion, it’s just the math. Neither candidate is actually going to cut the growth in spending that we are on track for, a large part of our debt is fixed and we can’t even change it even if we wanted to…
Here’s a good visualization.
Rhinehold: “You mean, like the left respected President Bush when he was elected?”
Respect has to start somewhere. We can’t just keep excusing it because the last time our party was in power the other side wasn’t respectful. I can decide to take a different tone with the next guy than the right did with Obama and the left did with Bush.
DA said, “None of this “your guy” junk or “your messiah Romney” crap.”
It wasn’t Romney who promised to lower the sea levels, walk on water, and heal the earth. So there is no reason to look at Romney as the messiah.
Estimating the future debt is just fooling around, you know. All I did was make an estimate based on the eight year terms of Clinton and Bush. Yeah, I know, it’s kind of shocking when the names are removed from the projections, but there it is. Clinton raised taxes in 93-94 and it resulted in a stabilized debt. Bush cut taxes in 01 and 03 and debt doubled. Of the $10 trillion in debt in place when Obama took office, 90% was run up by Reagan, Bush #41, and Bush. Obama faced a far more serious situation than when Clinton took office, and this first term resulted in running up an additional $6 trillion to prevent the economy from collapsing-
Oh, wait. You wanted to let it crash. I forget. It’s that whole Libertarian thing.
Anyway, the Obama administration prevented the economy from collapsing into a Great Depression, and there’s every reason to think letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would stabilize the debt again, just as it did in the Clinton years.
Btw, if anyone was paying attention, GDP increased from 1.# to @% in the latest report.
Heh. That’s 1.3% to 2.0% increase in GDP
Phx8: “That’s 1.3% to 2.0% increase in GDP”
Didn’t you hear? It only increased on government spending. So we have Obama rigging job reports, GDP, we have Democratic pollsters rigging polls to force him to win, and a liberal media that covers for all of this! It’s all a conspiracy!
No, I have not heard that latest conspiracy theory. However, I do have it on good authority that Obama cannot talk intelligently without a teleprompter, and that he is just not that smart, which explains why Obama beat Romney in two out of three debates and why Biden schooled Ryan. Or not. It’s hard to keep up with GOP alternative realities. Well, it’s good to know that, if Romney wins, Donald Trump will have ready access to the White House. He’s always a reliable resource.
Phx8: “No, I have not heard that latest conspiracy theory.”
That just goes to show you how far Obama has gone to cover his tracks. We cannot democratically elect this dictator for four more years!
Stop lying. We might call him charismatic, but not Jesus. We might legitimately say he’s interested in preventing whatever global warming we can, but neither he nor most other Democrats have laid claim to the power to rewrite the world’s climate.
phx8 & Adam
GDP up 2%, unemployment 7.9%. It goes to show how far we have fallen that you guys brag about such things and this is almost the best you have managed in four years. We can do better than that.
C&J - and if the GOP was in control the car companies would have failed unemployment would be around 10% or worse and we’d be no closer to digging out of this mess than we were in Jan of 2008. GOP policies caused this crash. Romney hasn’t proposed anything different from Bush as far as I can tell. If he has proposed something different I’d like to hear it. We are sorry Obama hasn’t fixed the GOP mess as fast as you want. Putting the foxes back in charge of the henhouse ain’t gonna fix anything.
Stop lying. We might call him charismatic, but not Jesus. We might legitimately say he’s interested in preventing whatever global warming we can, but neither he nor most other Democrats have laid claim to the power to rewrite the world’s climate.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2012 1:21 AM
Stephen, I love the way you guys work. You act so outraged about the comment and yet for 4 years we have heard you and the rest of your liberal elitist talk about Obama like he was the second coming of Christ. We have seen examples of the liberal press showing pictures of Obama with a halo about his head.
I’ll tell you what dumbass, why don’twe listen to the words of the messiah himself. This is not the sermon on the mount, but the left might consider it an inspired moment:
Your drivil about which polls are scientific and and which aren’t. Here we go again; another Gallup Poll showing Romney with a 7 point lead over Obama among early voters:
“Romney Leads Among Early Voters, Similar to His Likely Voter Lead
Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.”
“Romney’s early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney’s early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President’s advantage in the others. For example, here’s what we know about Ohio’s early voting numbers, thus far:
But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
Something else in this Gallup survey also helps shed some light on what we’re seeing in these sometimes counter-intuitive state polls. As the headline states, Gallup is showing that only 15% of the public has already voted. Moreover, they’ve broken down early voting by region and show that in the Midwest only 13% of voters have already voted. And yet, many polls in places like Ohio show a much higher percentage of early voters, some as high as 30%, which you can bet skews the data. In other words, those polls can’t be correct.
Other than the fact that this is Gallup, another reason to embrace this poll is due to its very large sample size of 3,312 registered voters.”
“At this point in an election cycle, many campaign staffers are busy fighting the press on what they call “process stories.” The candidates and their staffs want to talk about their plans and policies while reporters covering them find their audiences demand a play-by-play of the horse race.
The result is constant overstuffing of campaign metrics and polling that only serve to muddy the waters for most political observers. In a close race, such as we have today, there is often plenty of data for both sides to use to their favor. One poll says this, another says that.
This makes it especially surprising to see the piece put out by President Barack Obama’s field director this week on early voting in Ohio. When things are ugly for a campaign, these types of memos can start flying. It is troubling for the president’s supporters that they could not come up with at least a handful of positive data points in Ohio. I worked as director of strategy at the Republican National Committee during the difficult 2006 election cycle — I know firsthand how hard it it is to come up with positive data in a negative cycle.
There are normally three signs you know a campaign metrics memo is purely spin.
1. Anecdotes: “We have seen groups as big as 100 voters going to vote in Athens, Ohio.” Only 604 democrats have voted in person in the entire county and no more than 40 in a single precinct (that would be Athens 3-5, for those scoring at home).
2. Unverifiable Data: “Precincts that Obama won in 2008 are voting early at a higher rate”: This is unverifiable and misleading because there is no such thing as an “Obama precinct.” Every ten years, the entire country rebalances its voting districts based on a constitutionally mandated census. In 2010, this process redrew the lines of reportable voting areas that were used in 2008. So this year, we have entirely new precincts, thereby making it impossible to validate their claim.
3. Cherry-picking random sub-poll data: “Time poll shows the President up 60-30” among early voters. That sub-sample was asked of 145 people and was one of many of similar ilk (with a huge variation in results). Their central data argument is that 43 more people told Time’s pollster over a two-day window they supported Obama. If that is their best claim to a lead in Ohio, it is a troubling picture for the president.
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
C&J: “We can do better than that.”
This is your most dishonest line of attack in my opinion. We’ll grow faster the next four years than this last four years no mater who wins. You and I both know it.
We celebrate 2% GDP and 7.8% not because those numbers are good stopping points, but because they represent an overall trend of recovery.
We won’t grow faster because we have Romney unless magic is real and in that case we’ll be fine. We’ll have lots of jobs, tiny amounts of taxes, the debt will shrink, and it will be happy days!
BREAKING: Obama created Sandy to win election:
InfoWars.com, TheIntelHub.com, and ConsfearacyNewz all posted stories over the last several days alleging that the The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, helped the president engineer Sandy.
HAARP, a research program managed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, studies and conducts experiments relating to the ionosphere, or upper atmosphere. As NASA explains on its web site, the ionosphere is important because it often reflects radio waves and scatters GPS signals, leading to “a big impact on communications and navigation” on Earth.
Because of this, conspiracy theorists have blamed HAARP for a number of natural events over the years, saying the government uses the Alaska-based program to manipulate the weather with the help of electromagnetic waves.
On Friday, InfoWars published a story arguing that Sandy “will undoubtedly produce widespread chaos and present an ideal opportunity for Obama to come off as a strong and decisive leader.”
We can’t live with four more years of this evil man in the White House.
It is true that Obama is doing better in the electoral college map, but even if Obama wins, it will be hard for him to claim any sort of mandate if he doesn’t win the popular vote.
Jacquelyn F Gerlach:
I still think it is unlikely that the person who wins the electoral college loses the popular vote. If Romney were clearly ahead nationally while Obama was squeaking out an EC victory that might mean something. Romney leads nationally by 1% or less and is well within the margin of error given how much early voting is taking place.
Jaquelyn, the total disregard for the results of 2010 proved that Obama and his leftists believe Obama himself, is a mandate.
They believe the majority of Americans agree with their far-left agenda, and that those who don’t are too stupid to know what is best for them. That not only is this terrible economy and huge government the new normal, but that their extreme leftist beliefs are the new center.
An Obama win means higher taxes, huge government and fewer rights.
And make no mistake, Obama is going to win, so prepare.
Adam Ducker, the DA:
“2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is celebrating Earth Day by unveiling her new energy plan and by blaming President Bush’s environmental policies for Hurricane Katrina.
In a fundraising email sent out to donors on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton alleges:
“In the last five years, the Bush administration has left no major environmental law untouched in their push to deregulate, undermining or rolling back decades of regulations put in place to protect our heath.
“The results are all around us,” she says, citing “more greenhouse gases, global warming, rising seas, more violent storms like Katrina.”
She also blames Bush for “the endless demand for higher-priced oil [that] is depleting world supplies [and] weakening our economic security.”
This was when the price of gas was $1.84 a gallon. I don’t hear any cries from the left about the cost of energy now????
Adam Ducker, your comments were meant as sarcasm, but mine were fact…
I’m wondering if Obama is having meetings with his crisis management team. He didn’t know what was going on in Benghazi, but I’m sure he knows what’s going on in Sandy’s path.
“This was when the price of gas was $1.84 a gallon.”
This is interesting in that gas prices were an average of $3.27 in March, spiked to a national average $3.96 a gallon on May 31, and went to over $4.00 a gallon in June 2008.
I like your optimism.
You were more moderate 4 years ago. I’d be interested to know if your news consumption habits have changed.
I am the same as I have always been, someone who believes in our Constitution. I haven’t changed, the country has been taken so far left that our founders beliefs and words are now considered radical, not moderate.
My news “consumption” is the same as it has always been. I don’t watch or listen to opinion shows. I take news and I research the facts.
I have spent a lot of time on a liberal/progressive board though, so I guess it’s possible their outward cries for socialism and willingness to ignore facts has had some negative affect on me, lol.
The stripping of our individual rights with the ACA was probably the straw that broke the camels back, though.
Thanks for your imput Rocky Marks; but I guess I should have said the price of gas was $1.84 in October/November of 2008. I forgot I was dealing with liberals. But I will include the link. Just click on the 5 year price:
But if you want, you can click on the 8 year price and see that price was less the $2.00 a gal in October 2005; the beginning of Bush’s second term.
“…but I guess I should have said the price of gas was $1.84 in October/November of 2008. I forgot I was dealing with liberals.”
You also forgot that you began your post with “2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is celebrating Earth Day…”
That would have been April 22nd, and the price of gas then was $3.50 range.
Perhaps if your “facts” weren’t so politically motivated, and your intentions to be insulting so blatant, I could believe your correction.
Here’s a choice quote from the recent presidential debate on CNN:
Moderator John King:
“Gov. Romney, you’ve been the chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee and other communities dealing with the tornadoes, the flooding and worse. FEMA’s about to run out of money, and there are some people that say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here and maybe the state should take more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?”
“Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.
“Instead of thinking in the federal budget what we should cut, we should ask ourselves the opposite question: What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do and those things we’ve got to stop doing because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot – we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future of our kids. It’s simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids knowing full well that we’ll be dead and gone before it’s paid off.”
Now Romney won’t answer questions about wanting to eliminate FEMA.
Here we are, seeing the most expensive natural disaster in our history unfold, with 89% of NJ without power, at least 29 people dead, over seven million people without power, subways in NYC flooded, the floor of the NYSE flooded, and we’re seeing a model of effective government response- Democrats and Republicans alike- on local, state, and federal levels. This is what effective leadership looks like, whether it is Christie in NJ or Obama. It doesn’t change the fact that a disaster hit. It just shows what effective, coordinated government can do.
The idea that individual states or, “better yet,” the private sector should handle disaster response is simply terrible. It is a terrible idea. That is how we end up with situations like Katrina. I was in that evacuation. State and local governments did well until the hurricane hit, but they were overwhelmed by the disaster. Cell phones didn’t even work. Local and state response was not possible. Meanwhile, the federal government failed to respond in a timely fashion.
The feds can spend money they don’t have which is more difficult for states to do. States could build up a “rainy-day” fund, but most can’t, and even if they did, some future state legislature would find a reason to spend the fund for something else.
Unfortunately, much of the disaster funds spent by the feds are channeled in such a way as to receive a political benefit. It doesn’t always reach those most in need.
Bull feathers, phx8. What about all those trailers???? How about all the chirping Mr. Brown took during Katrina about the terrible job FEMA was doing? You can’t have it both ways. Did they do good, or did they stink like everyone along the coast was saying they did?
The states need to handle it themselves with help from outside entities and other states. Look at how many states kicked in during Katrina. THey spent their own money and got reimbursed. Many church groups are at every one of these disasters.
FEMA wastes money bigtime, just like all federally run programs do. You’ve got it all wrong.
Well, at least everyone knows where you stand. The problem during Katrina was that FEMA was run by a political appointee with no experience dealing with disasters, and Bush was an ineffective leader. Most people forget that Bush demonstrated his ineffectiveness previously, during the Indian Ocean tsunami. It took days for Bush to respond. Bad leadership will make a mess of things regardless of where it occurs- whether in the federal, state, local, public, or private sector.
State governments lack the physical, and financial resources to deal with larger disasters. The idea of turning disaster response to the private sector boggles the mind. I can’t think of a worse place to introduce the profit motive.
The question of inappropriate political benefit is a matter of the darker side of human nature. It will pop up regardless of the provider, whether federal, state, local, public, or private.
Thanks, phx8, you make my point for me. FEMA under Bush was not as affective as it should have been…the same under Obama during the BP spill. Remember how the states were screaming while the feds sat on their hands?
Medicaid would be better turned over to the states, as would FEMA dollars.
Estimating the future debt is just fooling around, you know. All I did was make an estimate based on the eight year terms of Clinton and Bush.
The problem is you don’t actually understand the differences between the two…
Clinton raised taxes in 93-94 and it resulted in a stabilized debt.
No, actually it didn’t. The ‘stabilized debt’ was directly related to the internet boom and y2k spending. Once these artificial injectors into the economy went away, the ‘stabilization’ crashed along with it. We were increasing our debt when Clinton left office before Bush was even elected…
Bush cut taxes in 01 and 03 and debt doubled.
Doubled? I don’t think so.
Oh, wait. You wanted to let it crash. I forget. It’s that whole Libertarian thing.
Again, you have no actual understanding of anything outside of your own echo chamber, so it makes it difficult to take anything you say with any kind of merit. The fact is that the economy was going to recover no matter who was in office, the question was how the downturn was managed. Obama has managed it terribly. The Democrats who were running congress (both houses) in 2008 allowed an artificial crisis to wipe the balance sheets of most of the banks in the country and eliminate (on paper) a huge chunk of wealth and destroy their lending capabilities. They only reversed this nonsense AFTER Obama was elected in a terrible display of partisanship and willingness to destroy an economy in order to gain power and attempt to ‘prove’ that capitalism isn’t the answer.
Oh, but that’s just the whole progressive thing…
Anyway, the Obama administration prevented the economy from collapsing into a Great Depression
Actualy, he didn’t. You’ll never accept that but what exactly did he do to ‘prevent’ it? Most of the things that were credited for stopping the crash was done by Bush, not Obama… You need to restate your narrative to fit or people who actually understand what is going on will call you on it…
and there’s every reason to think letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would stabilize the debt again, just as it did in the Clinton years.
Again, if the tax cuts were to lapse AND the deductions that were in place were put back into place, it would have about the same effect as not letting them lapse. But what you suggest isn’t what we had under Clinton, it is something new that would be detrimental to the economy.
Which is why Obama has NOT done it the times he has had the chance to, he knows it would be bad. Very bad. If he wins I guarantee you he won’t do anything to let them lapse and still try to blame Republicans for it… Just as he has done with the Patriot Act (you remember that and how he was going to end it?) and Guantanamo Bay (you remember how he was going to close that?) and the *5* wars we have been involved in during his presidency? Oh, that’s right, it’s just ‘neocon wars’ that the left has a problem with. Progressive wars are AOK!
The facts are that the economy is always going to go down and come back up. The problem is when government, trying to prevent that from happening, keeps creating a large bubble that results in a larger crash. It keeps happening and happening and only lines the pockets of the politicians selling a pig in a poke.