US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

Ozymandius2011

Romney's bounce may be coming down sightly following Friday's unemployment figures. Obama and Romney are now level in the Rasmussen poll at 48 each, and Obama leads Romney by 1% in Colorado for the first time this year in a Rasmussen poll. Gallup also has the national race 48 each. A PPD ooll has Obama ahead by 3% in Virginia but this is a Democrat-pollster so health warnings apply.

Amerika

Not so fast touting that new unemployment rate! Everyone here, except maybe for the true faithful, believe the unemployment rate was fudged ahead of the election. It was predicted a long time ago from several respected political pundits, that some weird calculation (oh like adjusting mid-year numbers of current jobs) would happen getting the unemployment rate to under 8%... just in time to make Barack Obama look good going into the election. But the fudging of the numbers might come back to bite Obama if Romney and Ryan utilize the farce correctly.

In September, the economy only added 114,000 jobs. The civilian population participation rate rose a tenth of a point, which means under what has been going on with the employment rate in the past, I believe the unemployment rate should have risen from 8.1% to 8.2%… Yet it dropped to 7.8%???????????

Praise the Lord and pass the hip waders!

The U-6 number, which captures unemployment and underemployment as well as the marginally attached, stayed the same as in August at 14.7%. The number of unemployed dropped 456,000 last month, while only 114,000 jobs got added… HUH? Did 342,000 people suddenly disappear into thin air?

Ozymandius2011

Romney up 49-45 in Pew poll taken 4th-7th October. The one post-debate poll taken in Paul Ryan's (but traditionally Democratic) state of Wisconsin has Obama up just 49-47 - and this is by PPP which is a Democrat-leaning poll. Obama won it by 13.9% in 2008.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Not so fast touting that new unemployment rate! Everyone here, except maybe for the true faithful, believe the unemployment rate was fudged ahead of the election. It was predicted a long time ago from several respected political pundits, that some weird calculation (oh like adjusting mid-year numbers of current jobs) would happen getting the unemployment rate to under 8%... just in time to make Barack Obama look good going into the election. But the fudging of the numbers might come back to bite Obama if Romney and Ryan utilize the farce correctly.

Yawn. Yet more unfounded assertions from you?

It's the unhinged faithful here who maintain that the numbers must have been 'fudged' in the lack of any credible evidence that they have been.

Here, let Mr. Krugman help you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/opinion/krugman-truth-about-jobs.html?hp&_r=1&

Ozymandius2011

Scary poll from Pennsylvania (Susquehanna) with Obama just 2% ahead of Romney. However their last poll said the same so it may be an outlier. The most recent Rasmussen PA poll had Obama ahead 12% here but was pre-debate. This state hasn't voted GOP since 1988 though it was close in 2000 and 2004. On the other hand today's Rasmussen Iowa poll has Obama up 49-47. Also, 2 polls (one of them - Baydoun-Foster - is Dem-aligned) have Obama's lead in Michigan down to 3% each. Obama won this state by 16.4% on 2004 and Kerry by 3.4% in 2004.

jank

Mjollnir wrote: »

Yawn. Yet more unfounded assertions from you?

It's the unhinged faithful here who maintain that the numbers must have been 'fudged' in the lack of any credible evidence that they have been.

Here, let Mr. Krugman help you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/opinion/krugman-truth-about-jobs.html?hp&_r=1&

The same Mr Krugman that said an alien invasion will fix the economy? Krugman is anything but credible.

Ozymandius2011

New early voting figures show far more GOP-registered voters cating absentee ballots than Democrats in North Carolina and Florida, while more Democrats cast them in Iowa. The Democrats have an advantage amongst those requesting absentee-ballots in Ohio. Around 35% are expected to vote early.

Among the 29,400 voters who have cast absentee ballots in North Carolina, 54 percent are registered Republicans and 28 percent are Democrats, according to the United States Elections Project at George Mason University.

It's a small sample - more than 2.6 million people voted before Election Day in North Carolina in 2008. And these are all mail ballots, which have historically favored Republicans; in-person voting starts Oct. 18 in North Carolina. Nevertheless, Republicans are encouraged because McCain lost the state's early vote by 11 percentage points.

"North Carolina was a place that they totally caught us flat-footed in 2008," Beeson said. "They jumped out to a lead and never looked back. You don't see that happening this time - Republicans have the lead."

Florida's sample is even smaller - only 14,500 votes so far - but it too favors Republicans over Democrats, 53 percent to 32 percent. In 2008, nearly 4.6 million voters in Florida cast ballots before Election Day.

Democrats have a big lead in Iowa - as they did in the past two presidential elections. About 60 percent of the 127,100 voters who have cast absentee ballots so far were registered Democrats. Twenty-two percent were Republicans and 18 percent were unaffiliated, according to the United States Elections Project.

In Ohio, a perennial battleground state, Democrats have an edge over Republicans among people who have requested absentee ballots, though relatively few completed ballots have been submitted. Among the 691,000 people who have requested absentee ballots in 49 of the state's 88 counties, 30 percent are Democrats and 24 percent are Republicans. Forty-six percent are unaffiliated voters, according to data collected by the AP.

Black Swan

The RCP average spread is only +0.5 for Obama at this moment in time. The only event that occurred for this shift in recent polling was the 1st Presidential Debates.

This says a lot about the American voter across the pond. I have examined the 90 minute+ transcript of this 1st debate, and I see no substantive planned policy content proposed by either candidate that could be used to intelligently sway voters one way or the other. Further, these voters have had months to listen and read what each candidate had been proposing, so why would a mere 90 minutes be cause for such a sea change in polling?

This suggests to me that the polls of potential voters listed by RCP were swayed by appearances rather than content; e.g., the book cover rather than its content. How else could have Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger been elected governor of the 5th or 6th largest GDP economy in the world at the time, and in a state with more Democrats than Republicans, but for his celebrity status as the Terminator and Conan the Barbarian? Then again, maybe his strategic marriage, body building, and acting career did in fact prepare him for a California election better than the recalled Wilson, or any of the political opponents that faced him, be they Republicans in the primaries, or Democrats in the election?

nagilum2

jank wrote: »

The same Mr Krugman that said an alien invasion will fix the economy? Krugman is anything but credible.

Krugman has become an ideologue and has allowed his political leanings to influence his logic.

In the late 1990's he made a well reasoned argument that US Social Security retirement system was, in fact, a Ponzi scheme. Now a decade and a bit later, he says nothing is wrong with Social Security, and advocating money printing as a solution to the world economic crisis.

Not sure where we went off the rails, but it's hard to take anything he says seriously, anymore.

Ozymandius2011

Black Swan wrote: »

The RCP average spread is only +0.5 for Obama at this moment in time. The only event that occurred for this shift in recent polling was the 1st Presidential Debates.

This says a lot about the American voter across the pond. I have examined the 90 minute+ transcript of this 1st debate, and I see no substantive planned policy content proposed by either candidate that could be used to intelligently sway voters one way or the other. Further, these voters have had months to listen and read what each candidate had been proposing, so why would a mere 90 minutes be cause for such a sea change in polling?

This suggests to me that the polls of potential voters listed by RCP were swayed by appearances rather than content; e.g., the book cover rather than its content. How else could have Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger been elected governor of the 5th or 6th largest GDP economy in the world at the time, and in a state with more Democrats than Republicans, but for his celebrity status as the Terminator and Conan the Barbarian? Then again, maybe his strategic marriage, body building, and acting career did in fact prepare him for a California election better than the recalled Wilson, or any of the political opponents that faced him, be they Republicans in the primaries, or Democrats in the election?

The recalled Governor was actually Gray Davis. :rolleyes:

nagilum2

Black Swan wrote: »

The RCP average spread is only +0.5 for Obama at this moment in time. The only event that occurred for this shift in recent polling was the 1st Presidential Debates.

This says a lot about the American voter across the pond. I have examined the 90 minute+ transcript of this 1st debate, and I see no substantive planned policy content proposed by either candidate that could be used to intelligently sway voters one way or the other. Further, these voters have had months to listen and read what each candidate had been proposing, so why would a mere 90 minutes be cause for such a sea change in polling?

This suggests to me that the polls of potential voters listed by RCP were swayed by appearances rather than content; e.g., the book cover rather than its content. How else could have Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger been elected governor of the 5th or 6th largest GDP economy in the world at the time, and in a state with more Democrats than Republicans, but for his celebrity status as the Terminator and Conan the Barbarian? Then again, maybe his strategic marriage, body building, and acting career did in fact prepare him for a California election better than the recalled Wilson, or any of the political opponents that faced him, be they Republicans in the primaries, or Democrats in the election?

Perhaps but people don't make their decisions based on transcripts of debates. In 1960 Nixon was recovering from the flu when he debated Kennedy. Most people listening on the radio thought he had won, but those watching on television saw an exhausted looking Nixon, and said Kennedy won.

Presentation matters a great deal in debates. Otherwise the parties would nominate policy wonks who speak in boring monotone.

jank

Black Swan wrote: »

This suggests to me that the polls of potential voters listed by RCP were swayed by appearances rather than content; e.g., the book cover rather than its content. How else could have Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger been elected governor of the 5th or 6th largest GDP economy in the world at the time, and in a state with more Democrats than Republicans, but for his celebrity status as the Terminator and Conan the Barbarian? Then again, maybe his strategic marriage, body building, and acting career did in fact prepare him for a California election better than the recalled Wilson, or any of the political opponents that faced him, be they Republicans in the primaries, or Democrats in the election?

This has always been a part of democracy the world over. Bretie "the socialist" was a great man for the populism. Berlusconi in Italy is another example and of course dont forget the current president, Obama. He was as world wide celebrity for months before he got into office, yet did many of the 100,000 people who flocked to see him in Berlin really know much about his policies apart from "I am not George Bush".

jank

nagilum2 wrote: »

Krugman has become an ideologue and has allowed his political leanings to influence his logic.

In the late 1990's he made a well reasoned argument that US Social Security retirement system was, in fact, a Ponzi scheme. Now a decade and a bit later, he says nothing is wrong with Social Security, and advocating money printing as a solution to the world economic crisis.

Not sure where we went off the rails, but it's hard to take anything he says seriously, anymore.

Here is Krugman only this weekend, complaining that the Moderator of the debate should have "fact checked" Romney last week, then blaming the media that Romney got away from it. Like seriously??

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/07/carville_to_krugman_on_debate_whining_its_not_the_arrow_its_the_indian.html

Jim Carville rightfully puts him in his place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

spank_inferno

So a lot of people are putting up figures showing a tightening race.

Does anyone reckon the Electoral College could tip in Romney's favour?

RCP has a "No toss-up" split of 303 to 235 in favour of Obama.

Can Romney come back from that?

Mr.Micro

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What a laugh if that is the case. They have had Obama for four years and know what he has done and not done. The other guy, the spirited fellow appears energetic on the night, as opposed to a listless Obama, an off day, yet the voters appear to want an unproven right wing and vacuous person who has demonstrated more times why he is unsuitable for the job. The mind boggles.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Here is Krugman only this weekend, complaining that the Moderator of the debate should have "fact checked" Romney last week, then blaming the media that Romney got away from it. Like seriously??

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/07/carville_to_krugman_on_debate_whining_its_not_the_arrow_its_the_indian.html

Jim Carville rightfully puts him in his place.

Well if the candidate for the president of the united states is lying or being dishonest, or flipping on his own stated policies from a few months ago then yes, it is the responsibility of the media to inform the public of this. Holding public servants accountable is part of their job. (Note this does not apply to fabricated conspiracy theories that Fox News et all would LIKE to be more widely covered, but actual facts and reality.)

Fr Tod Umptious

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What a laugh if that is the case. They have had Obama for four years and know what he has done and not done. The other guy, the spirited fellow appears energetic on the night, as opposed to a listless Obama, an off day, yet the voters appear to want an unproven right wing and vacuous person who has demonstrated more times why he is unsuitable for the job. The mind boggles.

Ok so the people have had Obama for 4 years now, but why is the race tightening after this debate, why is Obama not the run away leader like Regan was in '84 or Nixon in '72 ?

Maybe it's beacuse Obama in not exactly doing a good job ?

Maybe the people of the US are not as in love with Obama and his rock start persona as some here are

Has that ever crossed your mind ?

Amerika

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Scary poll from Pennsylvania (Susquehanna) with Obama just 2% ahead of Romney. However their last poll said the same so it may be an outlier. The most recent Rasmussen PA poll had Obama ahead 12% here but was pre-debate. This state hasn't voted GOP since 1988 though it was close in 2000 and 2004.

Scary indeed if your'e an Obama supporter! I wouldn’t put Pennsylvania into the Obama column too quickly. There is a high negative feeling towards President Obama’s policies almost everywhere here except for the urban southeastern section of the state. An interesting statistic that isn't being discussed that much involves Democratic "Undervotes" here. Undervotes mean the presidential ballot was left blank in the Democratic party primary rather than select Barack Obama. Of the 67 counties, over 30 percent of voters left the presidential ballot blank, rather than select Obama’s name in 27 counties. The President still holds strong in urban Philadelphia and its suburbs and continues to lead the state in a one-on-one against Romney, but there definitely is a lot of discontent in the state. The question still remains if Philadelphia will determine how the state goes.

I am getting polling calls every week, which I and the majority of Republicans I know refuse to take part in. This also must have some effect on the skewing of voter preference in the battleground Lehigh Valley section of the state.

Here is a look at Pennsylvania Undervotes from this years primary.
http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Obama-Undervote-map-2.png
　
In addition, I was listening to Governor Kasich of Ohio the other week, who commented that he knows a little more about the state than some of the pollsters, and believes in the end Ohio will ultimately go for Romney. Also Florida seems to be tracking more towards Romney as the election gets closer.

(These factors, along with the strong showing of Romney in the first debate and the subsequent bump he received, gave me the inclination to try and place a bet at Paddy Power while the payout odds are still pretty high on Romney. Unfortunately they cannot accept bets placed from the United States or accept Credit Cards issued in the States. Alas!)

Mjollnir

jank wrote: »

The same Mr Krugman that said an alien invasion will fix the economy? Krugman is anything but credible.

The same Paul Krugman whose comments you fail to address in order to comment on the man himself?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

Well if the candidate for the president of the united states is lying or being dishonest, or flipping on his own stated policies from a few months ago then yes, it is the responsibility of the media to inform the public of this. Holding public servants accountable is part of their job. (Note this does not apply to fabricated conspiracy theories that Fox News et all would LIKE to be more widely covered, but actual facts and reality.)

So you are blaming the media then :rolleyes: and not Obama's poor performance on calling Romney out on whatever he said. In a debate between two people it is up to those debating to challenge each others assertions. If Obama cannot even do that, then what the **** was he doing for the last 4 years?

The media has been in the tank for Obama since day one, looks like the tank is running dry.

jank

Mjollnir wrote: »

The same Paul Krugman whose comments you fail to address in order to comment on the man himself?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

The man is clearly biased, you only have to look at the last sentence.

It is, quite simply, frightening to think that a movement this deranged wields so much political power.

If Krugman wants to attack Republicans then that's fine, but to do it with the mask that he is a moderate that only looks at things from a cold hard numeric economic point of view is laughable.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This suggests to me that the polls of potential voters listed by RCP were swayed by appearances rather than content; e.g., the book cover rather than its content. How else could have Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger been elected governor of the 5th or 6th largest GDP economy in the world at the time, and in a state with more Democrats than Republicans, but for his celebrity status as the Terminator and Conan the Barbarian? Then again, maybe his strategic marriage, body building, and acting career did in fact prepare him for a California election better than the recalled Wilson, or any of the political opponents that faced him, be they Republicans in the primaries, or Democrats in the election?

Really? The polls start to shift towards Romney after the debate, and the answer is an underlying tone that US voters are gullible and/or stupid? Why not just blame it on Scrutonium? A deadly poll-eating supervirus that attacks the immuno-hope system and leaves it’s victims vulnerable to material facts... and which has put the White House's Center for Narrative Control into hyperdrive taking all necessary steps to contain it’s outbreak from spreading any further.

(Special note: The discovery of "Scrutonium" and its effects is credited to IOWAHAWK.)
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/10/white-house-scientists-struggle-to-contain-outbreak-of-scrutonium.html

nagilum2

Amerika wrote: »

Really? The polls start to shift towards Romney after the debate, and the answer is an underlying tone that US voters are gullible and/or stupid? Why not just blame it on Scrutonium? A deadly poll-eating supervirus that attacks the immuno-hope system and leaves it’s victims vulnerable to material facts... and which has put the White House's Center for Narrative Control into hyperdrive taking all necessary steps to contain it’s outbreak from spreading any further.

(Special note: The discovery of "Scrutonium" and its effects is credited to IOWAHAWK.)
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/10/white-house-scientists-struggle-to-contain-outbreak-of-scrutonium.html

Well I'm not definitely not making excuses for him, just pointing out historical facts that presentation in debates matter a lot. Like it or not, people respond to presentation just as much if not more than the actual substance, and I brought up one of the better known historical examples of this. In this debate, Romney's presentation was orders of magnitude better than Obama's.

Really, the great irony in Obama's debate debacle is that his presentation largely made him. Obama provided very little substance other than that he wasn't Bush in 2008. It was all presentation. He made a calculation that the political climate was such that he didn't HAVE to provide substance to win, so he didn't. And he was correct. That strategy saw Obama energize his base and cause independent to flock to him under the banner of hope. But four years later against Romney, with a chance to really seal the deal, it was Obama's abysmal presentation that sunk him more than anything else. His poor body language and hesitation conveyed that it wasn't even his own heart to defend his record.

In retrospect, perhaps that is exactly why the bad debate performance seems to be sticking to Obama much more than I would originally have expected. It was an Obama people really hadn't seen before on the national stage. They are used an an unchallenged man who delivers great speeches filled with soaring rhetoric. Not a man stumbling over himself and seemingly unwilling to even look at his opponent. It was sort of an "emperor has no clothes" moment, in an area that was perceived to be a strong suit for him.

Black Swan

RCP average historical 9 October comparison:

9 October 2012
Obama 47.9
Romney 47.4
Spread Obama +0.5

9 October 2008
Obama 49.1
McCain 43.5
Spread Obama +5.6

9 October 2004
Bush 47.5
Kerry 45.8
Spread Bush +1.7

Ozymandius2011

Nevada is now tied in the latest Rasmussen poll at 47-47. However 55% of Americans polled by Rasmussen expect Obama to win, compared to 35% for Romney. Also ARG have Romney +1 in Ohio and +4 in Colorado. PPP (a Dem-aligned pollster) have Obama up 10% in Minnesota which is about where he was there in 2004. This state hasn't voted GOP for President since 1972.

Amerika wrote: »

Scary indeed if your'e an Obama supporter! I wouldn’t put Pennsylvania into the Obama column too quickly. There is a high negative feeling towards President Obama’s policies almost everywhere here except for the urban southeastern section of the state. An interesting statistic that isn't being discussed that much involves Democratic "Undervotes" here. Undervotes mean the presidential ballot was left blank in the Democratic party primary rather than select Barack Obama. Of the 67 counties, over 30 percent of voters left the presidential ballot blank, rather than select Obama’s name in 27 counties. The President still holds strong in urban Philadelphia and its suburbs and continues to lead the state in a one-on-one against Romney, but there definitely is a lot of discontent in the state. The question still remains if Philadelphia will determine how the state goes.

I am getting polling calls every week, which I and the majority of Republicans I know refuse to take part in. This also must have some effect on the skewing of voter preference in the battleground Lehigh Valley section of the state.

Here is a look at Pennsylvania Undervotes from this years primary.
http://www.politicspa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Obama-Undervote-map-2.png
　
In addition, I was listening to Governor Kasich of Ohio the other week, who commented that he knows a little more about the state than some of the pollsters, and believes in the end Ohio will ultimately go for Romney. Also Florida seems to be tracking more towards Romney as the election gets closer.

(These factors, along with the strong showing of Romney in the first debate and the subsequent bump he received, gave me the inclination to try and place a bet at Paddy Power while the payout odds are still pretty high on Romney. Unfortunately they cannot accept bets placed from the United States or accept Credit Cards issued in the States. Alas!)

No but you can bet on intrade.com which is a probabilities market. It presently has Obama a 63% favourite but that's down from 77% before the debate.

Amerika

In 2008 and 2004… in both instances by October 9th we’ve already have had 3 debates. Two Presidential debates and the Vice Presidential debates. IMO the debates have greater importance this time around, especially the presidential ones. Many are getting to see Romney and Ryan for the first time in an unfiltered situation, and even President Obama for that matter, as we’ve seldom seen him unscripted or take tough questions from journalists. Obama’s comfort zone is giving prepared speeches in front of adorning crowds. And in these tough economic times, and with 4 years of policies and deficit spending that hasn’t seem to have helped much, the debates take on a more significant meaning.

Personally, I believe if Biden doesn’t crash and burn, the elder statesman will be declared the winner regardless of the substance of the debate, and Obama will do better in his second debate. But I don’t think the remainder of the debates will change the polling needles by much. The damage has been done and a sitting president doesn't often get a do-over once the voters think perhaps a change in leadership is what the country needs, and the alternative doesn’t look so bad.

The press hasn't done Obama any favors by protecting him and his policies over the past 4 years.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you vastly underestimate the American people. They were given a clear choice between having an inexperienced President backed up with a very experienced statesman as VP or a very experienced statesman backed up with a dumb nut job from Alaska as VP.

A lot of intelligent people didn't want Sarah Palin to be a slip in the shower from the Presidency thank the lord.

Also, Obama was leading well before the debates. They really didn't change anything. Just as every eventual winner lead before the debates. Historically the debates don't change the outcome of the election and I believe this will hold up in this case.

southsiderosie

Pew has Romney up by 4 points; Gallup has Obama ahead. Pew and Rasmussen were the most accurate polls for the 2008 presidential election.

Ozymandius2011

Health warning on Pew. GOP supporters called their polls skewed when they had 8% leads for Obama and Pat Caddell (former Carter admin aide but nowadays usually in tune with GOP) says Pew polls are "skewy" (on Fox this week).