US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

What are these indicators?

Do these help?
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/10/01/Romney-ahead-among-independents-poll/UPI-15301349126952/?rel=14981349164800

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/27/Romney-Winning-Swing-State-Independents-Media-Ignores

If the pollsters are undersampling Independents then aren't they ignoring 1/3 of the electorate? Basically just another example of how useless polls are.

I wouldn't say they are ingoring inedpendents, just undersampling them, which would therefore shift the polls in Obama's favor.

InTheTrees

Whats funny is that Republicans were doing this at the last election too.

Instead of reacting to polls by adapting their behaviour they just discount the poll.

And they'll lose this time just as they lost last time. Weird huh?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whats funny is that Republicans were doing this at the last election too.

Instead of reacting to polls by adapting their behaviour they just discount the poll.

And they'll lose this time just as they lost last time. Weird huh?

And what is the "proper behaviour" that should be on display in dealing with polling firms that are either incompetent, or purely disingenuous and purposely misleading the general public... pray tell?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

And what is the "proper behaviour" that should be on display in dealing with polling firms that are either incompetent, or purely disingenuous and purposely misleading the general public... pray tell?

I didnt say "proper behaviour" so you dont need to put it in quotes.

Polls should be a tool to indicate how ones doing with the public, if you're down then adapt ones behaviour (there's that long word again) to suit.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I didnt say "proper behaviour" so you dont need to put it in quotes.

"proper behaviour" was put in quotes for satire. Perhaps I should have used a ?

Polls should be a tool to indicate how ones doing with the public, if you're down then adapt ones behaviour (there's that long word again) to suit.

And if the polls are knowingly wrong and/or misleading... you should just shut up and take it?

Black Swan

Rasmussen Tracking is bouncing up-and-down like a yoyo, going from +2 Romney to +3 Obama, now +1 Obama in the past 2 weeks. Yes, it's a "tracking" poll, but I wonder if most of this variability could be attributed the time when they report the numbers within the confidence interval? There does not appear to be any national poll sampling event in the past 2 weeks that would account for a 5 point range.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

The RCP average continues to creep up in favour of Obama:
Obama = 48.7
Romney = 44.6
Spread = +4.1 Obama

It's Friday following the Wednesday 1st Presidential debate, and Obama has slipped down almost a point, but still leads in the RCP average by +3.2. At the 4 October close (Thursday) Gallup Tracking shows Obama +5, and Rasmussen shows Obama improving from +1 to +2, but both these may change as they are tracking polls.

Ozymandius2011

The first post-debate Presidential election polls are trickling through.

Rasmussen:
Ohio: Obama leads 50-49 (Obama and Romney both +3)
Florida: Romney leads 49-47 (Obama -1, Romney +3)
Virginia: Romney leads 49-48 (Obama -1. Romney +1)

WeAskAmerica:
Ohio: Romney leads 47-46 (Obama -1, Romney +3)
Florida: Romney leads 49-46 (Obama -3, Romney +3)
Virginia: Romney leads 48-45 (Obama -4, Romney+3)

The 3-day national tracking poll from Rasmussen is only one-third post-debate and it has 49-47 for Obama. Improvement for Romney after debate though.

jank

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The first post-debate Presidential election polls are trickling through.

Rasmussen:
Ohio: Obama leads 50-49 (Obama and Romney both +3)
Florida: Romney leads 49-47 (Obama -1, Romney +3)
Virginia: Romney leads 49-48 (Obama -1. Romney +1)

WeAskAmerica:
Ohio: Romney leads 47-46 (Obama -1, Romney +3)
Florida: Romney leads 49-46 (Obama -3, Romney +3)
Virginia: Romney leads 48-45 (Obama -4, Romney+3)

The 3-day national tracking poll from Rasmussen is only one-third post-debate and it has 49-47 for Obama. Improvement for Romney after debate though.

If the above holds out the election is going down to the wire. Obama had it in the bag but the veil slipped at the debate. He just doesn't show confidence in what his vision is for the country. Think Romney still needs an October surprise in his favour to win though, will make the election interesting though. The Obama camp must be worried.

Ozymandius2011

There was also a poll from Nevada from the day of the debate with Obama leading 49-48. The state has a large Mormon population which can be expected to support Romney. although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who represents the state is Mormon too. On the other hand it also has a large Hispanic population that votes Democratic.

Black Swan

RCP average ending 5 October 2012 drops lowest in weeks for Obama to +1.8, suggesting adverse affects from 1st presidential debate last Wednesday?

Ozymandius2011

Romney +3 in Colorado Gravis Marketing poll. The previous Gravis Marketing poll had Obama +4. This poll was taken on 3rd-4th October.

Mr.Micro

Black Swan wrote: »

RCP average ending 5 October 2012 drops lowest in weeks for Obama to +1.8, suggesting adverse affects from 1st presidential debate last Wednesday?

Well if the "spirited guy" Romney can get a boost from the debate when he just questioned Obama, without giving any details of his own policies then Obama should do the same next time. It should prove interesting if Obama goes on the attack this time and see what the vacuous Romney has to offer.

joseph brand

If Romney got a bump after the debate, are these votes from the undecided? Those voters don't get a lot of respect, due to their inability to choose who to vote for, at this late stage. It's an easy decision. Get off the fence!

Obama should be streets ahead in all polls for the simple reason that Romney is an awful candidate and the Republican/ Tea Party are even 'awfuller'. It could be argued that he was the best of a bad bunch. . . .

Undecided? Really?

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

If Romney got a bump after the debate, are these votes from the undecided? Those voters don't get a lot of respect, due to their inability to choose who to vote for, at this late stage. It's an easy decision. Get off the fence!

Obama should be streets ahead in all polls for the simple reason that Romney is an awful candidate and the Republican/ Tea Party are even 'awfuller'. It could be argued that he was the best of a bad bunch. . . .

Undecided? Really?

Dont you hate free will?



RCP average down to +1.4 for Obama.

I would just piss myself laughing if Mitt wins this. In what was probably the worst GOP field EVER to go up for nomination, the best of the bad lot goes on the beat the mighty Obama?
Imagine if a Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio was up there instead? Obama would have no chance.

Saying that I would still be very surprised if Obama didnt win.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Dont you hate free will?

RCP average down to +1.4 for Obama.

I would just piss myself laughing if Mitt wins this. In what was probably the worst GOP field EVER to go up for nomination, the best of the bad lot goes on the beat the mighty Obama?
Imagine if a Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio was up there instead? Obama would have no chance.

Saying that I would still be very surprised if Obama didnt win.

There's a lesson here, on the power of disinformation and dishonesty. America can hang their heads in shame if Mitt gets elected, while the rest of the world performs a worldwide facepalm.

'You Get to Ask the Questions You Want, I Get to Give the Answers I Want' Romney Scolds CNN's John King.

Who wouldn't vote for a man who: cannot relate to the public, is disgusted by 47% of Americans, revels in his own arrogance and dishonesty and who dodges questions that he should answer? He treats the US electorate like they were his employees and I don't mean that in a good way.

Haven't the Romneys given those people (Americans) enough information?

Fr Tod Umptious

joseph brand wrote: »

There's a lesson here, on the power of disinformation and dishonesty. America can hang their heads in shame if Mitt gets elected, while the rest of the world performs a worldwide facepalm.

'You Get to Ask the Questions You Want, I Get to Give the Answers I Want' Romney Scolds CNN's John King.

Who wouldn't vote for a man who: cannot relate to the public, is disgusted by 47% of Americans, revels in his own arrogance and dishonesty and who dodges questions that he should answer? He treats the US electorate like they were his employees and I don't mean that in a good way.

Haven't the Romneys given those people (Americans) enough information?

I love the worldwide facepalm line, as if we in the rest of the world are so much more intelligent in or electoral choices than the people of the US.

the alternative to Romeny however is a man who has delivered very little in the 4 years he has been given

How good a choice is he for the US electorate ?

Two questions for you Joe

1. Have you ever been to America or interacted with Americans ?

2. Are you over the age of 12, because your grasp of why electorates make their decision suggests you are not.

Duck Soup

I think that most political analysts would have said at the outset that the election was always going to be close. The electorate is split broadly 50:50 and even some of the 'undecideds' are people who lean in one political direction or the other, who just want to see their guy give them a reason to vote for them. Romney certainly did that in the first debate.

Even if Romney continues to trail right up till polling day, when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people will vote in accordance with their natural political alligience, which would suggest a very tight race. I'm guessing Romney takes Florida, but fails to take places such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Two things are going to be key - early voting and the get-out-the-vote ground game. Both of these favour the Democrats, although under Rove and Bush, the Republicans had a mighty Christian coalition get-out-the-vote machine.

joseph brand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I love the worldwide facepalm line, as if we in the rest of the world are so much more intelligent in or electoral choices than the people of the US.

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. You're right though, there are pockets of humanity who know nothing about this election.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

the alternative to Romeny however is a man who has delivered very little in the 4 years he has been given

Interesting point. And one I haven't heard before. Tell us more of this booming economy he inherited.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How good a choice is he for the US electorate ?

Two questions for you Joe

1. Have you ever been to America or interacted with Americans ?

2. Are you over the age of 12, because your grasp of why electorates make their decision suggests you are not.

I lived and worked in New Hampshire back in 2000, aged 21. So if you're skills in arithmetic in any way surpass those of Romney Ryan, you'll make a good stab at what age I am.

As I outlined in my above post, voting for Romney based on his refusal to answer questions put to him, his avoidance of details and specifics in his supposed plans and his general distaste for those less fortunate than he doesn't make sense. I can understand the bigots, racists, religious fundamentalists, the mentally lazy and the wealthy, voting for Romney. Why anyone else would vote, I don't get it.

So you're fine with him not releasing his tax returns (like his father did) and not explaining these deductions and loopholes he says he would close? You're fine with him performing a 180 on his proposed policies during the debate with Obama. That wasn't the Mitt from the campaign trail on that stage. He's a 'snake oil salesman'.

I've never seen a candidate for President lie more than Romney.He lies effortlessly, shamelessly.This snake oil salesman must be defeated!!! Tweeted by Mark Hamill

Fr Tod Umptious

Duck Soup wrote: »

I think that most political analysts would have said at the outset that the election was always going to be close. The electorate is split broadly 50:50 and even some of the 'undecideds' are people who lean in one political direction or the other, who just want to see their guy give them a reason to vote for them. Romney certainly did that in the first debate.

Even if Romney continues to trail right up till polling day, when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people will vote in accordance with their natural political alligience, which would suggest a very tight race. I'm guessing Romney takes Florida, but fails to take places such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Two things are going to be key - early voting and the get-out-the-vote ground game. Both of these favour the Democrats, although under Rove and Bush, the Republicans had a mighty Christian coalition get-out-the-vote machine.

Good points, but I would wonder how much the inevitable drop off in supporter turnout will affect Obama

In 2008 there was a surge in first time voters for Obama, will they, and new voters, be out again in the same numbers in 2012 seeing as they still have to 'worry about putting gas in their car and paying their mortgage'

joseph brand

Duck Soup wrote: »

I think that most political analysts would have said at the outset that the election was always going to be close. The electorate is split broadly 50:50 and even some of the 'undecideds' are people who lean in one political direction or the other, who just want to see their guy give them a reason to vote for them. Romney certainly did that in the first debate.

Even if Romney continues to trail right up till polling day, when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people will vote in accordance with their natural political alligience, which would suggest a very tight race. I'm guessing Romney takes Florida, but fails to take places such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Two things are going to be key - early voting and the get-out-the-vote ground game. Both of these favour the Democrats, although under Rove and Bush, the Republicans had a mighty Christian coalition get-out-the-vote machine.

The US is the most religious country in the industrialised world. (92 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination) :eek:

That's nothing to boast about. Expecting voters to be able to choose their president based on his merits, versus which party he represents is expecting too much. Older voters are biased, since they have become 'long time fans' of their particular party. At least young voters, can take a balanced approach, weighing up the pros and cons of each candidate and deciding in a logical and reasonable manner. Old Republican voters will never change allegiance. Old habits die hard and all that.

Plus, young people aren't as inclined to be homophobic, racist, anti-women's rights, or have in their possession $1 million+.

Voters have to be willing to change allegiance, ALL voters. For their own sake. Otherwise politics gets stale and politicians become complacent and lazy.

The last debate needed Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, to liven things up and ad something to the tired old two-party system.

Between the highly religious nature of America (creationism taught in schools) and a two-party system (lesser of two evils) America doesn't seem all that free. (btw Ireland hasn't claimed to be the 'land of the free')

Fr Tod Umptious

joseph brand wrote: »

The US is the most religious country in the industrialised world. (92 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination) :eek:

That's nothing to boast about. Expecting voters to be able to choose their president based on his merits, versus which party he represents is expecting too much. Older voters are biased, since they have become 'long time fans' of their particular party. At least young voters, can take a balanced approach, weighing up the pros and cons of each candidate and deciding in a logical and reasonable manner. Old Republican voters will never change allegiance. Old habits die hard and all that.

Plus, young people aren't as inclined to be homophobic, racist, anti-women's rights, or have in their possession $1 million+.

Voters have to be willing to change allegiance, ALL voters. For their own sake. Otherwise politics gets stale and politicians become complacent and lazy.

The last debate needed Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, to liven things up and ad something to the tired old two-party system.

Between the highly religious nature of America (creationism taught in schools) and a two-party system (lesser of two evils) America doesn't seem all that free. (btw Ireland hasn't claimed to be the 'land of the free')

True, but at the same time younger voters are less likely to come out a vote in the numbers that older voters do.

That was a problem for Kerry in 2004, for all the support he was getting in polls and rallies from younger voters a lot just did not bother to come out and vote on the day

Duck Soup

joseph brand wrote: »

The US is the most religious country in the industrialised world. (92 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination) :eek:

That's nothing to boast about. Expecting voters to be able to choose their president based on his merits, versus which party he represents is expecting too much. Older voters are biased, since they have become 'long time fans' of their particular party. At least young voters, can take a balanced approach, weighing up the pros and cons of each candidate and deciding in a logical and reasonable manner. Old Republican voters will never change allegiance. Old habits die hard and all that.

Plus, young people aren't as inclined to be homophobic, racist, anti-women's rights, or have in their possession $1 million+.

Voters have to be willing to change allegiance, ALL voters. For their own sake. Otherwise politics gets stale and politicians become complacent and lazy.

The last debate needed Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, to liven things up and ad something to the tired old two-party system.

Between the highly religious nature of America (creationism taught in schools) and a two-party system (lesser of two evils) America doesn't seem all that free. (btw Ireland hasn't claimed to be the 'land of the free')

People's natural political allegiances can be strongly allied to their religious beliefs, but then even these are subject to change over time. Irish-American Catholics have always seemed natural Democrats (particularly since the rise of the Kennedys, but also because the Republican party has always been dominated by white Anglo-Saxon leadership), but now that seems something of a 50:50 split. Some of the loudest voices on the right - O'Reilly and Hannity for example - are Irish-American Catholics and obviously so is Ryan.

Rove gathered together the white Christian evangelical base into a fearsome voting bloc; the Obama team in 2008 created a smaller, but similarly potent voting bloc for Democrats with black church-goers ('Souls to the polls').

And I probably shouldn't jump over the current election and look to 2016 and beyond, but I will anyway. Republicans are losing both the Latino and black vote by a proverbial country mile. The anti-immigration and anti-welfare rhetoric might drive what Republican Senator Lindsey Graham calls "angry white men" into the Republican voting fold for this election cycle, but they're poisoning the ground for any future pitch to what are likely to be the key constituencies in the future. Smarter Republicans, like Jeb Bush, acknowledge this.

Latinos tend to be socially conservative, but when they hear the kind of language on immigration they heard in the Republican primary debates and see laws such as Arizona's 'Papers, Please' being pushed through by Republican legislatures, they will feel themselves being treated with contempt. Not clever for the long-term health of the party.

And I take Father Tod's point about voter enthusiasm, but I don't think that, even after the first debate, there is a huge well of enthusiasm for Romney. I also think that the Rove-era voting coalition is now in disrepair.

Early voting still seems to me to be a real big factor in the eventual outcome of the race. The more the Democrats can bank early, the better.

Fr Tod Umptious

Duck Soup wrote: »

People's natural political allegiances can be strongly allied to their religious beliefs, but then even these are subject to change over time. Irish-American Catholics have always seemed natural Democrats (particularly since the rise of the Kennedys, but also because the Republican party has always been dominated by white Anglo-Saxon leadership), but now that seems something of a 50:50 split. Some of the loudest voices on the right - O'Reilly and Hannity for example - are Irish-American Catholics and obviously so is Ryan............

It's good to see that someone here is finally admitting that all Irish Americans are not exclusively Dem voters

Irish Americans tend to be conservative, church going, and not very open to gay rights and abortion, and thus the Democrat party is not that appealing to them

LuckyLloyd

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

There is no denying that Romney got a significant bump from the first debate. Nate Silver and InTrade (the two best indicators imo, but obviously people will disagree) still give Obama a decent edge, but he'd want to sharpen up for the remaining debates. It was an awful performance really the more you think about it, and it should be no surprise to anyone that the polling data reflects it to this extent.

jank

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I love the worldwide facepalm line, as if we in the rest of the world are so much more intelligent in or electoral choices than the people of the US.

the alternative to Romeny however is a man who has delivered very little in the 4 years he has been given

How good a choice is he for the US electorate ?

Two questions for you Joe

1. Have you ever been to America or interacted with Americans ?

2. Are you over the age of 12, because your grasp of why electorates make their decision suggests you are not.

I have to concur with this. Who are we to tell Americans how to vote? We gave Bertie 3 goes at power. I will say that again "THREE" goes at power!

To be honest I blame the media. The Democrats are an angelic, rational, liberal force battling against the mean, lying, cruel, god fearing GOP. I was like that myself when I lived in Ireland, didn't understand at all why people would vote for the GOP. Then I actually met and became friends with some Americans. Traveled a bit and so on.

The ordinary salt of the earth GOP voter from a southern state doesn't have horns on their head or a lynch mob on speed dial many will be please to know. Once you actually start questioning your own, once held strong beliefs it leads you to question a lot of things about life and how those convictions got there in the first place. Life ain't as black and white as the media like to portray. I see some have yet to awaken to that simple fact of life. The american presidential election is just entertainment.

Duck Soup

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's good to see that someone here is finally admitting that all Irish Americans are not exclusively Dem voters

Irish Americans tend to be conservative, church going, and not very open to gay rights and abortion, and thus the Democrat party is not that appealing to them

It's not surprising that people tend to identify Irish-American Catholics with the Democratic party. Before the Kennedys, Catholics couldn't get themselves into positions of power at a national level in either party, but Irish-Americans organized themselves into pretty damned effective political machines at city level in Boston, New York and Chicago.

So there is an incredibly strong historical link. But pretty much all the Catholic communities are socially conservative, so should in theory be open to a conservative message from the Republican party.

But while Republicans seem to have gotten over their historical alienation from Irish-American Catholics, they still seem to view Latino Catholics as another species. And, long-term, they're going to have to get over that. And fairly quickly.

Amerika

Interesting that the Obama campaign has taken their message into the "VOTE EARLY" realm. Even Obama himself has embraced the tactic. "Before I begin, Ohio, I just have one question: Are you registered to vote? Because if you’re not … you’ve got four days left. If you are, you can vote right now." Pretty sad state of affairs in my opinion when you see the polls slipping towards the competition now that people are seeing the two candidates matched up against each other in the debates… and this is their answer. Please Vote For Me Now So You Can’t Change Your Mind Later!

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting that the Obama campaign has taken their message into the "VOTE EARLY" realm. Even Obama himself has embraced the tactic. "Before I begin, Ohio, I just have one question: Are you registered to vote? Because if you’re not … you’ve got four days left. If you are, you can vote right now." Pretty sad state of affairs in my opinion when you see the polls slipping towards the competition now that people are seeing the two candidates matched up against each other in the debates… and this is their answer. Please Vote For Me Now So You Can’t Change Your Mind Later!

Nope. Early voting is a traditional strong point for Democrats, not a latter-day conversion. Many electoral college races in 2008 were already strongly loaded in favour of Obama by the time voting day came around. The people who vote early aren't those who might change their mind, they're the party loyalists - on both sides - who want to make sure that their vote is banked and counted.

Amerika

Duck Soup wrote: »

Nope. Early voting is a traditional strong point for Democrats, not a latter-day conversion.

Hmmm... I thought the tradition amongst Democrats was VOTE EARLY AND VOTE OFTEN!