US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

Amerika

No power, no phone, no internet... at home and work for almost a week. Many roads still closed, trees down everywhere, power lines laying all over the place, no water, schools closed all week, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! I've been out of commission for week because of the Frankenstorm and now I see Obama is leading in the polls, and Romney is again behind in the EC. What the heck has happened? So much catching up to do, so little time till the election. (I see Santa bringing me a large generator to power house necessities this Christmas... especially if Obama wins as blackouts will become a common occurance)

Amerika

Midlife Crashes wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't sure where else to ask this and I didn't want to make a thread as your forum seemingly has such high standards but anyway.
Which network will be best to watch for coverage on Tuesday. Usually I get my news from Al Jazeera as it is unbiased. I'm conservative but don't want to watch Fox News.
Any suggestions?

C-Span and CNN

Brian?

Midlife Crashes wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't sure where else to ask this and I didn't want to make a thread as your forum seemingly has such high standards but anyway.
Which network will be best to watch for coverage on Tuesday. Usually I get my news from Al Jazeera as it is unbiased. I'm conservative but don't want to watch Fox News.
Any suggestions?

I'm actually hoping Fox will great to watch, it'll be hilarious if Obama wins.

For me, CNN is the least biased network news.

Conas

Brian? wrote: »

I'm actually hoping Fox will great to watch, it'll be hilarious if Obama wins.

For me, CNN is the least biased network news.

Fox News have Romney in the lead on all counts. A guy called Dick Morris thinks Romney will win by a lap. Good old Fox News eh hahahaha.

Duck Soup

Conas wrote: »

Fox News have Romney in the lead on all counts. A guy called Dick Morris thinks Romney will win by a lap. Good old Fox News eh hahahaha.

In point of fact, even Fox can't keep the Mittmentum story alive. Their most recent poll has a dead heat, 46-46, and the trend is downward for Romney.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/10/31/fox-news-poll-race-for-white-house-dead-heat/

Anything other than a clear lead for Romney in the popular vote won't be enough because of his deficit in the battleground states. If it's a dead heat in the popular vote, that would mean Obama picking up the majority of the battleground states.

Conas

Duck Soup wrote: »

Anything other than a clear lead for Romney in the popular vote won't be enough because of his deficit in the battleground states. If it's a dead heat in the popular vote, that would mean Obama picking up the majority of the battleground states.

They said Romney has a massive lead with Independent voters aswell. 54% to 46%. If I was to but a wager on who will win, I can't see anything else but a Romney win in this election.

Ozymandius2011

They said Romney has a massive lead with Independent voters aswell. 54% to 46%. If I was to but a wager on who will win, I can't see anything else but a Romney win in this election.

I heard that on Fox aswell. I am sceptical because:

- The Pew/Gallup polls were the ones cited and have been unusually strong for the GOP relative to other polls so far. Fox are cheerrypicking the most pro-GOP polls.
- The early-voting figures so far on a state-by-state basis show the Dems far stronger in the swing states. Even if Romney led in the early vote, it will do no good if he doesn't win the swing states. It is true from this site on early voting that Deep Red states like Texas are getting a strong turnout. But they were never in play anyway.
- The popular vote is not what elects the president. I don't know how many times it will take for some people to recognise this fact.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

No power, no phone, no internet... at home and work for almost a week. Many roads still closed, trees down everywhere, power lines laying all over the place, no water, schools closed all week, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! I've been out of commission for week because of the Frankenstorm and now I see Obama is leading in the polls, and Romney is again behind in the EC. What the heck has happened? So much catching up to do, so little time till the election. (I see Santa bringing me a large generator to power house necessities this Christmas... especially if Obama wins as blackouts will become a common occurance)

Obama did a lot of disaster-response stuff, got praised by Chris Christie pretty glowingly, and yeah.

Hard to say how it will actually play out, or even if come election day people will even be in a fit state to vote in those areas affected by the superstorm

Duck Soup

Conas wrote: »

They said Romney has a massive lead with Independent voters aswell. 54% to 46%. If I was to but a wager on who will win, I can't see anything else but a Romney win in this election.

While I wouldn't discount the Romney lead amongst independents, there are a few caveats to it.

First off, the national polls include the independents you're talking about. The Fox numbers you quote for independents are part of the national number and weighted for in the poll.

Secondly, 54-46 amongst independents is a modest lead; 4 people out a hundred change their mind and you have parity.

And you're talking about a percentage of a percentage. In other words, independent voters make up the smallest of the 3 main registrations: Democrat, Republican and Independents. So let's take a look at the party registration in the biggest battleground state: Florida.

Party Registration in Florida

Democrat 41%
Republican 36%
Independents 21%

Assuming that all registered Democrats vote Democrats and all registered Republicans vote Republican, if you are getting 8% more of the independent vote, you're still going to lose. 8% of 21% = 1.68% of the total vote. Way short of the 5% you need to make up.

But it's a fair point and a polling riddle that has been raised a few times - how can Romney be winning independents and losing the popular vote?

In essence, the answer's fairly simple. There are a lot more registered Democrats than registered Republicans or Independents.

Frustratingly, I couldn't find a 2012 breakdown of the numbers, but here's the most recent I could find from 2010. Note that only 28 states allow you to register by party.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/McDonald%20National%20Party%20Registration%20Table.php?nr=1

Democrats 43,396,994
Republicans 29,931,028
Independents 23,565,009

Those numbers might also go some way to explaining the ongoing discussions as to how polls are weighted.

The other thing to note is that there is a correlation between the numbers of registered Democrat voters in a state and the lead Romney has amongst independents in that state. The more strongly Democrat a state is, the more the 'independents' seem to break for Romney. So why is this?

Once again, to oversimplify, if it's a strongly Democratic state then Republican-leaning voters are more likely to register as independents. It's probably (a) a reaction to the prevailing political culture in the state - it's more comfortable and acceptable to say "I'm a registered Independent" in the likes of California than "I'm a registered Republican" and (b) the Republican brand is now so toxic that people won't wear the team colours by registering with them. Voting Republican is becoming a bit like **** - everyone does it, but no one admits to it.

A more mature and reasonable explanation of the phenomenon is to be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gourevitch/romney-lead-with-independents_b_2058290.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

brimal

There isn't much battleground state polls out yet today but there has been one from New Hampshire.
It's only worth 4 electoral votes but analysts have said this state could prove crucial in such a tight election.

This state itself was fairly tight last week but today a poll has Obama leading by 6 points - 50/44.
More indication that the tide is slowly turning in Obama's favour.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Ozymandius2011

The Washington post poll compares "Right Track/Wrong track" sentiment in previous US Presidential elections to get idea about Obama's chances. It's close to 1996 and 2004 when both incumbents were re-elected.

mrsoundie

Brian? wrote: »

I'm actually hoping Fox will great to watch, it'll be hilarious if Obama wins.

For me, CNN is the least biased network news.

Fox News is just laugh a minute, check this site out www.newshound.us "They watch it, so you dont have to".

But still its my guilty pleasure.

Ozymandius2011

Ohio suddenly installing suspicious software patches on their voting machines. Reported by The Free Press website:

Will "experimental" software patches affect the Ohio vote?
by Bob Fitrakis and Gerry Bello
October 31, 2012
Why did the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's office, in an end run around Ohio election law, have "experimental" software patches installed on vote counting tabulators in up to 39 Ohio counties? Voting rights activists are concerned that these uncertified and untested software patches may alter the election results.

During the 2004 presidential election, the Free Press reported that election officials observed technicians from the ES&S voting machine company and Triad computer maintenance company installing uncertified and untested software patches on voting machines in 44 Ohio counties prior to the election. Software patches are usually installed to "update" or change existing software. These software patch updates were considered suspect by election protection activists, in light of all the voting machine anomalies found during the 2004 election in Ohio.

The Free Press has learned that Election Systems and Solutions (ES&S) installed the software patches that will affect 4,041,056 registered voters, including those in metropolitan Columbus and Cleveland (click here for spread sheet from verifiedvoting.org).

A call to the Ohio Secretary of State's office concerning the software patches was not returned by publication deadline. Previously, the Free Press requests for public records, including voting machine vendor contracts, have been stonewalled by Office Secretary of State John Husted's office through his public records officer Chris Shea. Through other channels, the Free Press has obtained and has posted the possibly illegal full contract online here (see page 17).

The contract calls for ES & S technicians and county poll workers to "enter custom codes and interfaces" to the standard election reporting software just as was done with the controversial 2004 Ohio presidential election.

Last minute software patches may be deemed "experimental" because that designation does not require certification and testing. Uncertified and untested software for electronic voting systems are presumably illegal under Ohio law. All election systems hardware and software must be tested and certified by the state before being put into use, according to Ohio Revised Code 3506.05. By unilaterally deeming this new software "experimental," Secretary of State Husted was able to have the software installed without any review, inspection or certification by anyone. ES & S, for their part, knows that this software will not be subject to the minimal legally required testing as stated in the contract on page 21 (Section 6.1).

The contract specifically states that this software has not been and need not be reviewed by any testing authority at the state or federal level. Yet, it is installed on voting machines that will tabulate and report official election results, which Ohio law forbids. Based on the Free Press reading of the contract, this software is fully developed, being referred as versions 2.0.7.0 and 3.0.1.0. Thus the only thing making this software "experimental" is the fact that it has never been independently certified or tested.

In preparation for the upcoming general election in late April, the Free Press began requesting public records from all 88 counties in Ohio in order to build a broad database of every vendor and piece of equipment used in the state of Ohio. Aside from some minor delays, all 88 county jurisdictions have complied.

However, the office of the Ohio Secretary of State however, has not complied with any requests for lists of equipment, contracts with vendors, schedules of payment and even the identities of the vendors. The Free Press' public records requests, under ORC 149.43 (The Public Records Act) have been ignored by Chris Shea, presumably acting on behalf of Secretary of State Jon Husted. Now that the Free Press has obtained the contract, it seems clear that the secretary of state's office was hiding these last minute "experimental" uncertified software installations.

On page 19 of the contract, terms require the various county boards of elections to purchase additional software from ES & S if they are not compatible with this new "experimental" statewide tabulation and reporting system. This unfunded mandate clause illegally bypasses individual counties rights to make their own purchasing determinations.

The controversial software will create simple .csv files like those produced by spreadsheet programs for input into the statewide tabulation system. According to the terms of the contract, data security is the responsibility of each local board of elections: "…each county will be responsible for the implementation of any security protocols" (see page 21 of the contract).

Most county boards of elections do not have their own IT departments and are reliant on private partisan contractors to maintain and program the electronic voting systems. These piecemeal implementations of security protocols would also be untested and uncertified.

Voting rights activists believe this whole scheme may create a host of new avenues of attack on the integrity of the electronic vote counting system. The untested and uncertified "experimental" software itself may be malware. Public trust in the electronic vote counting system has emerged as the key issue in the Ohio presidential election.

The Free Press will be updating this breaking story as more information is obtained and analyzed, so stay tuned. The story for now is that the Secretary of State in the key swing state in the 2012 presidential has installed "experimental" uncertified and untested software to count a large portion of the Ohio vote.

--

seligehgit

Excellent article by Bob Shrum on why he thinks Romney is likely to fall short.......http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/02/r-i-p-mitt-romney.html.Just can't see the US of Ohio falling to Romney.

Ozymandius2011

PPP poll:

Obama ahead 50-47.
Independents: Obama 49, Romney 44
Whites: Romney 57, Obama 40
Blacks: Obama 89, Romney 9
Young people: Obama 66, Romney 33
Hispanics: Obama leads 67-28

Wisconsin (PPP): Obama 51, Romney 48
---
Des Moines Register poll (Iowa): Obama 47, Romney 42

elgriff

Paddy Power paid out on Obama to win this morning actually

http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

Ozymandius2011

elgriff wrote: »

Paddy Power paid out on Obama to win this morning actually

http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

They are in the habit of paying out prematurely and then having egg on their faces afterwards e.g. Lisbon I.

I have a bet on an Electoral College split with them at 9-1 so fingers crossed.

seligehgit

Still highly probable that Obama will justify the payout.

FootShooter

Swing state tracker from Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight blog: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/swing-state-tracker?hp

He's forecasted a 85% chance of Obama winning, with around 306,9 electoral votes. The media is just using national polls to keep the race exciting so they get more viewers.

Ozymandius2011

Pew poll:Obama 50, Romney 47. Was 47-47 last time. Obama leads in swing states 49-47.

nagilum2

seligehgit wrote: »

Still highly probable that Obama will justify the payout.

What is the rationale for paying out early? Why not just raise the odds?

Ozymandius2011

Breaking:

Yougov poll. Sample 36472!!! :eek:

Obama 48.5
Romney 46.5




--
NBC/WSJ: Obama 48, Romney 47
Battleground/Tarrance: Obama 48, Romney 48

From Twitter:
PPP Iowa poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 50-48. Obama's up 61/39 among those who already voted.

Mark200

nagilum2 wrote: »

What is the rationale for paying out early? Why not just raise the odds?

Publicity! They get a load of attention this way

Ozymandius2011

Twitter:
PollingReport.com
White House 2012: Obama-Biden 49% / Romney-Ryan 48% (ABC/Washington Post tracking, LV, 10/31-11/3) http://t.co/wc9b6LeO 7 minutes ago

Washington Post pollPost-ABC tracking poll: Obama 49%, Romney 48% - Error margin 2.5 points http://t.co/7jewI0LF 11 minutes ago

Black Swan

For some reason after following these polls for months, I am beginning to believe that whomever wins the Ohio swing state will be the next president of the US. I realise it's more complex than this with the Electoral College, including all the possible combinations to meet the 270 threshold (and Ohio only having 18 ECs), but that's my very unqualified and subjective feeling shortly before the 6 November election.

RCP Ohio average at this moment in time for the 23 Oct to 4 November polling period:

• Obama = 49.4
• Romney = 46.5
• Spread = Obama +2.9
• Obama leading in 11 of 12 polls listed by RCP for this time period (+1 to +6)
• Rasmussen Reports shows a "tie"
• RCP Electoral College Map shows toss up
• RCP EC Map without toss ups shows Obama win

Also, I have this feeling that there may be a repeat of the 2000 election, where Ohio (rather than Florida), will have its votes contested by the party that loses the state by a very narrow margin; e.g., problems with absentee votes, voting machine programming errors, claims of some voters being unjustly excluded, unqualified voters voting, voting in the wrong district, some ballots difficult to read, etc.

Duck Soup

The latest national polling averages from the main poll aggregators:

Real Clear Politics
Obama 47.9
Romney 47.4

FiveThirtyEight
Obama 50.6
Romney 48.5

Pollster [Huffington Post]
Obama 48.0
Romney 46.8

PollTracker [Talking Points Memo]
Obama 48.8
Romney 48.3

nagilum2

Cool interactive NYT infographic that summarizes the paths to the White House:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

seligehgit

nagilum2 wrote: »

What is the rationale for paying out early? Why not just raise the odds?

I think it is idiotic that they have paid out early.

Ozymandius2011

Gallup poll: Romney 49 (-2), Obama 48 (+2).

cristoir

seligehgit wrote: »

I think it is idiotic that they have paid out early.

I'd imagine they do it for cheap publicity.

Black Swan

Based on the RCP state polls tracking...

RCP Electoral Map:
Obama = 201
Romney = 191

RCP No Toss Ups:
Obama = 303
Romney = 235

Methinks this is going to be a very tight race Tuesday 6 November, with one candidate winning by a nose.

Inquitus

The reason they paid out is because its all over bar the shouting unless you are some delusional GOPtard.

seligehgit

Recommendations for results coverage,heard somebody mention CNN,very good and unbiased????

cristoir

seligehgit wrote: »

Recommendations for results coverage,heard somebody mention CNN,very good and unbiased????

If you want Obama to win watching MSNBC can be quite good (like watching RTE during an Ireland football match they are on your side :P) and likewise Romney with FOX. A lot of people say FOX's county by county analysis on the states is quite good.

If you want unbiased results with good analysis then probably CNN. I'll be varying between CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the Beeb tomorrow myself.

Inquitus

GOP tears are delicious, if you aren't a right wing religious whackjob, watching Obama win on Fox is tasty.

nagilum2

Inquitus wrote: »

The reason they paid out is because its all over bar the shouting unless you are some delusional GOPtard.

Yep, like Hillary Clinton in the NH primary in 2008. I don't even know why she bothered to contest it with the numbers what they were. All the polls said she'd lose that day big. And the polls are never wrong, right?

Inquitus

nagilum2 wrote: »

Yep, like Hillary Clinton in the NH primary in 2008. I don't even know why she bothered to contest it with the numbers what they were. All the polls said she'd lose that day big. And the polls are never wrong, right?

A few primary polls versus a full election data set, you are comparing apples with delusional pumpkins.

cristoir

The polling data could be wrong. It's about the only thing Romney has left to pray on. Nate Silver has put the likely hood of this at 13 percent.

Basically the GOP need a "shy republican effect" or serious statistical anomalies.

Amerika

So when Romney wins tomorrow, Paddy Power will have to pay out again?

Ponster

cristoir wrote: »

The polling date could be wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time. In 1980 Carter the polls predicted a win by Carter although it was "too close to call" and "neck and neck". Reagan went on to win by a landslide taking 43 states.

Manic Moran

I'm probably going to watch CNN or BBC. Either way, it'll be on the Internet.

nagilum2

Inquitus wrote: »

A few primary polls versus a full election data set, you are comparing apples with delusional pumpkins.

This isn't 1996 when everyone knew Clinton would be relelected.

Anyone who thinks this is in the bag for either side is crazy. Everything says this is going to be the closest election since 2000. And there are real question marks with the underlying demographic sample that some of the polls are using as to whether there's a systematic oversampling of democrats.

The bottom line is no one will know until the day after tomorrow - perhaps not even then.

southsiderosie

nagilum2 wrote: »

The bottom line is no one will know until the day after tomorrow - perhaps not even then.

Yes, I wonder about this. I would be very surprised if they call the election tomorrow night.

That said, I'm putting my faith in Nate Silver, if for no other reason than to preserve my sanity for the next 48 hours.

Ponster

Ponster wrote: »

It wouldn't be the first time. In 1980 Carter the polls predicted a win by Carter although it was "too close to call" and "neck and neck". Reagan went on to win by a landslide taking 43 states.

That's odd. My recollection of the time was that a lot of us figured that Reagan was going to win ahead of the election. In fact, as I recall it, Carter started to fade badly in polls and "media perception" in the weeks after the disastrous attempt at a military rescue in the Iran hostage crisis.

But that clearly doesn't square with the story above - and as I look around on the web I see that the story has quite a degree of acceptance with people. It also seems to be a source of some comfort to Romney supporters.

And yet, until I saw the above post a short while ago and stuck some search terms into Google, I'd never have considered the 1980 election as a more modern version of "Dewey Defeats Truman". To repeat, as a teenager in 1980 with an interest in politics and elections, Reagan's win came as no surprise.

Maybe time has dulled my memory - I ain't as young as I used to be. But I did locate a link that supports, to some degree, what I thought happened. I offer it here as an alternative view.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


Just saying.

nagilum2

Deleted User wrote: »

That's odd. My recollection of the time was that a lot of us figured that Reagan was going to win ahead of the election. In fact, as I recall it, Carter started to fade badly in polls and "media perception" in the weeks after the disastrous attempt at a military rescue in the Iran hostage crisis.

But that clearly doesn't square with the story above - and as I look around on the web I see that the story has quite a degree of acceptance with people. It also seems to be a source of some comfort to Romney supporters.

And yet, until I saw the above post a short while ago and stuck some search terms into Google, I'd never have considered the 1980 election as a more modern version of "Dewey Defeats Truman". To repeat, as a teenager in 1980 with an interest in politics and elections, Reagan's win came as no surprise.

Maybe time has dulled my memory - I ain't as young as I used to be. But I did locate a link that supports, to some degree, what I thought happened. I offer it here as an alternative view.

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/09/what-really-happened-in-the-1980-presidential-campaign/


Just saying.

I can't imagine that there could be a real landslide on either side this go around. The country is just too polarized and there doesn't seem to be great momentum or enthusiasm with either candidate. I'm sticking with my original projection of an EC - popular vote split, with Obama barely winning vie the electoral college.

Black Swan

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes, I wonder about this. I would be very surprised if they call the election tomorrow night.

If there is any substance to the current very close polling estimates, there is a very good chance that the presidential election will not be decided Tuesday. It's doubtful that there will be the huge delay as experienced during the 2000 election, but perhaps some delay will result due to election irregularities claimed by the losing party in one or more swing states (e.g., Ohio, etc.).

Jesus Wept

Amerika wrote: »

So when Romney wins tomorrow, Paddy Power will have to pay out again?

They paying out??

Ozymandius2011

NV turnout has passed that of 2008. It is 72% compared to 67% in 2008. The Dems are holding their 7% lead there and on a 70% turnout, the GOP are holding there's in Colorado. In NV, the electorate is 54% Non Hispanic White, compared to 70% in CO.

joseph brand

Paddy Power:
Obama 2/9
Romney 3/1

If I stick a tenner on Obama I stand to come away with €12.22 /rubs hands

nagilum2

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

NV turnout has passed that of 2008. It is 72% compared to 67% in 2008. The Dems are holding their 7% lead there and on a 70% turnout, the GOP are holding there's in Colorado. In NV, the electorate is 54% Non Hispanic White, compared to 70% in CO.

Interesting. The conventional wisdom is that if the democrats aren't leading early voting then they're unlikely to win the state, which would move Colorado to Romney. I'm not sure how realistic that is though.

I think the NV numbers sync with both candidates not really contesting NV too much in recent days. You can tell where both candidates are worried by where they are travelling.
Romney in Florida and Virginia on the last day tells me the republican internals say those states may not be quite the lock everyone thinks they are. Obama in Wisconsin and Iowa on the last day tells me the the Democratic internals tell them the same thing about those two states.

It's almost like the candidates themselves don't even quite know what to believe, which says we're in for a long night or maybe days.