US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

joseph brand

According to Fox and Friends, the polls are rigged, even their own. Ahh, don't laugh.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/fox-friends-polls-rigged-conspiracy.php?m=1

It’s clear that Fox & Friends has a tricky relationship with data. But on the show Thursday morning, the hosts took that relationship to a whole new level.

After a raft of new polls showed Obama opening up leads in swing states, the Friends flew in to full-blown conspiracy mode about what’s really behind the data.

Parroting the latest Republican meme that national polls oversample Democrats, host Steve Doocy threw in to the mix the possibility that pollsters are using voter turnout from 2008 to guide who they should be asking.

Better link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPyseb8tWo&feature=plcp


Republican minds can't process facts. "Thinkin's hard."

Overheal

I've seen enough uncanny stupid **** from Fox and Friends that I pray nobody takes them seriously

Paleface

Obama has shortened again with Paddy Power whilst Romney has lengthened accordingly.

Obama 1/6
Romney 7/2


I haven't time to check Ladbrokes or William Hill but they usually align with each other on these kinds of markets.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

A good read. It won't be long to see who is right. But does the NY Times feel the democratic turnout will be even stronger than it was in 2008? I haven't seen any indication that that is the case. And if there isn't viable proof of it, don't you think the NY Times really should be taking the other pollsters, and not Rasmusssen, to task for bumping democrat samplings even higher than 2008 results or republicans less than 2008 results?

And I'll take you up on your offer. Like you, I know you won't like it and you won't want to like it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/26/which-polls-are-or-arent-legitimate/

It's just the same over-sampling stuff all over again. I switched on Fox news for a few minutes there yesterday and serendipitously they had on a couple of women talking about this.

Both agreed that the polls are not skewed. One of them made the point that they aren't talking about registered voters, where the sampling is concerned but rather people who 'identify' one way or the other. And that this is usually from independents who will identify as republican or democrat based on who they are going to vote for.

This tends to skew the sampling in favour of the side that's usually gaining more support from independents and applies to both republicans and democrats.

Like I said in my last post. Nate Silver's math and method are really top notch (he was mentioned in the fox news discussion also). The article you posted seems to be purely partisan opinion. Nate's articles just don't read that way.

joseph brand

"Mitt Romney Favorability Lower Than George W. Bush, Poll Finds." Ouch!

If Mitt Romney was hoping to distance himself from former President George W. Bush, a new poll has some news that might trouble the Republican presidential nominee: Bush posted higher favorability ratings than Romney.

The national survey, conducted by Bloomberg News and released Wednesday, found that Bush received a favorable rating of 46 percent, while Romney's favorable rating was 43 percent. Forty-nine percent of respondents gave Bush an unfavorable rating, compared to 50 percent of respondents who gave Romney an unfavorable rating.

A wave of recent polls has shown Romney struggling to keep up with President Barack Obama. A lower favorability rating than Bush, who was recently named the most unpopular living U.S. president, shows how difficult it has been for the GOP nominee to resonate with voters during his current presidential bid.

The only hope for the GOP after Obama wins his second term, is to avoid appealing to the aged, the racist, the rich and the religious fundamentalists. They need to start fresh, because the electorate have gotten wiser. They need to change with the times. In effect, be more like the Dems.

Amerika

joseph brand wrote: »

They need to start fresh, because the electorate have gotten wiser. They need to change with the times. In effect, be more like the Dems.

So we need to learn how to better lie, cheat, steal and pull the wool over the voters eyes eh?

karma_

Amerika wrote: »

So we need to learn how to better lie, cheat, steal and pull the wool over the voters eyes eh?

The GOP have nothing to learn on that front, they practically invented it.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

So we need to learn how to better lie, cheat, steal and pull the wool over the voters eyes eh?

Lie, cheat, steal: (Romney Ryan)

Pull the wool over the voters eyes: Fox 'news'.

You guys got it covered.

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

So we need to learn how to better lie, cheat, steal and pull the wool over the voters eyes eh?

The fact that you can say that and believe it says everything anyone needs to know about the GOP and those who would vote for them. How can you be so utterly blind to such trenchant hypocrisy?

Also please quit with the smileys. They add nothing to the discussion and just get people riled up. The content of your posts is disingenuous enough as it is.

joseph brand

Romney's 47% Video Has Been Viewed 3 Times As Often As His Convention Speech






A picture is worth thousand words, they say.

The internet (information) is the GOP's biggest enemy. Just like Jay Rockefeller said.

And we all know what type of scum the Rockefellers are.

joseph brand

Memnoch wrote: »

The fact that you can say that and believe it says everything anyone needs to know about the GOP and those who would vote for them. How can you be so utterly blind to such trenchant hypocrisy?

Also please quit with the smileys. They add nothing to the discussion and just get people riled up. The content of your posts is disingenuous enough as it is.

Probably not blind. Either taking the 'proverbial' p*ss, or, he knows which side his bread is buttered.

What I mean is, if you're arguing facts with someone who's paid to spread lies on behalf of the GOP, you could never win. Ever!

For example: there are posters in the christianity forum who can NEVER be swayed, due to the simple fact that they are directly involved in their local church. Impermeable, like granite. They're not listening, (to reason, logic and facts) because they don't want to listen. It's not in their interests.

The idiom I would use is 'beating your head off a wall'.

Also. Amerika is free to use smileys. It makes his posts so much more infantile. I hope he continues.

Vive la France!! :D

Black Swan

Whatever the Romney campaign is doing, it does not appear to be working given the trend in the polls listed by RCP. Even Republican leaning FOX News (Obama +5) and Rasmussen Tracking (Obama +1 at the moment of this post) agree with the other polls leaning towards an Obama win.

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

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This thread is about polls, not individual posters. Please play the ball, not the man.

That said, things have taken an odd post-modernist turn here. Given that this is a thread about polling, let's try to keep things grounded in empirical data, rather than conspiracy theories.

Duck Soup

I was reading a Nate Silver article on the effect of the 47% video and other events - conventions etc. Silver shows the growing divergence in the two candidate's poll numbers graphically:

But it was one of the comments that caught my eye and rang true. Economic indicators are essentially pointing to a (very) slow recovery, so Silver and others are pondering as to why this isn't reflected more in the polling numbers (Silver actually builds economic indicator figures into his own forecast models).

The commenter's response was that while all the blame can't be shrugged off onto Bush's legacy, Romney's failed to make a case for policies that don't resemble much of anything other than a retread of the Bush policies. The only thing I'd add to that is that I think there's an unspoken understanding amongst many voters that, in their keenness to make Obama a one-term President, Congress - specifically the House of Representatives - has created near-complete blockage for any agenda to be implemented.

Romney keeps saying that he wants to get the conversation back onto the economy. The truth is, Romney's foot-in-mouth disease notwithstanding, when you've got people's attention on a topic, you better have something compelling to say to them. People are getting the message alright, they just don't like what they're hearing.

Duck Soup

Two concrete examples as to how Romney is losing the policy arguments.

On Medicare:

UPI/CVoter poll, conducted 18 -24 September.

Who is better able to address healthcare reform?

Obama 44
Romney 32

http://www.thirdage.com/news/upi-poll-obama-backed-on-health-care-issue_09-26-2012

This could explain why Romney's lead amongst older voters is dropping alarmingly and why Florida is starting to lean distinctly Obama.

On the economy where, until this month, Romney had a distinct advantage:

Fox News poll, conducted 24 - 26 September.

Who do you trust to do a better job improving the economy and creating jobs?

Obama 47
Romney 46

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/09/28/obama-romney-tied-on-economy-in-fox-poll/

Black Swan

The RCP average continues to creep up in favour of Obama now +4.3 over Romney. Rasmussen Tracking moves up from +1 to +2 for Obama (at the moment of this post, given that tracking polls change frequently). No recent polls listed by RCP favour a Romney win.

Duck Soup

People can - and do - take polls and poll numbers that are according to their political tastes, but the trends are unmistakable and all heading into one direction. Conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer, yesterday said that Romney should stop fluting about with the minutiae (such as arguing about poll numbers) and 'go big'. Debate the big issues.

The problem is - and this is why arguing over poll numbers has become such an issue with Republicans - that there's a narrative and a tone set by polls if they all tell the same tale. There's a reason many countries ban polling a few days out from an election. The Romney campaign is getting the distinct smell of failure about it now. That in turn can compound the problem as it feeds a perception of the campaign as being incompetent. If you can't run a campaign, how can you expect to run a country?

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

It has been said in anothr thread that the gop want the US House , Senate and hous speaker..if they get a majority they consider it a win....what are their odds for that?


They seemed much more shattered by that akin thing than anything Ryan has done...maybe congress is the goal...not the presidency...I mean the president gets the blame traditionally and there is a poiso chalice situation...maybe it's the race for congress we should be watching...maybe thats all they want..

They were really arrogant in nominating Ryan as vice president. It is giving dems a lot of breaks in the battle for congress...

Black Swan

The debates begin this coming week. Will they be the final blow for Romney, or will there be a JFK vs Nixon debate election reversal effect? JFK and Nixon were running very close in the polls, but Nixon was favoured (Nixon had home field advantage being the sitting Vice President under a popular President Dwight D. Eisenhower). Many pundits attribute the Democrat JFK narrow win over Republican Nixon due to the strong debating skills of JFK over Nixon.

Obama did quite well against McCain in 2008. Not sure how the debate will go between Obama and Romney. It should be interesting to watch, not only for content, but also in terms of delivery. The polls following each debate should reflect how the potentially voting public responds, especially independents and swing voters.

Memnoch

I expect Romney to stick to platitudes and generalities, to try and keep the debate about 'big issues' without actually going into the specifics (because he is very weak when you examine the specifics of everything he's said on the campaign trail.)

That kind of rhethoric seems to appeal to the sentiment of the American swing electorate.

It'll be up to Obama to prevent him from getting away with this and to pin him down on specifics as much as possible without seeming to get negative.

Black Swan

Rasmussen Tracking evidenced a significant shift from their 16 September 2012 close of Romney +2 to the current +2 Obama for 29 September 2012. Can this 4 point shift be explained by mere reference to the variability of their poll confidence interval, or some event that occurred between then and now?

Of course, this being a tracking poll, the 4 point shift from Romney to Obama given above may change sometime after this post. Even so, what explains this 4 point shift between favouring Romney to favouring Obama in the past 2 weeks?

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Even so, what explains this 4 point shift between favouring Romney to favouring Obama in the past 2 weeks?

Well... its pretty easy to explain.

The Romney/Ryan campaign is a complete mess. However biased/unbiased the media may be it seems the bad news about his campaign just keeps on coming.

They're constantly making gaffes, in the last 48 hours Ryan has proclaimed the fantasy tax plan they have is "too complicated to explain", and Romney has disappeared for almost a week to practice for the debate on wednesday. Before he vanished he'd been touting how he was "coming after the middle class" to reduce tax deductions. Bizarre.

I'm suprised his numbers arent falling faster. His unpopularity is also dragging down other republican candidates as well, there's even a chance Democrats could retake the House of representatives.

InTheTrees

I will never forget watching the Gore vs Bush debates.

It was embarrassing how badly Bush did. The man was a moron.

And yet within 15 minutes of the debate ending the media was touting how Gore was "over prepared"(!!) and how he made Bush look bad. And by the next day Bush was considered the "winner" simply due to some kind of sympathy thing? I really dont know.

So I wouldnt say by any means that Obama has the debate won.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

So I wouldnt say by any means that Obama has the debate won.

I predict Obama will win the first debate only if the moderator allow him to spin the questions and never directly answer them expect for maneuvers towards hope, platitudes and carefully worded legalize. Which sadly is very possible.

But I think the electorate will see through any bias on display by the media, and Romney will shoot up in the polls soon afterwards.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I predict Obama will win the first debate only if the moderator allow him to spin the questions and never directly answer them expect for maneuvers towards hope, platitudes and carefully worded legalize. Which sadly is very possible.

But I think the electorate will see through any bias on display by the media, and Romney will shoot up in the polls soon afterwards.

You predict that based on nothing.

You are right about one thing though, Obama will constantly evade the questions and spin platitudes. But then so will Romney. It's why I hate these "debates", they're purely a personality competition. In any personality competition Obama wins at a canter. My prediction is a bump for Obama, but a small one.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

You predict that based on nothing.

On nothing? Did you happen to see Mitt Romney handle Newt Gingrich (arguably one of the best political debaters around) quite effectively in the GOP primary debates?

Duck Soup

InTheTrees wrote: »

I will never forget watching the Gore vs Bush debates.

It was embarrassing how badly Bush did. The man was a moron.

And yet within 15 minutes of the debate ending the media was touting how Gore was "over prepared"(!!) and how he made Bush look bad. And by the next day Bush was considered the "winner" simply due to some kind of sympathy thing? I really dont know.

So I wouldnt say by any means that Obama has the debate won.

Obama's a good debater and Romney has plenty of practice as well. I'd expect both of them to be at least competent. And that's kind of the problem for Romney. Given his habit of saying exactly the wrong thing the moment he goes off script, I'd be amazed if he even attempted it. But if he's going to move his poll numbers, he has to conjure up a zinger or two that goes way beyond reciting prepared policy positions.

Everyone harks back to Reagan's "There you go again" and "I will not hold my opponent's youth against him" lines but this was a past master of mugging for the camera delivering lines with a smile and a twinkle in his eye.

Romney's ability to deliver even the sharpest prepared line without sounding like the world's worst stand-up comedian has to be doubted. I was also listening to one talking head saying that he expects Obama to 'go after' Romney in the first debate, as Romney is even more prone than usual to foot-in-mouth once he's ruffled.

I doubt if Obama will be that aggressive. Three dull no-score draws will suit him fine. Just be relaxed, confident and in command of the topics. That leaves Romney doing a combination of flailing to hit a knock-out blow and hoping he doesn't make another calamitous gaffe.

There's also a broader Romney problem of the overarching narrative. The story is now of a campaign in disarray and prone to miscalls and gaffes. Anything at all that feeds into that now becomes the news. Or to put it another way, if Romney and Obama make the same mistake, the media will tend to shrug it off from Obama (because we know he's proven to be competent and capable) and seize upon it if it comes from Romney, because he's proven to be a one-man gaffe machine of which any future pratfalls are further evidence.

So no pressure then.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

You predict that based on nothing.

On nothing? Did you happen to see Mitt Romney handle Newt Gingrich (arguably one of the best political debaters around) quite effectively in the GOP primary debates?

Yes on nothing. Gingrich was extremely poor and one dimensional.

Be like Nutella

Cenk Uygur

" Here's my new favorite fact: whoever is leading two weeks after the last convention has never relinquished the lead in the last 15 presidential elections. It's way past two weeks since the last convention and President Obama doesn't have a small lead, he has a huge lead. "

I assume that fact is correct. Is so you'd have to assume that this thing is just about done then, no? anyone disagree?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/obama-polls-lead_b_1927955.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=100112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

Also please quit with the smileys. They add nothing to the discussion and just get people riled up. The content of your posts is disingenuous enough as it is.

I use the "Wink" smiley to designate a)satire, b)irony or c)something said with tongue-in-cheek not to be taken too seriously. Why not just ignore them and keep the blood pressure down?

joseph brand wrote: »

What I mean is, if you're arguing facts with someone who's paid to spread lies on behalf of the GOP, you could never win. Ever!

Me??? Not in the least bit and have never received anything from the GOP except for requests for donations... does that count? Oh wait, I forgot... I once got a signed picture from George W Bush, and a signed commendation (not to be mistaken with condemnation ) from Bill Clinton.


Seems all the polls have Romney down a couple of points in the latest round of polls. And if Rasmussen has him down then I tend to believe it. Hope a lot of people watch the debates so they can see and hear the real Romney, not the spin the Obama campaign and his PACs put out.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

I once got a signed picture from George W Bush,

Written in crayon?

Amerika wrote: »

Hope a lot of people watch the debates so they can see and hear the real Romney,

You mean there is more? Can we take it at this stage. Are there 2 Romneys then?

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Written in crayon?

Actually I think both his and Clinton’s were signed with autopen, although Clinton’s had some extra stains on it.

You mean there is more? Can we take it at this stage. Are there 2 Romneys then?

I guess so. The actual Mitt Romney - successful businessman, governor, savior of the Utah Olympics, job creator, and philanthropist; and the boogeyman Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign and his PACs have painted.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Actually I think both his and Clinton’s were signed with autopen, although Clinton’s had some extra stains on it.

Good one, I like it.:D

Amerika wrote: »

I guess so. The actual Mitt Romney - successful businessman, governor, savior of the Utah Olympics, job creator, and philanthropist; and the boogeyman Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign and his PACs have painted.

Seriously though, you suggest the debates will reveal the real Mitt Romney? The public perception would be that at best then he is two people gaff prone and detached from the reality of working middle America and this other person that you suggest may be revealed? If elected then which will be President?

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Good one, I like it.:D

Thanks, an eye for an eye sort of thing with that crayon comment. Did you see she's coming out with a new "tell all" book. IMO, Even I wish it would all just go away. I actually think Clinton was pretty decent as president once the GOP took control of Congress during his term as POTUS, and I think he’s been pretty good for the country with all the humanitarian work he’s accomplished since leaving office (well except for the DNC fantasy tour 2012 convention act that is )

Seriously though, you suggest the debates will reveal the real Mitt Romney? The public perception would be that at best then he is two people gaff prone and detached from the reality of working middle America and this other person that you suggest may be revealed? If elected then which will be President?

Watch the debates, the Mitt Romney you will see there will be the Romney the President IMO.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

I guess so. The actual Mitt Romney - successful businessman, governor, savior of the Utah Olympics, job creator, and philanthropist; and the boogeyman Mitt Romney that the Obama campaign and his PACs have painted.

You mean the Mitt Romney who secretly thinks nearly half the electorate are leeches and parasites? The same Mitt Romney who has consistently and hilariously flip flopped on basically every political position possible? The man you are backing is utterly vile on every level, he was the least worst candidate from an historically poor Republican field, he has no charisma whatsoever, and is probably the most odious politican to emerge from the United States since David Duke. But whatever.

Amerika

Guess what? A recent poll has concluded that a plurality of Americans feel pollsters are intentionally skewing results to benefit President Obama. No surprises here.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259655-poll-plurality-of-americans-believe-polls-biased-for-obama

Now let me ask you all something. Do you feel Democrats will be voting in greater numbers then Republicans, of levels experienced in the 2008 election? If not, and if the majority of polling companies also do not feel so, then we would have to agree their polling models (which do reflect this bizarre demographic) are either incompetent, or purely disingenuous and purposely misleading the general public.

Paleface

Latest update from the bookmakers here:

Obama 1/7
Romney 4/1


In a two horse race 4/1 is about as long as you can get. The debates are all or nothing now for Romney.


@Amerika

Surely its the Independents that are going to win it for Obama and not the turn out of Democrats or Republicans.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

@Amerika

Surely its the Independents that are going to win it for Obama and not the turn out of Democrats or Republicans.

Disagreed. From many indications I've seen the majority of Independents are going for Romney over Obama, expecially in the swing states. And if the pollsters are also undersampling Independents, then what?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Guess what? A recent poll has concluded that a plurality of Americans feel pollsters are intentionally skewing results to benefit President Obama. No surprises here.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259655-poll-plurality-of-americans-believe-polls-biased-for-obama

Wow. So one poll indicates that 42% of a certain demographic 'believe' something in the complete lack of any data that would indicate such a belief is warranted, and you want to portray that as somehow, magically, significant.

No surprised there.

Keeping swinging.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Disagreed. From many indications I've seen the majority of Independents are going for Romney over Obama, expecially in the swing states. And if the pollsters are also undersampling Independents, then what?

What are these indicators?

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.

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.