US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

nagilum2

The numbers may be swinging back a bit for Obama...


http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/108344/ominous-sign-romney-in-todays-gallup-number

While the twitter-verse was ablaze with the news that Romney seized the lead in Gallup's tracker of likely voters, the underlying data hinted at troubling news for Romney. After making big gains among registered voters following the debates, Gallup's most recent days of tracking have shown a shift back in the president's direction, with Obama returning to pre-debate levels.

Amerika

nagilum2 wrote: »

The numbers may be swinging back a bit for Obama...

I figured the Obama Campaign would grab hold of the most important subject in the debate and play the Big Bird comment effectively. America's saved!

Ozymandius2011

nagilum2 wrote: »

The numbers may be swinging back a bit for Obama...


http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/108344/ominous-sign-romney-in-todays-gallup-number

Unfortunatrly for Obama, Likely Voters are what counts and in the US, "Registered voters" are always pro-Democrat but not enough of them e.g. poor, minority voters, actually turn out to make the RV figures come to pass at the ballot box.

Mjollnir

jank wrote: »

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

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.

Again, you seem incapable of addressing what the man has said in regards to the issue at hand.

I'm not addressing whether you happen to think he's not a moderate; I was addressing his statements regarding the likelihood of 'fudged' numbers.

Sorry that doesn't fit what you want to make this about.

Amerika

A little help in trying to understand these crazy numbers in some of the most recent polls. Basically it can be described in one word… Garbage!
　
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_day_polling_died_avC02WOQrbvvohrTLZwgAI

Ozymandius2011

Obama +4 in Ohio CNN poll. +6 in New Hampshire. Behind in the popular vote by 0.7% on RCP, but still ahead 294-244 in the Electoral College. So a real possibility of Obama holding on because of the latter despite losing the former. The GOP would go ballistic but it would be sweet-revenge for 12 yrs ago. Obama is outspending Romney 2-1 in the swing states after all.

Also the "right/wrong track" numbers are starting to resemble those of 2004 when Bush was re-elected, with the RCP average at 56% saying wrong-track. It was 55% during the 2004 election.

Black Swan

A cautionary reflection regarding telephone polling error, especially polling that disproportionately uses automated messages to landlines in the age of American survey saturation, and where call screening is common, and mobiles are almost ubiquitous in America:

Ozymandius2011

Black Swan wrote: »

A cautionary reflection regarding telephone polling error, especially polling that disproportionately uses automated messages to landlines in the age of American survey saturation, and where call screening is common, and mobiles are almost ubiquitous in America:

Well I know Rasmussen and Gallup don't poll cellphone owners but Quinnipiac/CBS-NYT/NBC do. An estimated 1/3rd of Americans don't have landlines.

Black Swan

Another cautionary note from the NY Post regarding potential telephone survey bias:

The key hidden fact is that fewer than one in 10 respond to those who try to poll them.

People who screen their calls, hang up on people they don’t know or end the survey because they don’t have time to take it make up more than 90 percent of those phoned by pollsters.

Ozymandius2011

Rasmussen polls with small Obama leads today: Pennsylvania: 51-46, Wisconsin 49-47 and New Hampshire: 48-48. There is a UNT poll from Florida with a 4% Obama lead, but it was taken on 1-7th Oct so it's about half pre-debate polling.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's irrelevant that she's republican. She is, in fact, a dumb nut job, regardless of her transparently manufactured political positions, statements and career.

No one's asking you to like it.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

FYI, I was referring to the choice made in the Democratic primaries to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. But good on you for never passing up an opportunity to call a Republican a "dumb nut job."[/Quote]

Are you seriously arguing in favour of Palin? Seriously?

The vast majority of GOP elected officials are not nut jobs nor dumb. Sarah Palin is without doubt both.

Good on you for defending a dumb nut job.

jank

I dont think he is defending that Plain isnt a "nut job", just that there are also plenty of Democrat "nut jobs" out there too. As soon as you use insulting language to describe some one it lowers the tone of the converstation immediately. So maybe save the insults.

nagilum2

http://news.investors.com/special-report/508415-ibdtipp-poll.aspx

Interesting demographic breakdown in this one. Not sure I've seen these breakdowns in other polls before.

There are a few figures that the President should worry about. A democratic president polling under 50% (albeit with a large number of undecideds) in the Jewish vote probably means Florida will go to Romney. He's currently losing 9% of the voters who voted for him in 2008, while capturing only 2% of the prior McCain voters, and he's losing independents overall by a 20 point margin.

OVERALL

Obama 43.7%
Romney 48.7%
Not Sure 6.1%

PARTY

Democrats

Obama 86%
Romney 7%
Not Sure 5%

Republicans

Obama 3%
Romney 95%
Not Sure 1%

Ind./Other

Obama 34%
Romney 54%
Not Sure 12%

RELIGION

Protestant

Obama 35%
Romney 60%
Not Sure 5%

Catholic

Obama 43%
Romney 46%
Not Sure 6%

Other Christian

Obama 40%
Romney 56%
Not Sure 3%

Jewish*

Obama 47%
Romney 25%
Not Sure 28%

Other*

Obama 51%
Romney 36%
Not Sure 11%

None

Obama 67%
Romney 27%
Not Sure 5%

2008 VOTE

Obama

Obama 83%
Romney 9%
Not Sure 8%

McCain

Obama 2%
Romney 94%
Not Sure 4%

Amerika

A little humor on polls and pollsters from Stweart and Colbert. The Stweart clip had me laughing.
http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/jon-stewart-colbert-have-a-laugh-at-polls-and-pollsters/17yozdcgs?from=

Amerika

It seems Gallup might just have succumbed to pressure from the left regarding its polls, and has decided to changes it’s methodological approach to polling elections just five short weeks before the election, and with the President falling in the polls. And now Barack Obama has a much higher job approval rating because of it… surprise surprise.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-politics-and-gallup-poll_654143.html

Brian?

jank wrote: »

I dont think he is defending that Plain isnt a "nut job", just that there are also plenty of Democrat "nut jobs" out there too. As soon as you use insulting language to describe some one it lowers the tone of the converstation immediately. So maybe save the insults.

Well I think Permabear should make that point clear if that's what he meant, rather that being vague as usual.

IMO Saying the people of the USA were fooled by the smooth talking Obama lowered the tone. He basically called a large section of the population idiots for not seeing through Obama. This is a common theme on here for any of the right leaning posters. It's irks me greatly. Given the creationism, anti intellectualism, climate change denial etc. that goes on within the GOP it's a bit rich. I don't write off the majority as dumb, I just feel they're misguided.

My point, again, was that the majority of Americans saw that Pailn was a nut job and that's what gave Obama such a wide margin of victory.

The reason he beat Hilary in the primaries? She's not very likeable. Don't get me wrong, she's extremely intelligent and a capable politician, but she has a very low likeability factor.

Ozymandius2011

Thursdays polls:

Black Swan

The RCP average continues to creep up in favour of Romney:
Romney = 47.4
Obama = 46.1
Spread = +1.3 Romney

Given the earlier cautions about telephone polling, it would appear that the Obama lead for months across most polls has disappeared as the result of the 1st presidential debate, now replaced by a small trend favouring Romney. Should this Romney polling trend continue and grow until 6 November, there is a possibility of a repeat of the JFK/Nixon voter decision all based upon this one event.

Ozymandius2011

Black Swan wrote: »

The RCP average continues to creep up in favour of Romney:
Romney = 47.4
Obama = 46.1
Spread = +1.3 Romney

Given the earlier cautions about telephone polling, it would appear that the Obama lead for months across most polls has disappeared as the result of the 1st presidential debate, now replaced by a small trend favouring Romney. Should this Romney polling trend continue and grow until 6 November, there is a possibility of a repeat of the JFK/Nixon voter decision all based upon this one event.

But it's the Electoral College that matters so it's equally possible that Obama could be re-elected by winning the E.C. despite losing the popular vote, as with Bush in 2000. He is holding onto razor thin leads in many swing states.

Amerika

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

But it's the Electoral College that matters so it's equally possible that Obama could be re-elected by winning the E.C. despite losing the popular vote, as with Bush in 2000. He is holding onto razor thin leads in many swing states.

Big shake up there also since the debate... with Obama now way down to 201 electoral votes between the Safes, Likelys, and Leans; and Romney holding at 181 with the same. The moves of WI, MI, NH, PA, OH now puts the toss ups at 156. And 270 being the magic number.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

I notice that Paddy Power now has the odds for Romney at 15/8. Anyone take my advice and bet on him when the payouts were really strong?

Ozymandius2011

Obama still leads 294-244 in the RCP E.C. on the "no toss-ups" map.

nagilum2

Obama is doing better in the electoral college estimations than he is in the nationwide polling.

He has a pretty solid firewall with his portfolio of states, and he'd probably have to lose the popular by about 1% or so to lose in the electoral collage.

There is a very real, but small, possibility that he could well win the election while losing the popular vote, because Romney's path to 271 is a lot tougher than Obama's. It would certainly make it interesting to have different winners of the electoral college and popular vote in two of the last four general elections.

Mark200

Here's a nice page that makes it easy to see the balance of the electoral college votes:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

LuckyLloyd

Obama is in major trouble. Slipped to 61 cents on the dollar on InTrade and 62% in Nate Silver's model. It's a massive downward trend over a two week stretch.

Duck Soup

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Obama is in major trouble. Slipped to 61 cents on the dollar on InTrade and 62% in Nate Silver's model. It's a massive downward trend over a two week stretch.

Well, if we're going to get into Nate's forecast, Obama dipped as low as 61.1% chance of winning the election on Friday to go up a noticeable bit to 62.9% on Saturday. It may be a blip in a downward trend; it may also be a reaction to Biden's strong performance in the Veep debate (whether some people liked it or not is immaterial - even his worst enemies acknowledged it was effective).

At this stage, it's all about momentum. If Romney has started an irrevocable switch in the national psyche then the momentum will build on itself like a snowball heading downhill, picking up mass and speed on the way.

If Biden managed to puncture the bubble by pointing out all the holes and blank spaces in the Romney/Ryan platform, then it could be that Romney has peaked. Obama needs to give the performance of his life on Tuesday which worries me slightly as he's not really an aggressive performer.

All eyes on the Town Hall Debate and the snap polls after.

Be like Nutella

I watch Fareed Zakaria every Sunday... if ya don't know it it's basically one guys opinion about the world based on topical events with a little talk show/round table element to it... I wouldn't say it's very partisan on average even though it's on that awful channel CNN but it would probably be considered pro democrat as far his/Fareed's stance... in general... even though he's a self confessed centrist and a genuinely highly respected intellect. Anyway, today he spoke a bit about the rift between Republicans when it comes to foreign policy especially concerning the mid east. It's a major issue and will influence how the rest of this circus plays out so I'd recommend finding the episode and checking it out. Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN I think 13:00 and 21:00 (so it's on tonight if you wana catch it.

Essentially major republican figures are in abject disagreement about the most central and topical foreign policy piece likely to be highlighted on Tuesday's debate.

Ozymandius2011

Mark200 wrote: »

Here's a nice page that makes it easy to see the balance of the electoral college votes:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Some holes in the map is that they don't take account for Nebraska and Maine splitting their votes by Congressional district which they do. Obama is behind Romney about 5% in Maine's 2nd Congressional district in part because the GOP legislature redistricted it to remove Democratic-leaning areas from it. So ironically, Maine could put Romney over the top.

Ozymandius2011

The RCP popular vote is now tied at 47.3 each.

More state polls:

Iowa: 48-48 (ARG)
NC (PPP)*: Romney leads 49-47
Virginia (ARG): Romney leads 48-47
Colorado (Gravis): Obama leads 48-46

* Dem pollster

nagilum2

I'm beginning to think more and more we might see Obama win an electoral college squeaker while losing the national popular vote by about a million votes.

If Obama just holds Ohio and Pennsylvania, plus either Iowa or Nevada, he wins with 271 electors barring a shocker in another state. That is true even if Romney sweeps North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado and Florida. Romney's path to 270 is much tougher.

THIS:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/custom-presidential-election-map#nkammnjannjajenje

OR:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/custom-presidential-election-map#nkamdnjannjjjenje

Amerika

Hmmm… The alternative universe of the Washington Post/ABC poll, in which the D+9 live, is almost laughable at this point. And yet Obama's lead is only 3 points, within the margin of error. I’m now beginning to think RCP throws these unrealistic polls in which Democrats will descend on the voting booths curiosity of some loaves and fish miracle, just to get people talking about RealClearPolitics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Gary Johnson could very well play the spoiler for Romney in Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and maybe even Florida.

Ozymandius2011

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well I have heard on a Colorado news channel report I saw online that Johnson was taking away more Obama votes there....Many libertarians despise the GOP's finger-wagging brand of Christianity just as much as the Dem's perceived penchant for tax-and-spend Big Government statism.

Duck Soup

Joe Biden seems to have done the job. Nate Silver is reporting today that out of the 10 weekend polls, 5 have Obama gaining, 1 has Romney up and 4 are unchanged.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-15-distracted-by-polling-noise/

On the Five Thirty Eight forecast, Obama's chances of winning have gone up from 61.1% on Friday, 62.9% on Saturday, 63.4% on Sunday to 66% yesterday.

All eyes on the debate tonight.

nagilum2

Real Clear Politics has two new tracking polls out today that show Romney extending his lead a little.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Rasmussen Tracking:
10/13 - 10/15 1500 LV 3.0 49 47 Romney +2

Gallup Tracking:
10/9 - 10/15 2700 LV 2.0 50 46 Romney +4

EDIT: Daily Kos has a poll out today that also shows Romney leading 50-46.

But critically, Obama still holds slim leads in Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada. Barring unexpected results in another state, Obama needs only Ohio plus one of the other two to win the electoral college 271-269, regardless of the popular vote totals. Also in the Daily Kos poll, Romney is winning Red States by an average of 16 points, while Obama is winning Blue states by only 7. I think it's becoming increasingly likely that Obama will lose the popular vote. His strategy at this point should be to concentrate nearly everything he's got on Ohio and Iowa. If he gets those two states, he almost certainly wins.

Also, these sites show nice rollups of the state-by-state polls and more granular data for each state:
http://electoral-vote.com/
http://www.270towin.com

Atlantis50

Duck Soup wrote: »

Joe Biden seems to have done the job. Nate Silver is reporting today that out of the 10 weekend polls, 5 have Obama gaining, 1 has Romney up and 4 are unchanged.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-15-distracted-by-polling-noise/

On the Five Thirty Eight forecast, Obama's chances of winning have gone up from 61.1% on Friday, 62.9% on Saturday, 63.4% on Sunday to 66% yesterday.

All eyes on the debate tonight.

Nate Silver's 'model' is a pathetic joke.

Despite the fact that most polls and seasoned political analysts call the race a tie and too close to call, Silver's 'model' has never had Romney's chances over 40%.

It's obvious there's a bias or 'house effect' of at least 15% in favour of Obama in Silver's 'model'.

In other news, Gallup's poll today shows Romney beating Obama by 4% among likely voters, 50 to 46%.

The liberal website The Dail Kos show a Romney lead of 4% nationally, much to the dismay of the readers: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/16/1144982/-Daily-Kos-SEIU-State-of-the-Nation-poll-Romney-s-best-numbers-of-the-week

Duck Soup

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Nate Silver's 'model' is a pathetic joke.

Silver correctly forecast the winner of 49 out of the 50 states in the 2008 election. I'd tend to take him seriously.

Ozymandius2011

If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the E.C., I wonder would enough of his Electors stay with him when their state delegations vote to get him over the line given it could be close and how bitterly the Dems opposed what happened in 2000 when Bush got in that way? So-called "faithless electors" who go against the vote in their state have been a feature of US Presidential elections since the US was founded.

Black Swan

The RCP average (7 to 15 October) slightly in favour of Romney before tonight's 2nd presidental debate (i.e., Town meeting):
Romney = 47.4
Obama = 47.0
Spread = +0.4 Romney

Given the confidence intervals associated with the polls listed and RCP averaged, this would appear to be a tie for all practical purposes.

Atlantis50

Duck Soup wrote: »

Silver correctly forecast the winner of 49 out of the 50 states in the 2008 election. I'd tend to take him seriously.

So did RealClearPolitics in their poll of polls for the states.

2008 was an easy year for prediction in any event as an Obama victory was never in doubt in the 6 weeks before the election and his winning margin in most swing states was relatively comfortable.

And touting a 49/50 accuracy rating is unwarranted because only about 10 of those 50 states swing between the Dems and the Reps. There will be no kudos for predicting Obama will win California and Romney will win Kentucky for example.

You have also failed to address the central point of why Silver's model has never had Romney above 40% despite polls and political analysts calling the race a tie.

Do you believe Silver's model or your lyin' eyes?

Ozymandius2011

Well Silver's model doesn't only rely on the polls but also on "state fundamentals" and economic factors. And it's the Electoral College that matters in the end not the popular vote. The model has them within 1% on the popular vote.

nagilum2

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the E.C., I wonder would enough of his Electors stay with him when their state delegations vote to get him over the line given it could be close and how bitterly the Dems opposed what happened in 2000 when Bush got in that way? So-called "faithless electors" who go against the vote in their state have been a feature of US Presidential elections since the US was founded.

More and more I think this is a very realistic scenario. Not likely, but quite possible. And if it happens, Obama will be president for a second term without question.

This time the democrats would talk about the the legitamacy of the EC and it would be the republicans screaming about how Obama won illegitimately.

How many people complain about a questionable penalty that goes for their side instead of against them? The view of such things is always colored by the lens of ones own immediate circumstances.

nagilum2

Duck Soup wrote: »

Silver correctly forecast the winner of 49 out of the 50 states in the 2008 election. I'd tend to take him seriously.

Not only that, he is a sabremetrician who knows statistics very well and built a company around forecasting baseball player performance. He applied his knowledge to the elections and ended up being closer than pretty much anyone.

He didn't work for the nyt back then. They hired him based on performance.

He publishes his methodology right on the site and provides a lot more info about where his number come from than many other polling and poll aggregation organizations.

EDIT: Supporting information - best and worst pollsters of 2008:

The prize for accuracy goes -- not surprisingly -- to Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, who underestimated Obama's margin of victory by only four-tenths of one percent, coming within three-tenths of one percent of Obama's actual number, and within one-tenth of one percent of McCain's actual number.

(btw - the most accurate actual poll in 2008 that wasn't an aggregation was Rasmussen - they were within 5 tenths. The RCP average of polls was off by 11 tenths )

Brian?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the E.C., I wonder would enough of his Electors stay with him when their state delegations vote to get him over the line given it could be close and how bitterly the Dems opposed what happened in 2000 when Bush got in that way? So-called "faithless electors" who go against the vote in their state have been a feature of US Presidential elections since the US was founded.

The dema weren't fighting on the basis of the popular vote in 2000, they were taking issue with how Florida was "won" by Bush.

Ozymandius2011

Brian? wrote: »

The dema weren't fighting on the basis of the popular vote in 2000, they were taking issue with how Florida was "won" by Bush.

Well Hillary was introducing bills to abolish the E.C. I think afterwards.

Scuba Ste

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the E.C., I wonder would enough of his Electors stay with him when their state delegations vote to get him over the line given it could be close and how bitterly the Dems opposed what happened in 2000 when Bush got in that way? So-called "faithless electors" who go against the vote in their state have been a feature of US Presidential elections since the US was founded.

Faithless electors have been a feature not a deciding one though. I'm not sure but are you suggesting that this election could be affected by faithless electors? It won't.

Electors don't vote as such, it really is a formality and many states have punishments for electors that change votes.

It's an anachronism, they should abolish it.

And as another poster explained 2000 was about Florida with even a Supreme Court Justice questioning the validity the election.

Ozymandius2011

Scuba Ste wrote: »

Faithless electors have been a feature not a deciding one though. I'm not sure but are you suggesting that this election could be affected by faithless electors? It won't.

Electors don't vote as such, it really is a formality and many states have punishments for electors that change votes.

It's an anachronism, they should abolish it.

And as another poster explained 2000 was about Florida with even a Supreme Court Justice questioning the validity the election.

Wikipedia says one election was decided by it in the 1800s. I think it was John Quincy Adams' election.

Brian?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well Hillary was introducing bills to abolish the E.C. I think afterwards.

Which should be done in all fairness. The EC is pointless these days.