Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Matt1970]

Rasmussen 10/3 - 10/5 Obama 47 Romney 49
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

CLARUS POLL: BEFORE vs. AFTER DEBATE
BEFORE (conducted Tuesday): Obama over Romney +4
AFTER (conducted Thursday): Romney over Obama +1
http://clarusrg.com/content/october-5-2012

Gallup still has Obama by 5 and the rest of the polls have yet to update since the debates.

 

[shira]

Rasmussen 10/3 - 10/5 Obama 47 Romney 49
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

CLARUS POLL: BEFORE vs. AFTER DEBATE
BEFORE (conducted Tuesday): Obama over Romney +4
AFTER (conducted Thursday): Romney over Obama +1
http://clarusrg.com/content/october-5-2012

Gallup still has Obama by 5 and the rest of the polls have yet to update since the debates.

It's the electoral college, stupid.

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

 

[mshan]

"The Meta-Analysis, a snapshot of today’s conditions, has taken a remarkably sharp and large downtick for President Obama. This comes with a massive polling release from three Republican-leaning pollsters: Rasmussen, Gravis, and We Ask America. Just think – what are the odds that they would all come out of the gate so fast and all at once? It’s almost like they planned it. I guess the true size of the change will get sorted out over the next 1-2 days.

The InTrade price for President Obama’s re-election has also dropped sharply. However, our long-term prediction is basically unchanged (see the red strike zone below).

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones asked me to come up with a set of November predictions by today. The midst of a political storm is an unusual time to ask about where we’ll land on shore. But OK, here is where things stand today.

First, a little homily.Without an expression of uncertainty, predictions are parlor tricks. It is not enough to express a win probability. Always ask prognosticators what their uncertainties and/or confidence intervals are. Such numbers can give a very clear view of how strongly to weight the prediction.

The November predictions below come with 1-sigma confidence intervals; approximately two-thirds of the time (68% to be exact), the outcome should be within this range. All calculations are done according to the most recently discussed methods, which are linked.


President: Obama 332 EV, Romney 206 EV. The 1-sigma range (68% of outcomes) is Obama 314-347 EV. The 2-sigma (95%) range is 282-347 EV (95%).

Two-candidate vote share: Obama 52.1+/-0.8%, Romney 47.9 +/-0.8%.

Senate: 54 D/I, 46 R. The 1-sigma confidence interval is 53-55 D/I; 2-sigma, 51-56 D/I.

House predictions are coming soon. I am double-checking a few things. As you know, it’s a more difficult prediction to make."



http://election.princeton.edu/2012/10/05/predictions-october-5th-presidentsenate/

And from the comments section of that same posting:

Louis in NY // Oct 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm

Sam,

I’ve been following your site for some time and finally decided to comment. As someone who has worked in politics, international relations, and have taught politics as an adjunct, I find your analysis and predictions quite refreshing and straight forward.

My question is as follows: does your Meta-margin model allow for changes/variation in polling methodology, especially when it’s the same pollster? My observation, as of late, is that many of the pollsters are seemingly self serving by changing their methodology.

You’ve done a very good job, as others, in outlining the variables from the standard polling as compared to robocalls, yet I notice that in many recent polls I’ve seen multiple instances when a pollster has not disclosed methodology or has changed from their previous approach; in some cases, seemingly going ‘backward’ and utilizing a less accurate methodology.

Looking forward to your reply. In the meantime, keep up the great work!




Reply

Sam Wang // Oct 5, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Thank you for writing. I have set up the code to be purposely blind as to pollster identity. No house effects and so on. If likely-voter and registered-voter are available from the same pollster, we take likely-voter data.

We considered having it accept at most one poll per state for a given pollster, which would be a justifiable move. However, at this point it would require redrawing the graph, something I don’t want to do midseason. In practice, pollster duplication is a major factor only in the early part of the campaign.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/calculating-house-effects-of-polling-firms/

"Although this calculation might seem involved, the way to read the voting index is relatively straightforward. In Missouri, for example, the index is Republican plus 6.7 points. What this means is that if the popular vote were exactly tied nationally, we’d expect the Republican candidate to carry Missouri by 6.7 percentage points."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...tell-different-tales-about-state-of-campaign/

 

[Engineer]

Romney has surged after the debate, especially in polls taken in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Would be interesting to see if he can maintain that momentum. If he wins 1 of the next 2 debates, I think he might have salvaged his chance to actually be elected. I don't think the polls reflect yet the full picture of the debate but on the flip side, I don't think that the polls show any picture of the unemployment dropping OR the negative of gas rising (lately).

 

[emperus]

Rasmussen 10/3 - 10/5 Obama 47 Romney 49
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

CLARUS POLL: BEFORE vs. AFTER DEBATE
BEFORE (conducted Tuesday): Obama over Romney +4
AFTER (conducted Thursday): Romney over Obama +1
http://clarusrg.com/content/october-5-2012

Gallup still has Obama by 5 and the rest of the polls have yet to update since the debates.

Lol at you quoting Rasmussen. Lol. Rasmussen has been the constant outlier since this election began. I wonder why Drudge seems to only quote them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Romney has surged after the debate, especially in polls taken in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Would be interesting to see if he can maintain that momentum. If he wins 1 of the next 2 debates, I think he might have salvaged his chance to actually be elected. I don't think the polls reflect yet the full picture of the debate but on the flip side, I don't think that the polls show any picture of the unemployment dropping OR the negative of gas rising (lately).

Voters still have time to reconsider buying the Arizona oceanfront that Romney pitched rather well in the debate. I don't think he'll sell enough lots to keep from going broke.

 

[Matt1970]

Voters still have time to reconsider buying the Arizona oceanfront that Romney pitched rather well in the debate. I don't think he'll sell enough lots to keep from going broke.

Oh ya because we know Obama never tried to sell us a bill of goods.

 

[monovillage]

The bump in the polls from the debate win is still good news for Republicans in other races. It should help to boost Republican turnout for close Senate and House races.

 

[Rainsford]

The bump in the polls from the debate win is still good news for Republicans in other races. It should help to boost Republican turnout for close Senate and House races.

It's definitely good news for Republicans if the bump sticks around for 4 weeks. But the general trend with event-based changes in polls seems to be that the effects are exaggerated immediately after the event and trend towards the middle over time. What Romeny (and other Republicans) want the debate to be is something that changes the direction the polls have generally been moving rather than an isolated event. The events in Libya, for example, look like they moved the polls in Romney's direction for a brief time, but that change wasn't permanent.

Like I said, definitely good news for Republicans, Romney and others, but what Romney in particular needs at this point is a large shift his direction that sticks around AND that he's able to build on.

 

[buckshot24]

Lol at you quoting Rasmussen. Lol. Rasmussen has been the constant outlier since this election began. I wonder why Drudge seems to only quote them.

They were also one of, if not, the most accurate in 2008. I wonder why we wouldn't consider them more heavily if past performance is any indication.

 

[buckshot24]

Oh ya because we know Obama never tried to sell us a bill of goods.

Didn't you know that unemployment is below 6% and that the federal deficit has been cut in half?

 

[Rainsford]

They were also one of, if not, the most accurate in 2008. I wonder why we wouldn't consider them more heavily if past performance is any indication.

I've heard that quoted over and over, but never seen anyone support the idea that Rasmussen was more accurate than other polls leading up to the 2008 election. Given that the guy behind fivethirtyeight has repeatedly said they are among the less accurate polls (but consistently so), I'd be curious to see numbers either way.

 

[buckshot24]

It's definitely good news for Republicans if the bump sticks around for 4 weeks. But the general trend with event-based changes in polls seems to be that the effects are exaggerated immediately after the event and trend towards the middle over time. What Romeny (and other Republicans) want the debate to be is something that changes the direction the polls have generally been moving rather than an isolated event. The events in Libya, for example, look like they moved the polls in Romney's direction for a brief time, but that change wasn't permanent.

Like I said, definitely good news for Republicans, Romney and others, but what Romney in particular needs at this point is a large shift his direction that sticks around AND that he's able to build on.

I don't really see this as an "event based" bump. This is the first time many people has seen Romney "face to face" and not filtered through the media and tv ads.

 

[buckshot24]

I've heard that quoted over and over, but never seen anyone support the idea that Rasmussen was more accurate than other polls leading up to the 2008 election. Given that the guy behind fivethirtyeight has repeatedly said they are among the less accurate polls (but consistently so), I'd be curious to see numbers either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Elections

"According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[40] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[41] An initial Nov.5, 2008 Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls, assuming a 6.15% margin of victory by Obama. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.[42] Obama's actual margin was 7.2%, and a complete analysis published in 2009 by the same author, Costas Panagopoulos, revealed Rasmussen to be tied for 9th most accurate. Democracy Corps, Foxnews/Opinion Dynamic, CNN/Opinion Research, and Ipsos/McClatchy all predicted an accurate seven point spread."

 

[trenchfoot]

Good for Romney, but he still will not be able to avoid the incontrovertible fact that to win this election he has to lie and to lie often. This ploy has met with earlier Repub successes, but the blatant ones Romney has been throwing around of late is just too over the edge for any sane person to ignore, let alone let slide by as a gaffe or something that was out of the ordinary. He's stuck to the same lies despite being proven wrong every time he repeats them.

He can't win without them, and that goes for Ryan too. In this case, these lies will catch up to Romney/Ryan sooner than later.

IMO, if the Repubs are fine with their candidates lying all the time, then it simply confirms the notion that to them, the truth really doesn't matter, and if that's the case then we can assume that winning is paramount, no matter the consequences. For example, how can the Repubs simply ignore the fact that the disasterous Bush 43 years was not something that could only be symbolically blamed on the man himself, but more importantly what's to blame is the exact same ideology that Bush represented and pursued, of which the Repubs are insidiously pushing via Romney/Ryan at this very moment.

 

[SandEagle]

goes to show that these polls are rigged. it was never close.

 

[buckshot24]

IMO, if the Repubs are fine with their candidates lying all the time, then it simply confirms the notion that to them, the truth really doesn't matter, and if that's the case then we can assume that winning is paramount, no matter the consequences. For example, how can the Repubs simply ignore the fact that the disasterous Bush 43 years was not something that could only be symbolically blamed on the man himself, but more importantly what's to blame is the exact same ideology that Bush represented and pursued, of which the Repubs are insidiously pushing via Romney/Ryan at this very moment.

You're analysis is based upon that assumption (which is a lie) that the meltdown was because of policies that Bush enacted himself. It isn't true. The most that can be said is that he didn't do enough to undo what was already done.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Of course Romney is going to get a bump from a good debate performance, his problem is going to be sustaining that bump until election day. He has thus far been incapable of really changing the dynamics of this race in any major way.

He absolutely needs to keep pummeling Obama in the rest of the debates and pray for a horrific October jobs reports. If Obama keeps the debates a draw or ends up winning the next two combined with a good October jobs report Romney has zero chance of winning. Even if everything went right for him I still don't think he would win the election.

This election will fundamentally change how campaigns are run. With the Internet and social media so prevalent, people are forming opinions and beliefs about candidates far earlier in the process than ever before. It's a major reason why I believe there are so few undecideds, it's practically impossible to not be paying attention in some way to this election for the last couple of months. Unfortunately for Romney he ran such a horrible campaign in the summer and allowed Obama to paint him as an out of touch plutocrat that wants to extend all of Bush's terrible economic and foreign policies.

The damage has been done IMHO. This is Obama's election to lose at this point.

 

[Rainsford]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#Elections

"According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[40] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[41] An initial Nov.5, 2008 Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls, assuming a 6.15% margin of victory by Obama. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.[42] Obama's actual margin was 7.2%, and a complete analysis published in 2009 by the same author, Costas Panagopoulos, revealed Rasmussen to be tied for 9th most accurate. Democracy Corps, Foxnews/Opinion Dynamic, CNN/Opinion Research, and Ipsos/McClatchy all predicted an accurate seven point spread."

I've heard that reference as well, and my problem is that a single accurate poll taken right before an election suggests Rasmussen has the ability to be accurate, but it doesn't mean they are consistently accurate or accurate right now (or even generally accurate at this point in the election).

 

[Rainsford]

I don't really see this as an "event based" bump. This is the first time many people has seen Romney "face to face" and not filtered through the media and tv ads.

I agree that he certainly left a good impression on a lot of people, but the question is whether that impression will stick around or not. For his debate performance to really be a game changer, he would have had to replace the Mitt Romney people weren't going to vote for with a Mitt Romney people WILL vote for. It's the difference between impressing people with a good performance and presenting a substantive difference between who he is and how people viewed him pre-debate.

I suppose we'll see, but a negative point in terms of long-term benefit from the debate would be that what he didn't present was a full-throated defense of Republican domestic policies he's been running on. Instead he took a pretty major tack towards the middle of the road and while I'm sure that appealed to a lot of people, it might be a hard position to defend for four more weeks. Claiming the media has misrepresented his position all along is going to be a lot tougher sell than the inevitable Democratic claim that Romney's positions are more about him winning than anything he actually believes in.

 

[Anarchist420]

Obama is going to have a debate of his own because his logical mind can't debate an emotional heart. Romney is a fucking lovely human, gets hard when he sees gay men kissing, doesnt even realize that he is a fucking flamer and that is all there is to it. He'll amend the constitution to ban gay marriage because it makes him too hard.

Obama will win the true popular vote... He will be the last peoples' president compared to the augustus caesar we are about see, but people like the op with super keen senses will never understand why Obama may lose the official popular vote tally. It's because romney's minions Including federal agents are going to use a fucking reign of terror to stop potential Obama voters from voting for the last man of the people. The fuckheads in the GOP are going to make robbispiere and his reign of terror look fucking angelic.

The GOP is sitting on a fucking war chest, they're about to use it all... Sucks I am in McDonnell territory because the excess cash will go into circulation and my parents are going to go bankrupt thanks to the progressive fuckheads like Theodore Roosevelt who proposed the income tax.

That said, if hamilton or even lincoln or even fucking sherman knew what they created, they would be ashamed of it because even he wouldn't be able to tolerate such artificial monsters like romney... I am sure the original national socialists, the Federalist Party could understand even the devil general Sherman, Romney... No fucking way any mad scientist like gore or hamilton could understand this artificial freak about to launch a coup Dtat. I may get killed or worse for exposing the rethuglicans and their leviathan, but damn, it will be worth it if I t can just get myself killed... Just so I can haunt the black house or the neo white house if you will when Romney is in there. I hope wolves like my mom are happy with what they did to me, because they will NOT physically sterilize me, they will fight me to fucking death because it is too late for me to flee! Too bad my dad got his mind warped into half a heart by "cute" little retards like my mom. I just don't find the emotions cute, and if my psychotic outburts bother anyone then... I didn't build them.

 

[monovillage]

I've heard that quoted over and over, but never seen anyone support the idea that Rasmussen was more accurate than other polls leading up to the 2008 election. Given that the guy behind fivethirtyeight has repeatedly said they are among the less accurate polls (but consistently so), I'd be curious to see numbers either way.

The guy at 538 has a very short track record for so many people to put so much faith in his numbers. I'd like to see him consistently be right for a longer period of time then 4 years. About politics that is, I know he's good at baseball statistics.

 

[LxMxFxD4]

Poor people vote obama because taxes dont affect them. Most people on anandforums are young. Most young people are poor due to lack of education and professional experience. Thus the obama rah rah pom poms is exhibited here early and often.

 

[Ryan]

Poor people vote obama because taxes dont affect them. Most people on anandforums are young. Most young people are poor due to lack of education and professional experience. Thus the obama rah rah pom poms is exhibited here early and often.

Hmm - maybe it's because the average ATer is more intelligent than the average person: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

 

[LxMxFxD4]

Hmm - maybe it's because the average ATer is more intelligent than the average person: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

Assuming that were true, are you suggesting obama is the intelligent man's candidate?