It's time to heat up the bong

[Torie]

because I am just not as impressed with Dick Morris as he is with himself. Thank you.

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, this is interesting.

Not only is Obama ahead in all these polls, these are all swing states too more or less and Obama is at 50 or more in all of them.

[Torie]

Yeah, this is interesting.

Not only is Obama ahead in all these polls, these are all swing states too more or less and Obama is at 50 or more in all of them.

The word that comes to my mind is sanguinary. Hopefully Politico will drop by and manage to cheer me up. Keep hope alive!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I thought this was going to be about Paul Ryan's support for letting states decide medical marijuana.

[Adam Griffin]

More "depressing" news: Out of the past 19 elections, the candidate who has led in the majority of national polls 45 days out has went on to win the PV in 18 elections, and the EV in 17 elections.

[minionofmidas]

Torie likes to be stoned while listening to fat ladies sing? Who knew.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

More "depressing" news: Out of the past 19 elections, the candidate who has led in the majority of national polls 45 days out has went on to win the PV in 18 elections, and the EV in 17 elections.

Did they have national polls 45 days out way back then?

[Adam Griffin]

More "depressing" news: Out of the past 19 elections, the candidate who has led in the majority of national polls 45 days out has went on to win the PV in 18 elections, and the EV in 17 elections.

Did they have national polls 45 days out way back then?

Gallup started doing polls ("presidential trial heats") in 1936. This statistic was something I heard on MSNBC last night; haven't verified it by looking through all the polls.

[Likely Voter]

Nate Silver did a similar analysis. The only example of a turnaround is Truman who was losing to Dewey in late September. Gore was also behind Bush in late September polls and was able to win the PV but obviously lost the EV. That's it. Every other election winner was ahead in late September.

Its worth noting that Obama had a bigger lead in the RCP average four years ago today.

[minionofmidas]

More "depressing" news: Out of the past 19 elections, the candidate who has led in the majority of national polls 45 days out has went on to win the PV in 18 elections, and the EV in 17 elections.

Did they have national polls 45 days out way back then?

Gallup started doing polls ("presidential trial heats") in 1936. This statistic was something I heard on MSNBC last night; haven't verified it by looking through all the polls.

They read Nate Silver. 'Coz I read it there yesterday. (He goes on, of course before 1968 this is a Gallup-only database, so discard that part if you wish. Then again, the one candidate to win after trailing this far in was Harry Truman.)

Ninja'd.

[J. J.]

because I am just not as impressed with Dick Morris as he is with himself. Thank you.

First, I wouldn't really consider any of those polls overly accurate, except PPP.

Second, I'm looking at where the race is going, not where it has been.  Last week was a bad week, with the 47% comment, but of Rasmussen, which has a 3 day cycle, Romney recovered.  Gallup's is on a six day cycle and had Romney closing even after the 47% comment (it too about 3-4 days for that to show up on Gallup).  Right now, it is an Obama lead of between 0-3 on the tracking polls.

[Dumbo]

Nate Silver did a similar analysis. The only example of a turnaround is Truman who was losing to Dewey in late September. Gore was also behind Bush in late September polls and was able to win the PV but obviously lost the EV. That's it. Every other election winner was ahead in late September.

Oct 26 1980

President Carter 47
Gov. Reagan 39

[Likely Voter]

I was wrong, I had it backwards for Gore. He was leading in late September. So the only example of late September leader losing the PV was Truman.



And this chart takes a look at the notion of incumbents and if being below 50% matters



...it seems below 47% is more indicative

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/the-statistical-state-of-the-presidential-race/?gwh=F1A26FE1B478C78C717F10421A3664A9

[Eraserhead]

because I am just not as impressed with Dick Morris as he is with himself. Thank you.

First, I wouldn't really consider any of those polls overly accurate, except PPP.

Second, I'm looking at where the race is going, not where it has been.  Last week was a bad week, with the 47% comment, but of Rasmussen, which has a 3 day cycle, Romney recovered.  Gallup's is on a six day cycle and had Romney closing even after the 47% comment (it too about 3-4 days for that to show up on Gallup).  Right now, it is an Obama lead of between 0-3 on the tracking polls.

You mean it's 0-3 on those two tracking polls. Reuters and RAND give Obama bigger leads.

[Hash]

Nate Silver did a similar analysis. The only example of a turnaround is Truman who was losing to Dewey in late September. Gore was also behind Bush in late September polls and was able to win the PV but obviously lost the EV. That's it. Every other election winner was ahead in late September.

Oct 26 1980

President Carter 47
Gov. Reagan 39

Cite? I thought we had gone over that Reagan was leading Carter on average by October 1980.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure where they are getting their numbers.  Reagan was never at 50% in 1980: 

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1981_011.pdf

[J. J.]

Cite? I thought we had gone over that Reagan was leading Carter on average by October 1980.

I just did.  It is contemporary and it is from CBS.

[5280]

If these numbers are not looking for Romney until election night, I sure as hell would smoke one also.

[Likely Voter]

I believe the second NYTimes chart above is looking at the two party vote share to equalize between elections with and without strong 3rd parties.


RE: 1980
Going over the same ground again, but yes Gallup showed a Carter lead, but it was an outlier for the head to head vs. other polls.


There are many many reasons why 2012 is no 1980, but even if you are to obsess over Gallup then of course bear in mind that Carter's Gallup approval rating was below 40% and Obama's is around 50.


The simple fact is, that past elections do not really provide a model for Romney to show a turnaround. Probably the best example is Kerry in 2004 who went from losing badly to losing by a little after the first debate with Bush. While he didn't win, it shows that someone can reverse a losing trend/narrative with a good debate performance (or a bad one by his opponent)

[Politico]

The past three weeks, Romney has spent about as much time prepping for the debates as he been campaigning.

Once Romney gets Obama in a one-on-one, it will not be a repeat of the touchy-feely 2008 debates. Remember how Romney dismantled Gingrich, a debater of the finest pedigree? Yeah, you can expect more of that. Romney is going to crush the Obama record in such a fashion that the mainstream media will not know what to think. Once Romney is done with Obama, even many of Obama's staunchest supporters will wonder exactly why they want four more years of the past four years. Being "hipper" or "more likeable" is not what the presidency is about, especially in an environment like this.

I would also like to add that it is in our interest to have these numbers looking like this RIGHT NOW, before the debates. Hardcore political types are yapping about Obama's "inevitable" victory at this point. Hopefully they will continue to spread this message to their friends and family because it will help drive down turnout for Obama if the message becomes ingrained in their memory that Obama is going to win no matter what (after all, why would they bother voting if they felt like there is no point in doing so?)

Unlike Obama/Biden, who have unloaded too early, the Romney camp has saved the best for last. There is a method to the madness.

[Lambsbread]

Jesse Ventura 2016!

[Torie]

The past three weeks, Romney has spent about as much time prepping for the debates as he been campaigning.

Once Romney gets Obama in a one-on-one, it will not be a repeat of the touchy-feely 2008 debates. Remember how Romney dismantled Gingrich, a debater of the finest pedigree? Yeah, you can expect more of that. Romney is going to crush the Obama record in such a fashion that the mainstream media will not know what to think. Once Romney is done with Obama, even many of Obama's staunchest supporters will wonder exactly why they want four more years of the past four years. Being "hipper" or "more likeable" is not what the presidency is about, especially in an environment like this.

I would also like to add that it is in our interest to have these numbers looking like this RIGHT NOW, before the debates. Hardcore political types are yapping about Obama's "inevitable" victory at this point. Hopefully they will continue to spread this message to their friends and family because it will help drive down turnout for Obama if the message becomes ingrained in their memory that Obama is going to win no matter what (after all, why would they bother voting if they felt like there is no point in doing so?)

Splendid.  If I were Obama, I would say you can't trust Mittens that he has a plan with any substance, because he says he will cut tax rates in exchange for broadening the base, meaning ending many deductions taxpayers take, but he refuses to list them. However, 80% of the value of the deductions is in Charitable, home Mortgage, and state and local tax deductions.  So either Romney will slash those, or his tax plane is innumerate on its face.  Either way, you lose, because either Romney's plan will worsen the deficit rather than help it, or your churches would take a big it, education which gets at the college level 20% of its money from charity would take a hit, home owners already on their back would take a hit, and those who pay state income taxes, like the folks in Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa just to pick a few states at random, would take a hit in their pocket book when they are already struggling.

And in the meantime, Romney just won't put his cards on the table, as to which sandpit we are going to end up in. Do you really want a man like that as your President?  Can you trust him?  Those are the questions that I would ask.


How is Mittens going to respond to all of that in the debates I wonder?  You see, I would use this as the smoking gun example of just why in the end, you really have no idea as to what Romney will do about anything, he's been all over the place. The only thing that is consistent is Romney's consistent protection of the wealthy. That should not be our highest priority right now. People are hurting. 

[Politico]

The past three weeks, Romney has spent about as much time prepping for the debates as he been campaigning.

Once Romney gets Obama in a one-on-one, it will not be a repeat of the touchy-feely 2008 debates. Remember how Romney dismantled Gingrich, a debater of the finest pedigree? Yeah, you can expect more of that. Romney is going to crush the Obama record in such a fashion that the mainstream media will not know what to think. Once Romney is done with Obama, even many of Obama's staunchest supporters will wonder exactly why they want four more years of the past four years. Being "hipper" or "more likeable" is not what the presidency is about, especially in an environment like this.

I would also like to add that it is in our interest to have these numbers looking like this RIGHT NOW, before the debates. Hardcore political types are yapping about Obama's "inevitable" victory at this point. Hopefully they will continue to spread this message to their friends and family because it will help drive down turnout for Obama if the message becomes ingrained in their memory that Obama is going to win no matter what (after all, why would they bother voting if they felt like there is no point in doing so?)

Splendid.  If I were Obama, I would say you can't trust Mittens that he has a plan with any substance, because he says he will cut tax rates in exchange for broadening the base, meaning ending many deductions taxpayers take, but he refuses to list them. However, 80% of the value of the deductions is in Charitable, home Mortgage, and state and local tax deductions.  So either Romney will slash those, or his tax plane is innumerate on its face.  Either way, you lose, because either Romney's plan will worsen the deficit rather than help it, or your churches would take a big it, education which gets at the college level 20% of its money from charity would take a hit, home owners already on their back would take a hit, and those who pay state income taxes, like the folks in Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa just to pick a few states at random, would take a hit in their pocket book when they are already struggling.

And in the meantime, Romney just won't put his cards on the table, as to which sandpit we are going to end up in. Do you really want a man like that as your President?  Can you trust him?  Those are the questions that I would ask.


How is Mittens going to respond to all of that in the debates I wonder?  You see, I would use this as the smoking gun example of just why in the end, you really have no idea as to what Romney will do about anything, he's been all over the place. The only thing that is consistent is Romney's consistent protection of the wealthy. That should not be our highest priority right now. People are hurting.  

Four more years of the past four years is not going to help anybody, especially the poorest Americans who have been hurting the most under Obama's failed leadership. Romney is not going to get bogged down in policy wonk details. He is going to attack, attack, attack because nothing else will work in this environment.

If it was not for Santorum almost derailing the campaign in Michigan, the tax cut promise never would have needed to be made. But the promise was made and we need to be vague about it moving forward. It may or may not come to full fruition, especially in a Senate that will not be filibuster-proof. The second mortgage deduction needs to be eliminated, for example.

There will be plenty of time for tough, honest talk after the election, regardless of who wins.

[Sasquatch]

I honestly thought this thread was going to be about the marijuana ballot initiatives this November.

Go green!

[Mister Twister]

Speaking of bongs, the three bongiest states have marijuana initiatives on the ballot, right? (WA, OR and CO). Anybody know if its going to pass in any of those states?