Cook: Private OH polls "ugly" for Romney

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nate Silver is the single best political analyst who has ever lived in the entire history of free elections.

This, thousand times. Nobody else has ever pushed the concept of "objectivity" as far as he did.

[zorkpolitics]

Current polls from Ohio:
We Ask America OH ahead 47-46
Rasmussen OH behind 49-50
McLaughlin CO ahead 50-46

If (big if) Romney can sustain his debate momentum he has a chance at Ohio

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Current polls from Ohio:
We Ask America OH ahead 47-46
Rasmussen OH behind 49-50
McLaughlin CO ahead 50-46

If (big if) Romney can sustain his debate momentum he has a chance at Ohio

PPP says that the momentum in their interviews have stalled, and that Saturday polls are looking like the pre-debate ones. He was surging on Thurseday, and was doing even better Friday, but falling on Saturday.

[Yank2133]

Current polls from Ohio:
We Ask America OH ahead 47-46
Rasmussen OH behind 49-50
McLaughlin CO ahead 50-46

If (big if) Romney can sustain his debate momentum he has a chance at Ohio

PPP says that the momentum in their interviews have stalled, and that Saturday polls are looking like the pre-debate ones. He was surging on Thurseday, and was doing even better Friday, but falling on Saturday.

Reuters basically said the same thing.

[nhmagic]

So we're discrediting the person who correctly predicted 49/50 states and all the Senate races in 2008... because he's gay?

Stay classy dingbats.

No, I just made the point that being LGBT makes one more hostile to republicans in general. I am not anti-LGBT in any way so don't try and play that on me.  It's just that they're extra loony toons about republicans right now...

He does get credit for predicting election in 2008, but I believe his model lends itself to democratic victories.  I suppose I wish he would stop reporting chance of winning showing an 89% chance for Obama to win because it creates "narrative".  That bothers me.

And as for the they dont even like the country comment, I was just angry and thinking of elected democrats when I said that, not the folks.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Current polls from Ohio:
We Ask America OH ahead 47-46
Rasmussen OH behind 49-50
McLaughlin CO ahead 50-46

If (big if) Romney can sustain his debate momentum he has a chance at Ohio

PPP says that the momentum in their interviews have stalled, and that Saturday polls are looking like the pre-debate ones. He was surging on Thurseday, and was doing even better Friday, but falling on Saturday.

Reuters basically said the same thing.

Because undecideds had a 34 hour Romney lovefest that was negated by the jobs numbers. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

He does get credit for predicting election in 2008, but I believe his model lends itself to democratic victories.  I suppose I wish he would stop reporting chance of winning showing an 89% chance for Obama to win because it creates "narrative".  That bothers me.

See, I can understand that you don't like reality, but you can't blame Nate for reporting it as it is.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Charlie's just annoying because he's behind a paywall. Sabato is really awesome -- of the 'mainstream' pundits, he's probably the best out there -- and Nate Silver is pretty good too, though Silver is more interested in the mathematics than the politics and sometimes it can show.

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

Occasionally, they do (two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the California gubernatorial election 1982 and the UK parliamentary election 1992); there's just doesn't seem to be any reason to think there is one in 2012. Though, they're called 'silent' for a reason.

I don't think internal polling is accurate, and I don't think Sabato is a very good analyst.  He refuses to recognize Michigan and Pennsylvania as swing states, and he didn't think Chris Christie would get elected governor in New Jersey.  Nate Silver's models are crazy skewed toward Obama; if you are watching the polls, then it's clear that there's a 50-50 chance of either candidate winning.  Even if Obama has an edge, he does NOT have an 89% chance of winning reelection.  I personally like Michael Barons.  He may be a little too biased toward the right; he predicted in 2010 that Sharron Angle would beat Harry Reid in Nevada.  But at least he based it on polls, whereas Sabato totally disregarded the polls when he predicted Christie wouldn't win in New Jersey in '09.

[Yank2133]

Charlie's just annoying because he's behind a paywall. Sabato is really awesome -- of the 'mainstream' pundits, he's probably the best out there -- and Nate Silver is pretty good too, though Silver is more interested in the mathematics than the politics and sometimes it can show.

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

Occasionally, they do (two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the California gubernatorial election 1982 and the UK parliamentary election 1992); there's just doesn't seem to be any reason to think there is one in 2012. Though, they're called 'silent' for a reason.

I don't think internal polling is accurate, and I don't think Sabato is a very good analyst.  He refuses to recognize Michigan and Pennsylvania as swing states, and he didn't think Chris Christie would get elected governor in New Jersey.  Nate Silver's models are crazy skewed toward Obama; if you are watching the polls, then it's clear that there's a 50-50 chance of either candidate winning.  Even if Obama has an edge, he does NOT have an 89% chance of winning reelection.  I personally like Michael Barons.  He may be a little too biased toward the right; he predicted in 2010 that Sharron Angle would beat Harry Reid in Nevada.  But at least he based it on polls, whereas Sabato totally disregarded the polls when he predicted Christie wouldn't win in New Jersey in '09.

lol.....why would internal polling not be accurate?

Republicans denial over reality is remarkable to watch.

[Likely Voter]

Romney is refusing to consider MI and PA as swing states

[krazen1211]

http://race42012.com/2012/10/06/romney-internal-polls-3-in-nh-4-or-5-in-oh/#comments


Internal polling: Romney +3 in NH
Internal Polling: Romney +4-5 in OH

[J. J.]

http://race42012.com/2012/10/06/romney-internal-polls-3-in-nh-4-or-5-in-oh/#comments


Internal polling: Romney +3 in NH
Internal Polling: Romney +4-5 in OH

If this is "ugly," UT must be "plain." 

[Likely Voter]

If the Breitbart guy is right and those are accurate numbers for Romney, then the election is pretty much over. That would mean Romney is ahead in every swing state and would have a good sized national lead.

[DrScholl]

I don't think Breitbart is really trustworthy here and without any toplines, it's even less believable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK guys, this might be a gigantic hoax, but even the remote possibility it's true makes me shudder.

[Politico]

Romney is refusing to consider MI and PA as swing states

If Romney's got a 5 point lead in OH and a 3 point lead in NH, he's almost surely at least within striking distance in MI and PA by now. Maybe even OR has opened up.

It's starting to look like 2000 all over again. Two more debates like the last one, and we're definitely headed towards 1988/1980 territory.

Obama should be thanking his lucky stars that there are two more debates. Everybody has to think that he has too much political prowess to completely blow it again. In other words, he may yet force a 2000-esque finish, but I would not hold my breath if I were you guys...

[RogueBeaver]

No way to substantiate this stuff, no point in getting joyful or dismayed about it.

[J. J.]

The "ugly" comment made no sense.  PPP, before the debate, had OH at minus -4 for Romney.

1.  PPP has a slight D bias.

2.  OH probably is a bit more strongly Romney after the debate.

3.  The absentee votes are running better for the R's than 2008.

Tit-for-Tat?

Even if true, these are still internals.

[Brittain33]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

[J. J.]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

We should then regard Cook as such. 

[Brittain33]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

We should then regard Cook as such. 

J.J., it's up to you if you want to compare the reputations of Charlie Cook and Breitbart.org as equals. Knock yourself out.

[Torie]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

We should then regard Cook as such. 

J.J., it's up to you if you want to compare the reputations of Charlie Cook and Breitbart.org as equals. Knock yourself out.

Were the two varying sets of internal polls taken at the same time?  Beitbart in this instance is a mere conduit. I assume that the alleged Romney internals are not made up, but were released to him.

[Brittain33]

Breitbart.org is a straight-up propaganda outlet, so no, unsourced tweets about internal polls from the group that frames Shirley Sherrod isn't something to make anyone upset.

We should then regard Cook as such.  

J.J., it's up to you if you want to compare the reputations of Charlie Cook and Breitbart.org as equals. Knock yourself out.

Were the two varying sets of internal polls taken at the same time?  Beitbart in this instance is a mere conduit. I assume that the alleged Romney internals are not made up, but were released to him.

The problem is, we don't know how to evaluate Breitbart and his sources. Maybe it was an authorized leak from the Romney campaign providing accurate numbers. Maybe the leak was from a random PR person in the Romney campaign, or maybe it was made up (Breitbart does that). Charlie Cook, love him or loathe him, has a reputation that Breitbart doesn't, because they are in the propaganda and agitation business, and have in the past released doctored and edited videos as "proof" of allegations that turned out to be 180% backward. I trust you're aware of what they did to Shirley Sherrod.

I don't know if these internal polls are accurate or not, nor do I claim insight into the state of play, but to compare Cook to Breitbart, one has to deal with:

• Cook citing polls from both sides, Breitbart only citing from one side
• Cook having a reputation to defend as being unbiased, Breitbart having a checkered history with the truth and with the goal of providing Republican talking points
• The interest both the Romney campaign, whether on high or in the trenches, plus Breitbart, to create a momentum story
• So far, the lack of corroboration from anyone more credible
• The fact that the only reason we can accept that these don't pass the smell test but not reject them out of hand is the unreliability of any numbers we'd use for comparison - while it's really hard to accept a swing of 10+ points in Romney's favor, the lack of independent polling means we can't 100% discount it

To me, this all argues against "well, it's just like Cook."

[Brittain33]

BTW, Breitbart himself is deceased, but his web site is carried on by lesser lights who follow his general approach. Kind of like those bands that tour as The Four Tops.

Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying who knows what polls are showing about Romney's bounce, but a tweet from Breitbart has as much credibility as a check from Drew Pritt.

[Orion0]

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

Anyone looking for evidence of a silent majority should look at Alberta 2012 elections. Wildrose frequently polled in majority territory and looked to be sailing to an easy victory on election day. On the flip of a dime or perhaps because of the very real inconsistencies and shortfalls of polling (whether it was an issue with PC supporters less likely to answer phones or more likely to answer untruthfully can be debated elsewhere), they didn't even come close to winning. Lesson learned: polls are junk and it's only the final votes that ever matter.