Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 17, 2020, 08:35:09 am
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Margins -- Perry vs. Obama, Romney vs. Obama
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: Margins -- Perry vs. Obama, Romney vs. Obama  (Read 6799 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 16, 2011, 02:11:07 am »

I see a big problem with some of the maps that show how the President does against certain Republicans.  Here I start a new set (no surprise) that no longer treats a 49-41 margin (which really is huge) and a virtual tie with the same level of shading.

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are almost moot.

Because it is hard to take seriously anyone who has formally resigned,  whose campaign is bankrupt, or whose campaign shows signs of insignificance I am not showing margins for President Obama against Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, Cain, Santorum, Trump, Paul, or Bachmann here. I am also beginning with polls that start on 8-28. For all practical purposes we are seeing some candidacies winnowed out and Rick Perry treated seriously. 

The latest poll prevails, but no poll may be commissioned by trade associations, unions or professional groups, ethnic or advocacy groups, clearly left or right news organizations (examples: Daily Kos or Newsmax). Internal polls, interactive polls, and push polls are to be rejected.   
 
Obama vs. Perry



Obama vs. Romney



Comments?
Logged
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2011, 09:13:36 am »

You know I thought this forum was filled with people that actually knew something about election analysis.

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Yet, it seems like everybody would rather just use the head to heads.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,339
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2011, 09:32:44 am »

You know I thought this forum was filled with people that actually knew something about election analysis.

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Yet, it seems like everybody would rather just use the head to heads.

I think pbrower often overreacts to the current polls. I think he undervalues past election results and take his analysis with a grain of salt but that's just me. Still, while it may not be the best measure it shouldn't be discounted entirely.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2011, 10:06:49 am »

You know I thought this forum was filled with people that actually knew something about election analysis.

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Yet, it seems like everybody would rather just use the head to heads.

So do I. Head-to-head matchups night show how people react at the polls when they perceived a flawed President meeting a weak challenger, which so far seems what awaits us in November of next year.

Of course -- but they can show trends and the effects of events even as seemingly trivial as major speeches.

1. Raw approvals differ from pollster to pollster because of the methodologies of pollsters. Some may be more persistent than others in getting people on the edge to make an opinion while on the phone, and those more persistent may get fewer undecided respondents (and higher levels of approval and disapproval). Margins in matchups are more consistent.

2. The polls used for getting matchups can have polls of favorability (which do not compare to approval) and the infamous excellent-good-fair-poor split (what does "fair" mean?) if they have matchups. With margins of matchups we can see how someone does against someone else.

3. Speeches might not be so trivial as they seem; they can show significant changes of economic or foreign policy or the impending implementation of a military decision (let us say "We have just invaded Cuba" if such is ever so)*.

4. Much can change and will. It is highly unlikely that Republicans will find a "knight in shining armor" who inspires independent voters as an attractive alternative to the President. It's probably too late for that.

5. If Americans have become more fussy about whom they vote for in the polls, then that may depress the approval of both sides in an election for now. Barring the entry of a strong third-party alternative (Perot 1992, Wallace 1968), the winner of the 2012 election isn't going to win 42-38. Head-to-head matchups are what is most available and reliable now.

6. Personalities matter greatly. We do not elect robots.  Maybe IBM's "Watson" would be a good ruler; as a computer it is not available under the strictures of our Constitution.   

We are trying to predict the future and have some credibility. At worst one can act like an astrologer or try to read one of Nostradamus' quatrains into the 2012 election (I am not sure that one exists, and all of the quatrains are ambiguous in interpretation even if they are  valid).   At best one merges historical precedents and current measurements.

*Not something that I advocate. Military aggression is a horrible crime. 
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2011, 10:16:38 am »
« Edited: September 16, 2011, 10:24:26 am by jmfcst »

well, these polls are important in that someone like me, who doesn't like Romney, would be willing to vote for Romney over Perry is it is apparent that Perry underpolls Romney by more than a couple of points.

so, basically, Romney does have a shot if he can convince the jmfcst's that he is by far their best bet.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2011, 10:30:45 am »

Rasmussen is reporting that Perry trails Obama by 7, but Romney leads Obama by 3.

...if a spread anywhere close to that wide continues til the eve of the Iowa Caucus, Romney will be the nominee
Logged
Wonkish1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2011, 10:38:26 am »

Favorable/unfavorable
and
Approval/disapproval

Are vastly more consistent and less volatile than head to heads. Its not even close. It takes a very long time for a person to get positive movement in them.

2 examples:
1) Throughout 2007 Clinton had an absolutely horrible favorables. It took an entire year of strong debate performances and casting herself as a centrist for her favorables to even move to even. And that's where they remained for remainder of the primary season.
2) Newt's debate performances over the last few months have been among the best among the GOP candidates, yet his favorable/unfavorable ratings are still in the toilet and have only nudged a little off their lows.

In 2007 I predicted Obama would take the nomination almost purely on the favorable/unfavorable metric when every head to head had him getting crushed and every pollster writing him off.

Also, a pollster can just as easily press an undecided to pick a candidate as they can push someone to pick a favorable/unfavorable rating.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,310
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2011, 10:41:36 am »

Rasmussen is reporting that Perry trails Obama by 7, but Romney leads Obama by 3.

...if a spread anywhere close to that wide continues til the eve of the Iowa Caucus, Romney will be the nominee

Aren't you the guy who has regularly told us that Romney has no path to the nomination? Wink
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2011, 10:45:16 am »

Rasmussen is reporting that Perry trails Obama by 7, but Romney leads Obama by 3.

...if a spread anywhere close to that wide continues til the eve of the Iowa Caucus, Romney will be the nominee

Aren't you the guy who has regularly told us that Romney has no path to the nomination without the vote of jmfcst? Wink

yes, I am
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2011, 10:45:38 am »
« Edited: September 16, 2011, 12:51:17 pm by pbrower2a »

Quinnipiac shows approval for the President tied 48-48, but with huge margins against both Perry and Romney :

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1646

Quinnipiac shows no other matchups involving the President and any Republican challenger.

When I made the first map I missed polls for matchups involving the President in West Virginia. He would lose by 11% to Romney and 12% to Perry, or is it the other way around? The coding doesn't matter. 

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry



Obama vs. Romney



Connecticut is out of the question for any Republican nominee for President in 2012.

Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2011, 10:49:18 am »

Quinnipiac shows approval for the President tied 48-48, but with huge margins against both Perry and Romney :

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

and you believe that?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2011, 10:58:21 am »

Quinnipiac shows approval for the President tied 48-48, but with huge margins against both Perry and Romney :

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

and you believe that?

Yeah no $hit. Some people really want to advertise they are a gullible retard.

yeah, how does Romney lose indies by 4 yet the whole election by 13?!
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2011, 12:19:53 pm »

You know I thought this forum was filled with people that actually knew something about election analysis.

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Yet, it seems like everybody would rather just use the head to heads.

I think pbrower often overreacts to the current polls. I think he undervalues past election results and take his analysis with a grain of salt but that's just me. Still, while it may not be the best measure it shouldn't be discounted entirely.

Polls so far show that patterns set as early as 1992 are largely so. Eighteen states and DC haven't voted for any Republican nominee since 1992, and the Democratic nominee will have to be an abject failure to lose any of those. Those states and DC comprise about 243 electoral votes, or a little more than 90% of the electoral votes that President Obama will need in winning re-election. He can't afford to lose any of them, and he won every one of them by a margin in excess of 10% in 2008. Three states (IA, NH, NM) have gone to the Democratic nominee in four of the last five Presidential elections; they comprise 17 electoral votes, and President Obama won every one of those by at least 9%.  It is going to take some shocking event for any state in either category for any of those states (let alone DC) to go for any Republican nominee.


Thirteen states comprising 101 electoral votes (NE-02 excluded) haven't gone for any Democratic nominee for President since 1992. President Obama won while losing every one of the states in that group by at least 8%. It's hard to see how President Obama wins any electoral votes in that group except NE-02 in 2012 because those states will all need major shifts in voting behavior or shocking events to make them go for the President. Add to those five states that Bill Clinton won twice (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) for which he was a very poor fit and will be again in 2012 -- 38 electoral votes, equal to Texas, and it now looks as if the President could win Texas before he wins any one of those, and Texas is arguably out of reach -- barring some shocking events that nobody can predict.

It looks as if the President is in a position in which he wins re-election if he wins one of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia -- or the pair of Colorado and Nevada. Perry would win North Carolina but lose Virginia if the election were to be held today; Romney would win Virginia but lose North Carolina, so a choice between Perry and Romney looks like a choice between two forms of checkmate for now, and that is before I discuss Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada.

Of course political reality is never static. Such is the hope for any Republican candidate for the Presidency. The one aspect of life unlikely to change between now and November 2012 is unlikely to change -- that people are unhappy with the economic reality. Such was true in 2010, and such is unlikely to change in view of political gridlock -- except for the worse. Who gets the blame? Approval ratings for everyone involved -- the President and Congress -- are depressed. If approval for everything in politics is down, then who loses more?

Rules change some in hard times, but not that much.



 
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,221
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2011, 01:03:16 pm »

pbrower2a, it would matter if Obama's rating was at 20% and Congress' was at 5%, it's the party holding the White House that gets killed.  Only FDR was able to lay the blame on his predecessor since the crash of Oct 1929 came 3.5 years prior to FDR taking office in 1933 and FDR was sworn in at the very bottom.

That's not the case this time:  things aren't (at least yet) as bad, and Obama took office only 3 months after the crisis.

so you are delusional if you think Obama's party isnt going to take 90% of the pain at the polls if the UE is at 9% come Nov 2012
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2011, 01:17:00 pm »

Quinnipiac shows approval for the President tied 48-48, but with huge margins against both Perry and Romney :

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

and you believe that?

Yeah no $hit. Some people really want to advertise they are a gullible retard.

Who am I to challenge Quinnipiac polling? It is usually are pretty good.

I think people are simply unhappy with every aspect of political life. With whom are they more unhappy? A RINO could probably defeat President Obama, but there aren't many of those left. Ed Brooke, William Milliken, John Warner, and Charles Percy are far too old. Lincoln Chaffee isn't a Republican anymore, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is constitutionally ineligible. Third-Party challenge? It may be too late.  

Have you ever been through a divorce? If you have (as an ex or a child), then you were unhappy with almost everything for some time. As a nation we have been through a sort of divorce with the sort of prosperity that we used to take for granted. Much like an ex, that sort of prosperity isn't going to come back.  It took nearly ten years for Americans to have become as prosperous as they had been at the brink of the Great Stock Market Crash. Such prosperity as Americans had in 1939 was very different from what it was in 1929, and it wasn't easy to achieve. We could be in for an analogous set of hardships, dislocations, and (often unsettling) reforms.

The Tea Party types have failed catastrophically, thank you, after winning one election.

But I can say this of 1939 -- many people who as adults  in 1929 didn't have cars, radios, or refrigerators  had them in 1939. Maybe nobody was confident enough to bid up stock prices or real estate values, but such was just as well. The 1930s were a good time in which to start a small business, unions began to protect the interests of working people, a minimum wage was in place, bank deposits were safe again, and old people were no longer consigned to destitution once they could no longer work. In 1928 Americans had the illusion of prosperity but did not know how shaky their prosperity was; in 1939 such prosperity as they had was genuine.  
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2011, 07:10:40 pm »
« Edited: September 18, 2011, 12:27:45 am by pbrower2a »

Two from PPP, 8-24

Iowa:

Barack Obama................................................ 49%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 39%

Barack Obama................................................ 51%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 38%


Wisconsin:



Barack Obama................................................ 47%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 42%

Barack Obama................................................ 50%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 40%

One slightly older and very significant:

Ohio

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obamaís job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 44%
Disapprove...................................................... 52%

...

Barack Obama................................................ 45%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 43%

Barack Obama................................................ 45%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 41%

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry



Obama vs. Romney



The President's  approval ratings were not very good in either state at the time.
Logged
АverroŽs 🦉
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,672



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2011, 01:10:54 pm »

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Totally concur, but what's interesting about this election cycle is that everyone has net negative approval ratings: Congress, Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, Obama, and the Republican Presidential candidates.

Admittedly, head-to-heads are a lousy way of augmenting this information.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2011, 01:33:27 pm »

I'd been meaning to do something like this for some time.

I agree that it's fairly useless to use head-to-head-polls at this point in the race, but it's still fun, and this thread will at least provide a record of what the margins were at this point in time, regardless of however the race ends up. Good on you for starting it, pbrower.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2011, 12:35:45 am »
« Edited: September 18, 2011, 12:39:29 am by pbrower2a »

I'd been meaning to do something like this for some time.

I agree that it's fairly useless to use head-to-head-polls at this point in the race, but it's still fun, and this thread will at least provide a record of what the margins were at this point in time, regardless of however the race ends up. Good on you for starting it, pbrower.

True -- but we have the head-to-head polls and some confusing and often contradictory polls on approval or favorability. But "Obama or Romney?" or "Obama or Perry" can be said with little variation.  

Many questions remain unanswered? Are people now paying politics to an unusual extent more than a year before an election? Are they getting ideas about the positions and rhetoric of major candidates? How will the economy do? Will there be scandals?

I can think of many ways in which the President loses his re-election bid. I can see more ways in which he wins. About all that anyone can now say based on existing polls is that before the President does any serious campaigning for re-election, before the primaries, and before negative ads begin.  About all that I can conclude is that I project the Presidential election of 2012 to look enough like that of 2008 that the President will win in much the same way as he did against John McCain -- maybe a couple states fewer against Romney but probably as many against Perry.

...I have replaced the PPP poll of North Carolina with the one from Magellan. Magellan is an R-leaning pollster, but its poll comes later and shows an apparent move in favor of the President that I might not expect from that pollster. 
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,897
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2011, 01:36:32 am »

Ask any professional poster, this far out head to head match ups are near useless, but what is a little more telling is:

A's approval/disapproval vs. B's approval/disapproval...the polls always converge on that anyway.

Totally concur, but what's interesting about this election cycle is that everyone has net negative approval ratings: Congress, Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, Obama, and the Republican Presidential candidates.

Admittedly, head-to-heads are a lousy way of augmenting this information.

To clarify, the presidential candidates don't have "approval ratings".  They have "favorability ratings".  "Job approval" has to do with how voters think someone is doing at their job.  Romney and most of the others don't have jobs, so they don't have job approval ratings.
Logged
АverroŽs 🦉
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,672



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2011, 09:34:38 pm »

To clarify, the presidential candidates don't have "approval ratings".  They have "favorability ratings".  "Job approval" has to do with how voters think someone is doing at their job.  Romney and most of the others don't have jobs, so they don't have job approval ratings.

It was sloppy to use the terms interchangeably. But Perry and Romney both have poor favorability ratings, and my point stands.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2011, 05:22:55 pm »
« Edited: September 19, 2011, 05:34:51 pm by pbrower2a »

Pennsylvania, Washington.

Pennsylvania, Magellan (R)

OBAMA 50%, ROMNEY 40%, UNDECIDED 10%
OBAMA 52%, PERRY 37%, UNDECIDED 11%

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Magellan-Pennsylvania-2012-General-Election-Survey-Release-0919111.pdf

People are very unhappy with American politics at the federal level, at the least, but the GOP has shown little ability to take advantage of this. The President's approval rating is 44% but with a 47% disapproval in Pennsylvania.

Washington State, Strategies 360

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/avantgo/2016249660.html


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps will show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry



Obama vs. Romney




At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, and that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia) 
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2011, 01:49:13 pm »
« Edited: September 20, 2011, 07:41:09 pm by pbrower2a »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But take a look at this crosstab:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are Texas' demographics changing that quickly? McCain won the state by roughly 12%. A Republican nominee really needs to win Texas by about 15% to win nationwide.

With this sort of approval rating for a sitting Governor,

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

the President's campaign for re-election will surely have copious material for negative ads to play in states seen on the edge of voting for or against him. Such ads will feature photogenic people with backdrops of places like Dallas and San Antonio saying unflattering things about "their" Governor...

Even with the favorite son advantage Texas is closer to flipping toward President Obama than any of the states reliable for Clinton (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that President Obama got clobbered in in 2008.   


Barack Obama, as an exotic, cosmopolitan, intellectual city-slicker is a horrible match for Arkansas:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.talkbusiness.net/article/ARKANSANS-RATE-OBAMA-JOB-PERFORMANCE-2-TO-1-NEGATIVE/2503/

Oddly, Democrats show reasonable prospects of picking off a Congressional seat or two in Arkansas. As a liberal I prefer that the Blue Dog Democrats capable of compromise wield the balance of power than that the Tea Party extremists do. Arkansas Democrats  will need to show that they can stand up to President Obama, though, when such is good for the sensibilities of their districts. Such may be more valuable to the President than the six electoral votes of Arkansas.     


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry



Obama vs. Romney




At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, and that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2011, 03:25:46 pm »
« Edited: September 21, 2011, 11:33:53 pm by pbrower2a »

You knew that someone would poll Florida, even if it is someone that few of us know.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://warroomlogistics.com/library/wrl092011-topline_all.pdf

A bit over-precise. President Obama would have a far better chance of winning Florida against Romney (he'd have to pick up 6.5 of the 11.8 "undecided") than does Perry have of winning against President Obama (Perry would have to pick up 11.2 of 12.5 undecided). Republicans can't win without Florida, but President Obama can win without it -- not that anyone can trust Rick Scott with the electoral process.

Other Republican challengers all lose by at least 10%.

Does anyone have a problem with me rounding 7.85% to 8%? It's the integer that counts here, either way.

This one has all the excitement of the wildlife reel "Hungry Hawk vs. Rabbit with Nowhere to Go":

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MA_0921424.pdf


An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry



Obama vs. Romney




At this point I see no cause to believe that Rick Perry would do even as well as John McCain did in 2008, or that Mitt Romney would do enough better against President Obama to have a chance to win. Perry does far worse than Romney in the North (including the swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia)  -- and now Florida.
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,633


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2011, 07:51:06 pm »

I enjoy these threads/maps pbrower2a. Please keep them up.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC