National Tracking Poll Thread

[Sbane]

Why would it take that long for a bounce to appear JJ? We should be able to tell by the weekend or early next week...though it is labor day weekend. Is that what you meant?

[Sbane]

I wasn't saying much at all, just asking JJ a question. Trying to understand his thought process is always an exciting endeavor. The bounce should be apparent on polling done today imho.

And I didn't know ipsos was showing a bounce since that is not regularly posted here. All I was seeing is Gallup staying steady and Rasmussen moving. But it's Rasmussen and Scott likes to volunteer on behalf of the Republican party so I didn't think too much of it. I am sure they will get a bounce. I derive no utility from denying reality so if it's there I will acknowledge it.

[Sbane]

Ok, so if Rasmussen and Gallup are both crap (which would also screw up the average) what polls am I supposed to follow the race with?!?

As far as I can tell, around here, the only polls that are "crap" are the ones you disagree with.

Basically. I've never seen an actual criticism based on methodology. I've only seen "oh, that poll sucks because it has to be wrong".

The post above yours is criticism based on methodology.

[Sbane]

Too bad Reuters shifted two points away from Romney yesterday.

...and today it shifts back towards Romney: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/02/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE87U1CJ20120902


Obama - 45% (-)
Romney - 45% (+1)

Same poll on Monday, before the RNC.
Obama - 46%
Romney - 42%

So there's been a net 4 point swing to Romney on Reuters, and a net 7 point swing to Romney on Rasmussen. No bounce from Gallup.

Rasmussen has shown the race to be about tied usually, hasn't it? Odd that Obama led by 3 just before the convention. In any case a 3-4 bounce seems to be showing up. Gallup won't show it for a while because they have a 7 day sample, so we have to be patient there.

[Sbane]

Ok, so if Rasmussen and Gallup are both crap (which would also screw up the average) what polls am I supposed to follow the race with?!?

As far as I can tell, around here, the only polls that are "crap" are the ones you disagree with.

Basically. I've never seen an actual criticism based on methodology. I've only seen "oh, that poll sucks because it has to be wrong".

The post above yours is criticism based on methodology.

Not really. The argument is "There's absolutely no way the electorate is R+4. So the poll is wrong. So I can ignore it."

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't actually think the electorate is R+4. But you don't toss out a polls that you think are wrong. That's not how statistics work.

My attempt to explain why this poll may seem to not match what you would expect is that I suspect the same "convention bounce" phenomenon that causes more people to say they're voting for a candidate may also cause more people to identify with that's candidate.

I think there's this assumption that "oh, Rasmussen will have their bounce bring Romney up to +4, and then they'll adjust it to +8 with their R+4". I find that a very unlikely outcome.

It's still a criticism of the methodology, which you said nobody was doing. Of course you don't toss it out though. You probably weren't here for it, but people were doing the same with polls back in June and July and just saying they weren't going to look at it or consider it due to Dem friendly samples. I think a criticism of a overly GOP or Dem electorate is fair, but like you said there is no reason to throw out the poll. Just add it to the mix.

I really don't know why everyone is attacking the polls.  There normally is a post convention bounce; we've all been expecting one.  It isn't gigantic. 

Now it's starting to show up.  If it's like the rest, it won't be around for long.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:

If a candidate that say something like “I don't look at the polls,” or “The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,” that candidate will lose.

That could apply in this case.

LOL where were you when people were discounting polls earlier this summer that showed Obama up big? You're such a lovable hack.

[Sbane]

I really don't know why everyone is attacking the polls.  There normally is a post convention bounce; we've all been expecting one.  It isn't gigantic. 

Now it's starting to show up.  If it's like the rest, it won't be around for long.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:

If a candidate that say something like “I don't look at the polls,” or “The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,” that candidate will lose.

That could apply in this case.

LOL where were you when people were discounting polls earlier this summer that showed Obama up big? You're such a lovable hack.

What polls showed Obama up big?

Right now, I think it is too early to use the polls to make a prediction about November, but that doesn't mean that I think the polls are bad, especially the main ones.

Plenty.

[Sbane]

I really don't know why everyone is attacking the polls.  There normally is a post convention bounce; we've all been expecting one.  It isn't gigantic. 

Now it's starting to show up.  If it's like the rest, it won't be around for long.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:

If a candidate that say something like “I don't look at the polls,” or “The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,” that candidate will lose.

That could apply in this case.

LOL where were you when people were discounting polls earlier this summer that showed Obama up big? You're such a lovable hack.

What polls showed Obama up big?

Right now, I think it is too early to use the polls to make a prediction about November, but that doesn't mean that I think the polls are bad, especially the main ones.

Plenty.

Which ones, other than those that exist only in you own mind?

There was a period from mid July to early August when there were multiple polls showing Obama close to replicating his winning margin from 2008. Also at the same time there were some very good polls for Obama in Ohio, including that Quinnipiac ones. During that time there was a lot of complaining about the polling going on....using basically the same excuses like partisan sampling not being current and what not. Do you really not remember that time, or are you willfully forgetting it to further your hack agenda?

[Sbane]

I really don't know why everyone is attacking the polls.  There normally is a post convention bounce; we've all been expecting one.  It isn't gigantic. 

Now it's starting to show up.  If it's like the rest, it won't be around for long.

J. J.'s First Rule of Elections:

If a candidate that say something like “I don't look at the polls,” or “The only polls that matter are the ones on Election Day,” that candidate will lose.

That could apply in this case.

LOL where were you when people were discounting polls earlier this summer that showed Obama up big? You're such a lovable hack.

What polls showed Obama up big?

Right now, I think it is too early to use the polls to make a prediction about November, but that doesn't mean that I think the polls are bad, especially the main ones.

Plenty.

Which ones, other than those that exist only in you own mind?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/09/fox-news-poll-obama-lead-grows-as-romney-support-slips/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/08/09/rel7b3.pdf

http://www.tipponline.com/presidency/news/presidency/obama-widens-lead-over-romney

http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11840

http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/08/8-2-12-Topline-for-release.pdf

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/12768_July_Poll.pdf

The worse was using registered voters and showed 9 points, which might have been an outlier. 

Even that one had Obama below 50% (barely).  Those were not "big," as was suggested.

It's been showing an election that looks close.  It still does.

You're laughable. How about you just admit that you were wrong for once?

JJ is just being JJ. Let him be.

[Sbane]

Is Gallup seriously showing a reverse bounce? Only 2 days of their 7 day sampling is before the convention started, correct?

[Sbane]

I would like Gallup to switch over to likely voters. We are getting to the point where registered voter polls don't tell us much.

[Sbane]

No, it's that they weight every national poll by party ID. The September numbers were absurd as the R's had like a 4-5% advantage (check it out).

It was no where near a 4-5 point advantage, and in 2008, they were closer than Gallup.

Their party ID is R+4.

[Sbane]

Folks, it's gonna be a blowout.

It's gonna be an absolute, complete blowout.

I wonder if you will be the mypalfish of this election.

[Sbane]

This election looks so ridiculously 2004-like polling-technically, it's almost unbelievable:



Kerry got a VP bounce from Edwards, like Romney with Ryan.

Kerry almost got no convention bounce, like Romney.

Bush got a huge convention bounce from which Kerry never really fully recovered from.

Obama is currently on the way to build a big bounce as well ... but ... will Romney recover and win ?

The only difference might be that Obama has a much higher downside risk due to the economy. Also while the Iraq was was starting to worsen by 2004, Bush had ensured Kerry was not seen as a viable alternative on foreign policy. Has Obama done the same with the economy vs Romney. I think the only state where that might be true is Ohio.

[Sbane]

I think you may be right, Lewis. That is what the purpose of the convention was.

[Sbane]

Right...because voting for the guy who promises to cut taxes on the rich, raise military spending and balance the budget is the rational thing to do?

I think this could be a combination of the Dem base starting to get interested as well as swing voters being influenced by Clinton's speech. So we have to see whether the numbers really improve after Clinton's speech or do they start declining. I think Obama missed a trick by not reaching out to swing voters a bit more in his speech. Swing voters basically support Democratic policies like raising taxes on the rich and following a balanced approach to debt reduction.

[Sbane]

I think it will be ephemeral.

Like most bounces are, but if Obama gets out of the conventions with a 2-3 point lead, that is a much stronger position than he was in before the conventions. This is due to the lack of big events remaining that can change the race. I know the debates are there, but the conventions were a good opportunity for Romney to at least get even with Obama.

[Sbane]

That is your personal political view, koenkai. Though maybe you have a point about districts that are way too partisan in one direction. Yes, corruption and igonorance does fester in these situations, but America would never become that Democratic. If there is corruption they would be voted out. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of a Republican wave in California soon....but the CA GOP might be too incompetent.

[Sbane]

If there is corruption they would be voted out. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of a Republican wave in California soon....but the CA GOP might be too incompetent.

That is tremendously unlikely. If there was any time for a Republican wave, it was 2010, where Democrats enhanced their legislative majorities and won every single statewide office. The CA GOP is actually a lot more effective than people give it credit for. They're actually not bad at recruitment, fundraising, and messaging. They're simply perhaps one of the most challenging position for almost any major political party in the West. Definitely giving Welsh Tories and Alberta Grits a run for their money.

California today is perhaps the best example of a structural Democratic majority. Even an extremely moderate, popular Republican (Cooley) could not defeat a relatively unpopular, far-left (more leftist than most of her party members) Democrat in a Republican landslide year for a not-so-politicized office (AG).

I don't think it's also a universal partisan trait. For example, Alberta is not a poorly run state at all. Japan, 1949-1993 wasn't fantastic, but it was decent enough. On the other hand, modern California...

Schwarzenegger was a Republican so obviously there wouldn't be a GOP wave in California in 2010. And if you are talking about federal races, I don't think there is any chance of California going Republican in the near future. Tea party populism just doesn't work in the state.

I disagree the Republicans have good candidates here in California. Most Republicans just run as your standard conservative you would see elsewhere. One of the problems of course is that the Republicans in California tend to very conservative but independents have a left lean. Still, look at the votes on the measures reforming pensions in San Diego and San Jose. Don't tell me the GOP has no opportunity in California. But it's not going to be with a generic conservative, I can assure you of that.

[Sbane]

I think the bounce may have peaked at Clinton's speech. I don't think Obama's speech helped, except maybe it increased the likelihood of some disillusioned Democrats turning up to vote.

[Sbane]

Nate apparently likes their methodology. It's definitely different but I can't say if it's correct.

[Sbane]

All Romney does or say is designed to get himself elected. The pattern has been clear since 1994.

[Sbane]

I wouldn't put it beyond Razzy to be trolling us right now. Before the election his polls will be more or less accurate.

[Sbane]

I think the job numbers hurt Obama more. Most of the decline seemed to come right after Obama's speech, which is when those numbers came out. Libya is a decent hypothesis too.

[Sbane]

I think the job numbers hurt Obama more. Most of the decline seemed to come right after Obama's speech, which is when those numbers came out. Libya is a decent hypothesis too.

First, I really should say this Islamic world and not limit it to Libya.

Second, Romney's comments regarding the apologies certainly did not hurt him.

It was a missed opportunity for him. If he had just played it cool and presidential, he might have been able to gain some point. Instead he just reinforced the impression he will do anything to win elections.

[Sbane]

I think in the end Obama will lose Florida, unless there has been some real shifts among Cubans the last four years, and that's not the case I don't think. It's a more gradual shift that has been occurring over time. Otherwise I think Obama has pretty much sealed the deal in the rest of the Obama 2008 states except NC and IN. NC is a pure turnout battle and since I'm not on the ground I don't want to predict it.