PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pigeon said:
Romney's aggressive tactics in Ohio don't necessarily mean that it's likely to flip, by the way. They might just mean that, having recognized that PA and WI are no longer real swing states, he knows as well as we do that Obama winning Ohio and Iowa is the end of the ball game, and that Ohio is his BEST shot even if it isn't a good one.

Of course, that would suggest that Iowa is a lockdown for Obama.
Click to expand...
Romney's growing attention to Ohio is indicative of its import to his success. It's difficult to envisage a credible path to victory for him sans Ohio. And he's already at a disadvantage because of Obama's superior organization. So Romney is struggling to achieve parity with less than a month remaining. He's foundering without a plausible life preserver.
cartoon_soldier said:
That's great news for Obama.

PPP releasing NC and FL numbers tomorrow...I expect those won't be as good for Obama as OH. NC especially.

Still don't know why IA is not getting polled. If I was a pollster, every week would have OH, VA, IA, WI, NC, CO, FL, NV!

PPP did say they will poll OH every week now.
Click to expand...
Polling is an expensive process. And that's only amplified by declining response rates and society's transition to cell phones. Further, the media has reduced their spending on surveys to reduce costs. So the traditional source of funding for polling firms is evaporating. Consequently, polling firms prioritize larger states that portend a close election to maximize their funds. A firm gains more publicity by publishing polls from Ohio, Florida, or Virginia than Iowa, Nevada, or New Hampshire. So Iowa's being relatively ignored because it's a meager prize.
 
No doubt the next Dem presidential nominee will want to repeat Obama's early voting strategy. So, I fully expect the GOP to do everything they can over the next 4 years to either eliminate early voting or make it as inconvenient as possible.
 
Averon said:
No doubt the next Dem presidential nominee will want to repeat Obama's early voting strategy. So, I fully expect the GOP to do everything they can over the next 4 years to either eliminate early voting or make it as inconvenient as possible.
Click to expand...
One thing is Democrats need someone just as exciting of a candidate as Obama is. Not that someone like Cuomo couldn't win, depending on how Obama's second term goes, but a big part of Obama's initial appeal is his personality. His race is also a huge factor, but he is a legitimately inspiring candidate. We obviously didn't see this kind of excitement for John Kerry or Al Gore.

Hillary is pretty damn exciting in her own way, it's not like Democrats could just put up any female candidate and expect to win. Let's just hope there's another Obama-esque candidate waiting in the shadows down the line. Like you know, that one guy from Texas.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...21014?feedType=RSS&feedName=GCA-Elections2012

Obama grabs wide lead among those who have already voted: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Obama leads Romney by 59 percent to 31 percent among early voters, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks.

The sample size of early voters is relatively small, but the Democrat's margin is still well above the poll's credibility interval - a measurement of polls' accuracy - of 10 percentage points. (full graphic: bit.ly/RmeEen)

With the November 6 election just more than three weeks away, 7 percent of those surveyed said they had already voted either in person or by mail (full graphic: bit.ly/SWm5YR).
Click to expand...
 
I'm not seeing the enthusiasm gap that has been so widely reported. If Dems are such underdogs in the attitude game, why are they tearin'-up ass in the early voting scene?

You'd think that Republicans couldn't wait to vote out the godless evil socialist, communist, redistributionist Kenyan.
 
HylianTom said:
I'm not seeing the enthusiasm gap that has been so widely reported. If Dems are such underdogs in the attitude game, why are they tearin'-up ass in the early voting scene?

You'd think that Republicans couldn't wait to vote out the godless evil socialist, communist, redistributionist Kenyan.
Click to expand...

It's manufactured. They looked at what happened in 2010 and assumed this year would be the same, not taking into account that not as many people vote in off-years.
 
B-Dubs said:
It's manufactured. They looked at what happened in 2010 and assumed this year would be the same, not taking into account that not as many people vote in off-years.
Click to expand...

No...it is not manufactured. Most pollsters report what their respondents identify themselves as.

Also, it is well documented that Democrats lead good in early voting. It favors their voters. While Republicans tend to do good on Election day as the Elderly are used to voting on election day.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
No...it is not manufactured. Most pollsters report what their respondents identify themselves as.

Also, it is well documented that Democrats lead good in early voting. It favors their voters. While Republicans tend to do good on Election day as the Elderly are used to voting on election day.
Click to expand...

Except the pollsters haven't been finding that as far as we've seen. Every time we see a poll someone comments on how republican enthusiasm isn't as high as democratic. How we don't see that supposed gap. Democratic registration is up and republican is down, that seems like a gap but in the other direction.
 
Aaron Strife said:
One thing is Democrats need someone just as exciting of a candidate as Obama is. Not that someone like Cuomo couldn't win, depending on how Obama's second term goes, but a big part of Obama's initial appeal is his personality. His race is also a huge factor, but he is a legitimately inspiring candidate. We obviously didn't see this kind of excitement for John Kerry or Al Gore.

Hillary is pretty damn exciting in her own way, it's not like Democrats could just put up any female candidate and expect to win. Let's just hope there's another Obama-esque candidate waiting in the shadows down the line. Like you know, that one guy from Texas.
Click to expand...
I've always found it amusing how the Democrats will forever be beholden to the John F. Kennedy ideal, only someone in this mold can truly fire up the base: Young, charismatic, a minority in some way, but never threateningly so. Kennedy went to great lengths to make his Catholicism acceptable to America, giving a famous speech about it, something Obama later emulated in his race speech in 2008. Ted Kennedy couldn't wait to adopt Obama in 2008, even having Obama sit next to him at the State of the Union address and giving his family a dog. To be this ideal candidate you absolutely have to have a beautiful wife and young kids. Kennedy had Jaqueline, Caroline and John Jr., Obama has Michelle, Sasha and Malia. When Democrats saw Julian Castro at the convention with his charisma, a beautiful wife and tiniest little kids, they were like "OMG, it's the hispanic Obama!", who himself was the black Kennedy.
 
HylianTom said:
I'm not seeing the enthusiasm gap that has been so widely reported. If Dems are such underdogs in the attitude game, why are they tearin'-up ass in the early voting scene?

You'd think that Republicans couldn't wait to vote out the godless evil socialist, communist, redistributionist Kenyan.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Democrats have actually led in the vast majority of polls on the enthusiasm question (that is, until the recent correction, when Republicans nudged ahead).

I wouldn't read too much into early voting favoring Obama. Those margins clearly aren't going to hold.
 
isoquant said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Democrats have actually led in the vast majority of polls on the enthusiasm question (that is, until the recent correction, when Republicans nudged ahead).

I wouldn't read too much into early voting favoring Obama. Those margins clearly aren't going to hold.
Click to expand...
A winning margin needs to hold is all anyone cares about lol
 
It seems Obama's drop hasn't effected Senate races. There's no information supporting this, but I'm willing to bet it didn't effect House races either. So Obama just has to win by just one electoral vote, for all I care.
 
bananas said:
It seems Obama's drop hasn't effected Senate races. There's no information supporting this, but I'm willing to bet it didn't effect House races either. So Obama just has to win by just one electoral vote, for all I care.
Click to expand...

I find it rather interesting that despite Obama's collapse in Virginia, Tim Kaine is leading by a wide margin; usually the top of the ticket either brings the rest down or takes it on a ride to victory. Seems like Obama won't be taking the ship down, and has rebound space to recover.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I find it rather interesting that despite Obama's collapse in Virginia, Tim Kaine is leading by a wide margin; usually the top of the ticket either brings the rest down or takes it on a ride to victory. Seems like Obama won't be taking the ship down, and has rebound space to recover.
Click to expand...
I think it's possible that, at least in the swing states, Obama's huge margins from earlier gave Democrats a boost downticket. At the debate, Romney succeeded in making himself a viable alternative which may have softened Obama's support, but I can't imagine the guy who's like "Hmm, this Romney guy might be alright, may as well vote for George Allen while I'm at it!" In fact, the prospect of a Democratic Senate tempering Romney's agenda might even solidify that.
 
Obama gains in RAND again.

Mamba proven right so far, eh PD?

It's now 49.1-45.4. Almost +4 for Obama.

Obama gains about 2 points in 2 days. Looking more and more like Obama is pulling almost 50% in RAND and Romney pulling in 45%. That's basically what it was pre-debate.
 
Black Mamba said:
Obama gains in RAND again.

Mamba proven right so far, eh PD?

It's now 49.1-45.4. Almost +4 for Obama.

Obama gains about 2 points in 2 days. Looking more and more like Obama is pulling almost 50% in RAND and Romney pulling in 45%. That's basically what it was pre-debate.
Click to expand...

When was that taken?

I'll wait for Gallup to move
 
Black Mamba said:
Obama gains in RAND again.

Mamba proven right so far, eh PD?

It's now 49.1-45.4. Almost +4 for Obama.

Obama gains about 2 points in 2 days. Looking more and more like Obama is pulling almost 50% in RAND and Romney pulling in 45%. That's basically what it was pre-debate.
Click to expand...
Hmm. If Obama does a good debate he'll probably be off the hook. That's some good movement.
 
Black Mamba said:
Obama gains in RAND again.

Mamba proven right so far, eh PD?

It's now 49.1-45.4. Almost +4 for Obama.

Obama gains about 2 points in 2 days. Looking more and more like Obama is pulling almost 50% in RAND and Romney pulling in 45%. That's basically what it was pre-debate.
Click to expand...

That's good, would like to see movement in normal methodology polls too.
 
Aaron Strife said:
I think it's possible that, at least in the swing states, Obama's huge margins from earlier gave Democrats a boost downticket. At the debate, Romney succeeded in making himself a viable alternative which may have softened Obama's support, but I can't imagine the guy who's like "Hmm, this Romney guy might be alright, may as well vote for George Allen while I'm at it!" In fact, the prospect of a Democratic Senate tempering Romney's agenda might even solidify that.
Click to expand...



It's weird. One idea was that it fired up the base who was now going to come out and vote. In that case, they weren't voting on Senate and thusly the Senate numbers should clearly improve (since it's base voting). But we're not seeing that so this kind of goes along with the belief that the base was going to begrudgingly vote Romney no matter what or if depressed, stay home (but they weren't at that point, yet)


The other possibility is that a bunch of swing voters (mostly undecided) went to Romney but stayed with the Democrat Senate (which is dumb, sigh). Of course, that means we wouldn't see a fading bounce. It could still happen if those voters are swinging back.


I guess the other thing that could be happening is what I call "soft" republicans. They're not the base, they may in fact be independents who always lean Rrepub in Presidential elections, but they don't care about anything but the President and until the debate had no interest in voting for him despite not liking Obama. But now they were interested. But they knew jack-all about anything else so when asked about the Senate they said "don't know" while the Dems picked up guys from elsewhere (soft Dems for example who got more interested after the convention). This poses a problem. These soft Repubs may eventually jump onto the Repub senate. On the other hand, these "soft repubs" may only be so in the case of President, but actually prefer Dem in Congress or are just voting based on name recognition in some cases.

But who knows, really.

That's good, would like to see movement in normal methodology polls too.
Click to expand...

Gallup RV did move yesterday +1. We'll see this morning at 10AM if it goes to +5. That would put it at pre-debate status. If Gallup is tied in the LV model, that would be quite good. The two have generally been 5 points apart so far and I'm not buying their LV as the right number versus RV. I think they're underselling Dem turnout.
 
or6caplaw0spltfgma8ygg.gif


If there ever was a chart on what's wrong with America...



BTW, PD - looking smarter you didn't take that bet. Doesn't look like by 3pm tomorrow the Silver model will move to 55-45. And he didn't even put PPP's poll in from Ohio, yet (which will improve his chances there). And with RAND moving up for Obama, it would take a huge shift in Reuteurs, TIPP, and Gallup to offset that and also move him up to 45%!
 
The school of thought that the country works best when the President and Congress are two different parties is pretty prevalent among moderates/independents. I think people just remember Reagan and Clinton being good times, even though the parties were bickering almost as much as they are now.
 
Aaron Strife said:
The school of thought that the country works best when the President and Congress are two different parties is pretty prevalent among moderates/independents. I think people just remember Reagan and Clinton being good times, even though the parties were bickering almost as much as they are now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how prevalent is that belief in actual voting?

It's like the whole "Congress sucks but not my Congressman" thing.

They vote Repubs President and same for Senate/House but want other states to split, not themselves.

The reason you do get split tickets is name recognition. So and so been there 12 years so you know them and you're not a partisan so you stick with em since you know nothing about the other guy.

The other reason are true swing voters who don't think about the ticket and don't like the person on the ticket for some reason. In extreme cases like Akin, you could get a split ticket extending past swing voters from this thing.

I can't even split my House ticket if I vote Obama. I have a choice of 2 Democrats (honestly didn't even know this was possible). Worst part is their names rhyme. WHAT THE FUCK. It seems they are both in Congress and their district got combined. Hm. Time for the mighty power of a quarter.
 
Black Mamba said:
Yeah, but how prevalent is that belief in actual voting?

It's like the whole "Congress sucks but not my Congressman" thing.

They vote Repubs President and same for Senate/House but want other states to split, not themselves.

The reason you do get split tickets is name recognition. So and so been there 12 years so you know them and you're not a partisan so you stick with em since you know nothing about the other guy.

The other reason are true swing voters who don't think about the ticket and don't like the person on the ticket for some reason. In extreme cases like Akin, you could get a split ticket extending past swing voters from this thing.

I can't even split my House ticket if I vote Obama. I have a choice of 2 Democrats (honestly didn't even know this was possible). Worst part is their names rhyme. WHAT THE FUCK,
Click to expand...
Oh, you must be in the Berman-Sherman district.

Yeah, California passed an amendment in 2010 that made it so primaries were open, and the top two would advance regardless of party. Some states in the south have it and I believe Washington does as well.
 
Aaron Strife said:
Oh, you must be in the Berman-Sherman district.

Yeah, California passed an amendment in 2010 that made it so primaries were open, and the top two would advance regardless of party. Some states in the south have it and I believe Washington does as well.
Click to expand...

Can't believe I was unaware of this caveat. I just got my stuff in the mail, which is generally when I start researching on the props. Quite honestly, I only vote for the props in this state, other than governor. The rest is just too fucked up.

Also had no idea Roseanne was running for President.
 
I posted this earlier:

More than 200,000 people have voted in Iowa
Iowa sticks out as a sore thumb in early voting. Already, more than 200,000 people have voted in Iowa, a much larger share of the potential 2012 electorate than any other state.

The number of registered Democrats who have voted is about twice that of registered Republicans, 53 percent to 28 percent, with the remainder unaffiliated. Bet let's not be so fast in calling Iowa for Obama. In 2008, Democrats outpaced Republicans 47 percent to 29 percent among early voters. Among the nearly 400,000 ballot requests in 2012, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a narrower margin: 48 percent to 30 percent. Republicans have been steadily making up ground among the votes cast and the ballot requests.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/early-voting-rising_b_1962843.html
 
PhoenixDark said:
I find it rather interesting that despite Obama's collapse in Virginia, Tim Kaine is leading by a wide margin; usually the top of the ticket either brings the rest down or takes it on a ride to victory. Seems like Obama won't be taking the ship down, and has rebound space to recover.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? The following are changes in Virginia polling from before the debate to after:

Rasmussen: Obama loses 1%, Romney gains 1%
NBC/WSJ/Marist: Obama loses 1%, Romney gains 2%
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac: Obama gains 1%, Romney stays the same
PPP: Obama loses 1%, Romney gains 1%

This is a collapse???? Virginia has been and will continue to be a complete toss-up state. The reason Kaine has opened-up a lead here has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Allen
 
Aaron Strife said:
The school of thought that the country works best when the President and Congress are two different parties is pretty prevalent among moderates/independents. I think people just remember Reagan and Clinton being good times, even though the parties were bickering almost as much as they are now.
Click to expand...
I miss the 90's so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Post your Wallpaper
14
3K
aldousacker replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Poll
100-odd NFL posts from 2012
0
4
Rorschach replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
256K
firehawk12 replied
DeutschGAF |OT4| ger.mansplaining
339 340 341 342 343
17K
1M
Hudo replied
Top Bottom