• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jackson50

Member
Marquette poll has Baldwin up 50-41
If there's been a genuine shift, boy howdy. In addition to the recent polls in MA and VA, the Senate is looking safer. Although as Pigeon noted, there seems to be a disparity in the sampling methods which give pause; this would explain the recent discordant results. But if Obama's faring better in samples which incorporate cell phones and live interviews, and it seems he is, the positive results are probably legitimate.
I love stats like this. Why would Romney's favorability have risen though?
He's sold his amiability well lately.

mitt-romney-laughing-170.jpg
 

thefro

Member
If you count Rasmussen as a credible pollster I can see why you'd be confused.

Yeah, there's that and Gallup's tracking poll is so delayed it's basically useless in the short-term.

The other thing is the switch from RV --> LV is probably eating a little of Obama's upward move... most of the pre-convention polls were RVs.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Nope, eye is on the exit.

I don't blame him, all the shit he got for something he had absolutely no part of? Shit, they don't pay him enough to deal with more than four years of that. Guy should just go and get a nice cushy board membership for some big company.
 
Sarcasm?

If Obama gets re-elected and the GOP takes back the Senate they'll probably try to impeach his ass.
Good thing only one of those is happening!

Honestly the big question to me now is "Can Democrats win back the House." Two years ago I was just hoping Obama would win.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions

He really does not know the law does he.
As I understand it there was no expectation of privacy = not illegal. There was a group of people there.

I miss our resident legal expert E_V :(
 

pigeon

Banned
I love stats like this. Why would Romney's favorability have risen though?

Pew's last poll was in July, before the conventions. Romney's favorability got a boost on most polls after the RNC -- it just wasn't coupled with a polling bounce.

Yeah, there's that and Gallup's tracking poll is so delayed it's basically useless in the short-term.

I honestly can't figure out why Gallup is showing such a discrepancy. It's delayed, but they're showing a week in which Obama stayed strong in Ipsos and in one-shot national polls, and yet he's grounded. I mean, I guess it could just be sampling error as noted, but Gallup is supposed to be pretty good, I hear.


Well, he'd know.
 

pigeon

Banned
He really does not know the law does he.
As I understand it there was no expectation of privacy = not illegal. There was a group of people there.

I miss our resident legal expert E_V :(

Three points: does Romney have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a closed party? Does he have a reasonable expectation of not being recorded in a world of smart phones? Does the First Amendment protect a viewer recording his remarks and distributing them as freedom of the press?

http://angryblackladychronicles.com...mitt-romney-violate-florida-wiretapping-laws/

Mother Jones is covered either way, of course.
 
How is Obama polling compared to Bush at this similar point in time in 04?
According to RCP Bush had a 7 point lead to Obama's 3 point lead (avg).

Kerry made up a lot of ground in the debates which is probably what Romney is hoping for. Too bad Romney is much worse than Kerry and Obama is much better than Bush.
 
Three points: does Romney have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a closed party? Does he have a reasonable expectation of not being recorded in a world of smart phones? Does the First Amendment protect a viewer recording his remarks and distributing them as freedom of the press?

http://angryblackladychronicles.com...mitt-romney-violate-florida-wiretapping-laws/

Mother Jones is covered either way, of course.

1st amendment does not apply in a civil matter. Each state has its own laws regarding taping. Which states was this done in? I know the law in California very well as I'm sort of [indirectly] involved in a lawsuit involving an illegal recording between parties, one of the few California seems to have had.

edit: I see it's Florida.
 

Ecotic

Member
Looking back at the 2004 chart, you could tell it'd be close by looking at the trendline all year. Bush and Kerry kept trading the lead in the spring and summer, and in the end it was Bush's campaign and messaging that pushed him over the top at the end. Romney though has never had the lead this year.
 
Looking back at the 2004 chart, you could tell it'd be close by looking at the trendline all year. Bush and Kerry kept trading the lead in the spring and summer, and in the end it was Bush's campaign and messaging that pushed him over the top at the end. Romney though has never had the lead this year.

Around this time in 2004 Kerry was getting shellacked by the swiftboaters and was unable to recover even with good debate performances
 

pigeon

Banned
I'm now in the "they're not polling enough Republicans!" argument with my conservative friend. Right. That's the conspiracy.

Here's Pew Research on the topic:

While it would be easy to standardize the distribution of Democrats, Republicans and independents across all of these surveys, this would unquestionably be the wrong thing to do. While all of our surveys are statistically adjusted to represent the proper proportion of Americans in different regions of the country; younger and older Americans; whites, African Americans and Hispanics; and even the correct share of adults who rely on cell phones as opposed to landline phones, these are all known, and relatively stable, characteristics of the population that can be verified off of U.S. Census Bureau data or other high quality government data sources.

Party identification is another thing entirely. Most fundamentally, it is an attitude, not a demographic. To put it simply, party identification is one of the aspects of public opinion that our surveys are trying to measure, not something that we know ahead of time like the share of adults who are African American, female, or who live in the South. Particularly in an election cycle, the balance of party identification in surveys will ebb and flow with candidate fortunes, as it should, since the candidates themselves are the defining figureheads of those partisan labels. Thus there is no timely, independent measure of the partisan balance that polls could use for a baseline adjustment.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2322/pa...survey-identification-unweighted-distribution

edit:

Holy shit, they did ask him if he'd vote for Romney and he said "Maybe." AMAZING

I forget who said it - if your argument is based on the polls being wrong, you're probably losing.

That was either Nate or Yglesias, but I forget which and it's back in the Twitter backlog farther than I was willing to look.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I'm now in the "they're not polling enough Republicans!" argument with my conservative friend. Right. That's the conspiracy.

Haha, sounds like that awesome tweet that was criticizing the polls because they were interviewing more people that will vote for Obama.

It was sarcasm, but it was so awesome I thought it was real.

They'd have it easy if their parents were Latino.

I feel like this line by Romney was just so ignorant, like, doesn't he realize if his parents were Mexican that his father wouldn't have BEEN a governor in the 1960s? And how much harder his life would have been, and how he probably WOULDN'T be in the position he is now, based on all of that? It's so tone deaf it drives me crazy.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Not that we needed it, but it confirms the recent polling. Dude's running scared.

Another MA poll due out today, according to Chuck Todd. Good grief!
Haha, sounds like that awesome tweet that was criticizing the polls because they were interviewing more people that will vote for Obama.

It was sarcasm, but it was so awesome I thought it was real.

Yeah that was my mistake. I've seen that exact argument make the rounds. :lol
 

Chichikov

Member
He has nothing to gain by saying that he does. Absolutely nothing. He is running as a democrat, while Elizabeth Warren is running as a moderate Republican. We have now entered bizzaro-world.
He can gain staying on the good side of the GOP establishment.
It's true that Romney might end being such a disaster that people will forgive those who didn't endorse him, but generally, it's not something the powers that be tend to look favorably on.

I also think that the electorate will not be too excited if he's wishy washy on the issue, had he endorsed Obama, I'm sure it would've helped in the polls, but doing that crap?
Pretending that you don't know who are you personally going to vote for?
I don't see it helping him all that much.

But the main takeaways I have from this are -
a. Brown is worried.
b. Brown thinks that Romney's chances are not too hot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom