Well, they're not really a polling agency -- Gravis Marketing is a political advertising agency, so they're basically just doing these polls to promote themselves. Frankly, I'm not sure it's doing a good job for them.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Well, they're not really a polling agency -- Gravis Marketing is a political advertising agency, so they're basically just doing these polls to promote themselves. Frankly, I'm not sure it's doing a good job for them.
eBay Huckster
Member
It's not the base shifting that anyone should worry about, it's undecided voters giving Mitt a second chance after Obama got a free month that ultimately had them more or less in his pocket for the time being.
That in and of itself is just depressing.
If PPP's tweet from earlier is any indication, those undecideds weren't giving Romney a second chance for very long if they did at all
eBay Huckster
Member
Well that's just for Wisconsin which is good news for holding the state
Well... no, it's actually for every state they're polling right now (including Nevada and Virginia), not sure if that's including Wisconsin
Souldriver
Member
It's not the base shifting that anyone should worry about, it's undecided voters giving Mitt a second chance after Obama got a free month that ultimately had them more or less in his pocket for the time being.
That in and of itself is just depressing.
Well, we shouldn't dismiss this movement as irrelevant either. It means more votes for Romney, and in swing states where every vote counts, this is important.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Well... no, it's actually for every state they're polling right now (including Nevada and Virginia), not sure if that's including Wisconsin
So the polling is showing the Romney bounce as short-lived?
If so, is only PPP is saying this?
That's the thing I don't understand. How in the hell can anyone truly be undecided!? If you really are then I would assume you would be looking at information to try and actually decide. If you are then I don't understand how you can't make up your mind. There are clear and very obvious differences at play here.
No Ipsos said it as wellSo the polling is showing the Romney bounce as short-lived?
If so, is only PPP is saying this?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42924463&postcount=436
eBay Huckster
Member
So the polling is showing the Romney bounce as short-lived?
If so, is only PPP is saying this?
I'm not sure if anyone else is even in the field (aside from Ipsos, who also said that), but yes, they said today's interviews are already showing a reversion to pre-debate numbers
I'm not sure if anyone else is even in the field (aside from Ipsos, who also said that), but yes, they said today's interviews are already showing a reversion to pre-debate numbers
And I doubt a lot of that is inclduing the job numbers since those came out Friday morning/noon-ish.
Well, we shouldn't dismiss this movement as irrelevant either. It means more votes for Romney, and in swing states where every vote counts, this is important.
yeah but when it's close, swing voters are an insurance policy.
I still think job numbers do not matter one way or another.And I doubt a lot of that is inclduing the job numbers since those came out Friday morning/noon-ish.
But republicans making such a big deal brought alot of attention to them I am sure.
cartoon_soldier
Member
So the polling is showing the Romney bounce as short-lived?
If so, is only PPP is saying this?
We won't really know until mid next week.
Know what?We won't really know until mid next week.
Other thing I'll say is Saturday interviews we've done for polls across the country look a lot more like our pre-debate than Friday numbers
They already moving back.
http://deadspin.com/5949556/anti+ro...aper-hes-been-a-michigan-fan-a-long-long-time
From the Ohio State student newspaper. As a Spartan, I can get behind this ad.
Hey, whatever works. My girlfriend, who is a huge Michigan fan, also supports this.
It's not the base shifting that anyone should worry about, it's undecided voters giving Mitt a second chance after Obama got a free month that ultimately had them more or less in his pocket for the time being.
That in and of itself is just depressing.
I keep reiterating this and you keep not reading it, I guess. Don't assume that everybody who checks in undecided on a poll is actually a true swing voter. When the poll is showing 7-9% of voters undecided and we already know that there are probably only 2-3% actual swing voters, that leaves about 5% of people who have clear preferences but for whatever reason don't want to say they're voting for who they'll probably end up voting for. But the odds are they'll end up going back to them at the first sign of something to motivate them again. This is why Reagan dropped back in the polls after Carter's DNC but Carter didn't gain -- voters announced themselves as undecided when they were always in Reagan's pocket.
This is the perfect example of something that would motivate "undecided" Romney voters, both because it's a win for him and because he acted moderate -- which is why Romney picked up votes. But Obama didn't lose anything in the Reuters poll -- he gained. So Romney's gains weren't real gains -- because Obama's lead wasn't a real lead, it was a phantom lead from people claiming to be undecided when they weren't. What matters is that that's all he got, because Obama's close enough to 50 to win if Romney can't peel anybody off.
(That's why I wasn't super happy with the Wisconsin poll, but PPP suggesting that it bounced back means that it might be another temporary loss to "undecided," which -- for the exact same reasons -- means we shouldn't worry too much about it yet.)
cartoon_soldier
Member
Know what?
We will have the full picture of post debate polls with a lot of the traditional polling outfits that also conduct cell phone interviews.
Someone else pointed this out, but the recent jobs report has everyone talking about that (whether it's to highlight that UE is under 8% for the first time ever, or if it's just right wingers floating conspiracy theories about the numbers). Regardless of why we're talking about, the important thing to note is that this means no one is talking about Romney's "stellar" debate performance anymore. It seems like a recurring thing that no matter what positive swing Romney may get, it always ends up being ignored or buried over something else shortly after.
The guy can't catch a break.
The guy can't catch a break.
ryutaro's mama
Member
I really hope the people @ the Town Hall bring up the juicier topics.
I re-watched the first debate and it was pretty meh in terms of that stuff.
Healthcare
Deficit
Jobs
No mention of outsourced work to build Bain Capitol.
No mention of Romney's comments on how he likes firing people.
No mention of abortion
No mention of Women's rights
No mention of Gay rights
No mention of the 47% (and Ryan's 60%).
I could go on...
I re-watched the first debate and it was pretty meh in terms of that stuff.
Healthcare
Deficit
Jobs
No mention of outsourced work to build Bain Capitol.
No mention of Romney's comments on how he likes firing people.
No mention of abortion
No mention of Women's rights
No mention of Gay rights
No mention of the 47% (and Ryan's 60%).
I could go on...
Someone else pointed this out, but the recent jobs report has everyone talking about that (whether it's to highlight that UE is under 8% for the first time ever, or if it's just right wingers floating conspiracy theories about the numbers). Regardless of why we're talking about, the important thing to note is that this means no one is talking about Romney's "stellar" debate performance anymore. It seems like a recurring thing that no matter what positive swing Romney may get, it always ends up being ignored or buried over something else shortly after.
The guy can't catch a break.
Always getting upstaged by something. Least this time it isn't an old man scolding furniture.
Yeah, the moderation was probably the worst I've ever seen. A lot of this better come up at the town hall.I really hope the people @ the Town Hall bring up the juicier topics.
I re-watched the first debate and it was pretty meh in terms of that stuff.
Healthcare
Deficit
Jobs
No mention of outsourced work to build Bain Capitol.
No mention of Romney's comments on how he likes firing people.
No mention of abortion
No mention of Women's rights
No mention of Gay rights
No mention of the 47% (and Ryan's 60%).
I could go on...
And it's 49-47 now?
Wow, he lost 3 points on the debate alone?
That's pretty major...
I don't know why you guys follow polling so religiously. The numbers don't really mean much of anything right now. I did that to myself last election, and it just made a race that was completely one sided seem closer than it was until about a week or two out from election day.
I really hope the people @ the Town Hall bring up the juicier topics.
I re-watched the first debate and it was pretty meh in terms of that stuff.
Healthcare
Deficit
Jobs
No mention of outsourced work to build Bain Capitol.
No mention of Romney's comments on how he likes firing people.
No mention of abortion
No mention of Women's rights
No mention of Gay rights
No mention of the 47% (and Ryan's 60%).
I could go on...
I think a good swath of this could come up...not much else to discuss outside of it. Probably won't hear much about the "I like to fire people" or the 47%, and nothing direct about Bain. There might be something about outsourcing but I seem to remember there being a lot of talk about it in the first debate so that might not come up as much.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't understand how a polling agency can release such data. Like, if that is the data you're getting, I think it's time to re-check your shit. Obama cannot get 95% of blacks nationally and end up at 40% in Colorado. It's statistical nonsense and any statistician should be ashamed for not trying to fix this.
Sounds like the same argument I made against that ridiculous Ohio poll last week...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42713141#post42713141
eBay Huckster
Member
Sounds like the same argument I made against that ridiculous Ohio poll last week...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42713141#post42713141
of course, latino numbers similar to his national numbers would give obama more like an 11-point lead
Nothing direct about Bain? Why not? Obama needs to go right at him, this is the way to do it.
Isn't the next debate a town hall, where the audience gets to ask questions and not the debaters? I mean, granted, I think we have a much better shot at getting some good substantial questions but I doubt we'll get anything flat out incendiary, and Bain falls into that. Obama might bring it up but I doubt the people asking the questions will go for it. And I'd LOVE to be proven wrong about that.
I really hope the people @ the Town Hall bring up the juicier topics.
I re-watched the first debate and it was pretty meh in terms of that stuff.
Healthcare
Deficit
Jobs
No mention of outsourced work to build Bain Capitol.
No mention of Romney's comments on how he likes firing people.
No mention of abortion
No mention of Women's rights
No mention of Gay rights
No mention of the 47% (and Ryan's 60%).
I could go on...
Don't blame Jim. Obama should have had the sense and the balls to bring this shit up. Instead, he held back. He let Mitt get the best of him. He could have easily torn each and every statement apart. Sometimes, being specific and methodical isn't the right approach. Being explicit and direct works wonders. We didn't see that at all. Instead, we got bogged down in all sorts of statistics and details that had next to no meaning or context. The right sound bite and BOOM! Headlines all over the news the next day. It would put Mitt on the spot and force him to react and put him in a defensive position.
He should have called Romney out for being a flip flopper. Mention the 47% comment or any recent gaffe of his. Bain? Off shore bank accounts? His record as governor? Come on son. At least pick one! Romney is such a light weight candidate, it's not even funny. Seriously, it was really frustrating seeing Obama not kick Mitt's ass the other night. Obama didn't seem to give a shit. I treated it like some bullshit Socratic seminar or college lecture. He wasn't focused.
He better learn from this and nut the hell up. That and come to the next debate with a better attitude and not be half asleep. The notion that this race is close makes me sick. It shouldn't be. Either Obama is A) doesn't care B) is arrogant as hell or C) is a wimp and too afraid to make a mistake.
Speaking of which, if it is the last one, he needs to get over his apprehension towards coming off as the "angry black man". He doesn't need to come out swinging. Just one blow is all I ask. That's all he needs.
Half and half
Member
Nothing direct about Bain? Why not? Obama needs to go right at him, this is the way to do it.
I think Bain was another landmine Obama avoided. Obama would've said something like, "Bain shipped jobs overseas and closed down factories" and Romney would've unleashed a bashing on him worse than anything else that night.
Business is Romney's specialty. He'll walk circles around just about everyone on that topic. It's better to bash him on it in an ad where he can't respond with a forked tongue.
Same with the 47% remark,it would have gave the same lame response at the debate that he gave to fox, and some people would have bought it.I think Bain was another landmine Obama avoided. Obama would've said something like, "Bain shipped jobs overseas and closed down factories" and Romney would've unleashed a bashing on him worse than anything else that night.
Business is Romney's specialty. It's better to bash him on it in an ad where he can't respond with a forked tongue.
I think Bain was another landmine Obama avoided. Obama would've said something like, "Bain shipped jobs overseas and closed down factories" and Romney would've unleashed a bashing on him worse than anything else that night.
Business is Romney's specialty. It's better to bash him on it in an ad where he can't respond with a forked tongue.
We all know Romney knows fuck all about foreign policy. He flip flops on domestic issues. Attacking him where he feels most safe would be perfect. Romney's record as business man isn't as sterling as he claims it is. Bring that down, and he's got nothing left.
CharlieDigital
Banned
No mention of outsourced work to build Bain Capitol.
No mention of Romney's comments on how he likes firing people.
No mention of the 47% (and Ryan's 60%).
This is not his style. Never has been. He doesn't do these types of attacks in debates.
No mention of abortion
No mention of Gay rights
No reason to bring these up in a debate; does nothing for your target: the independents and the undecided; why would you want to bring up divisive issues in a debate aimed at capturing undecideds and independents? A strategic mistake in this debate format.
The notion that this race is close makes me sick. It shouldn't be. Either Obama is A) doesn't care B) is arrogant as hell or C) is a wimp and too afraid to make a mistake.
Answer is B for the most part. Maybe a little C at the debate. He's done a lot of stuff lately that'll open him up to attacks from Romney in the FP debate. Going ahead with the campaign event after Libya was a mistake (even if Romney and Ryan also campaigned that day). If he could cancel events for a movie shooting, why not for diplomats dying?
Also, not meeting with any world leaders (just to avoid Netanyahu) but going on The View the day before is just bad optics.
He better have good comebacks for that cos Romney is prepping the zingers right now
We won't really know until mid next week.
We can see the writing on the wall, its over and nothing Romney can do will change what is coming.
He needs a miracle at this point
Answer is B for the most part. Maybe a little C at the debate. He's done a lot of stuff lately that'll open him up to attacks from Romney in the FP debate. Going ahead with the campaign event after Libya was a mistake (even if Romney and Ryan also campaigned that day). If he could cancel events for a movie shooting, why not for diplomats dying?
Also, not meeting with any world leaders (just to avoid Netanyahu) but going on The View the day before is just bad optics.
He better have good comebacks for that cos Romney is prepping the zingers right now
Or maybe he realized he's going to be attacked either way ("Shame on you Mr. President, for politicizing such a tragedy").
And regarding the UN assembly snub, the only ones bothered by it aren't voting Romney, so what's the harm.
Byakuya769
Member
People actually payed to stream John Stewart debating Bill O'Reilly? Why?
Obama at Highest Approval rating in three years 54%
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-gallup-debate-romney-2012-10?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics
His approval rating soared four points from the previous day in Gallup's three-day rolling average. The last time he matched that came in the Nov. 11-13, 2009 period.
The 54-percent mark puts Obama well above the "safe" 50-percent threshold for an incumbent's re-election.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-approval-rating-gallup-debate-romney-2012-10?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics
ryutaro's mama
Member
I'm not saying that Obama should have asked any of those questions. I was saying that none of it came up.
In a town hall setting, these questions need to be asked, otherwise, there will be no other place for them to come up, nationally.
If I could ask Romney a question, it would be:
"Mr. Romney, you claim that you don't have a $5 trillion tax cut planned but you want to cut taxes by 20% for everyone across the board. You also said that you wouldn't raise the deficit. Please explain to me, and other voters in detail, how you propose paying for all this? As a voter, I want to know what I'm signing up for, should I give you my vote."
In a town hall setting, these questions need to be asked, otherwise, there will be no other place for them to come up, nationally.
If I could ask Romney a question, it would be:
"Mr. Romney, you claim that you don't have a $5 trillion tax cut planned but you want to cut taxes by 20% for everyone across the board. You also said that you wouldn't raise the deficit. Please explain to me, and other voters in detail, how you propose paying for all this? As a voter, I want to know what I'm signing up for, should I give you my vote."
I'm not saying that Obama should have asked any of those questions. I was saying that none of it came up.
In a town hall setting, these questions need to be asked, otherwise, there will be no other place for them to come up, nationally.
If I could ask Romney a question, it would be:
"Mr. Romney, you claim that you don't have a $5 trillion tax cut planned but you want to cut taxes by 20% for everyone across the board. You also said that you wouldn't raise the deficit. Please explain to me, and other voters in detail, how you propose paying for all this? As a voter, I want to know what I'm signing up for, should I give you my vote."
I'm kind of hoping somebody follows up on the PBS remark by pointing out how insignificant a cost it is to the government and asking why he felt that needed to be spelled out in the first debate.
Or maybe he realized he's going to be attacked either way ("Shame on you Mr. President, for politicizing such a tragedy").
You want to limit distracting attacks during the home-stretch. They obviously didn't want to disappoint the folks who will be knocking on doors in Nevada for O but it wasn't smart. Romney will attack while calling it a "fundraiser" not a rally. Obviously the easy comeback for O is to say, "The presidency is a 24/7 job and me being in Washington wouldn't have changed things. I did not want to disappoint people who had been waiting for hours to see me. Unlike you, I care about the common folks!"
And regarding the UN assembly snub, the only ones bothered by it aren't voting Romney, so what's the harm
What do you mean? If Romney says during the debate, "Unlike this president, I would never take my foreign policy duties lightly and miss meeting with world leaders to go on a tv show!" Regardless of how good Obama's response is, it's a sharp attack that could sway people who are on the fence. It's needlessly handing Romney ammo on a subject that should be Obama's strength. Not smart unless you feel you can't lose..
ryutaro's mama
Member
In basketball terminology, Obama has to make Romney consistently go Right. When he let him go Left in the first debate, Mitt was clearly playing out of his mind.
It's all about adjustments for Game 2.
Obama and Plouffe should be breaking down tape and match-up problems from Game 1.
It's all about adjustments for Game 2.
Obama and Plouffe should be breaking down tape and match-up problems from Game 1.
You want to limit distracting attacks during the home-stretch
What do you mean? If Romney says during the debate, "Unlike this president, I would never take my foreign policy duties lightly and miss meeting with world leaders to go on a tv show!" Regardless of how good Obama's response is, it's a sharp attack that could sway people who are on the fence. It's needlessly handing Romney ammo on a subject that should be Obama's strength. Not smart unless you feel you can't lose..
Just counter with how badly Mitt looked going to the UK during the Olympics and his lack of favor with foreign countries. Even if Mitt's got a point, he's looked infinitely more the doofus in foreign matters than Obama ever has.
Edit: Also, you're not going to win a lot of favors with the right by playing up the importance of the UN.
I forget, but what is the history of how "tough" are the questions generally from town halls? They are screened for sure, so I don't see anything quite as direct as you guys seem to want happen (I do too by the way).
Here's the one from 2008
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ywHjMg&usg=AFQjCNG2qNXxHMF4Lh_cwXJ_fSaw58OnLA
The questions aren't "tough" but the trick is to use the answer to contrast with your opponent.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Just counter with how badly Mitt looked going to the UK during the Olympics and his lack of favor with foreign countries. Even if Mitt's got a point, he's looked infinitely more the doofus in foreign matters than Obama ever has.
Easy comeback:
"But Mr. President, I made the trip. I wasn't on a sound stage in NYC laughing it up with David Letterman. I want to be the American President, not the American Idol."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.