The approval numbers have been extremely volatile. He has hit 48 a number of times only to bounce back up to 50+ the next day.
Don't be silly. Obama's approval is obviously cratering from Biden's poor performance at the debate.
The approval numbers have been extremely volatile. He has hit 48 a number of times only to bounce back up to 50+ the next day.
When are the new polls dropping?
Must have more polls!
i even their site and stuff and still need help
Last point from me for awhile. (I got shit to do)
The Democrats can't control what the Republicans are doing; they can only control what they do.
You wanna win this election? STFU, stop crying (no one is gonna feel sorry for you) organize, register and vote.
You know what your candidate stays for so stand with him. One bad debate and less than desirable polling numbers of late shouldn't be discouraging you but rather emboldening you.
One thing is for sure--if you don't show (as a party) you guys want this, than the Republicans will be more than happy to take it from you.
2010 should have proven that to you--complacency kills, not bad debates.
Huh? At worst, it's a wash. Biden didn't fuck up, though.Don't be silly. Obama's approval is obviously cratering from Biden's poor performance at the debate.
Okay, sorry. Predicted winner doesn't factor into the horse race at all -- it's just an interesting tidbit. Intention to vote isn't really trending in either direction -- Romney supporters obviously are more likely to vote than Obama supporters, that's well known, and that's still true. (So you can deduce, as always, that there are more Democratic supporters in the sample to counteract their lower enthusiasm, which is appropriately representative of the country.) There are some really weird intention spikes in that graph, and they're always downward, and they're always at times that don't seem to correlate to any actual events, so I'm not sure what the deal is there, but all that info is already factored into the horse race so we don't need to worry about it.
Shifts between candidates is a little more interesting. The correct way to look at this graph is to note that when the two lines are close to each other and deep within the MoE that's archetypal churn -- from the current positions, it's hard to really conclude anything and probably safe to assume that whatever change we're seeing is extremely minor. There are several points in the graph where the difference between the two lines is similarly tight. There are two points where the shift lines break apart -- one is right after the RNC, the other starts with the DNC and proceeds through September. These periods represent long-term shifts of opinion. If you colored in blue all the bits where the blue line is above the red line, and did the same with red for the other way*, you would see that overall, there's still a hell of a lot more blue than red -- because the aftereffects of 47% is still seriously hurting Romney in this particular sample at least. So this chart should help explain why Obama still has a significant national lead in the RAND poll -- though it doesn't really explain the uptick in the horse race, so await future events on that.
I think that was sarcasm.Has he ever been wrong at this point?
Huh? At worst, it's a wash. Biden didn't fuck up, though.
Has he ever been wrong at this point?
wikipedia said:Prior to the 2002 midterm elections, where the Republican Party saw gains in both branches of Congress, Sabato's Crystal Ball website accurately predicted the outcome in 433 of the 435 contests for the House of Representatives and 32 of 34 Senate races.[8]
In 2004, which saw Republicans retain the White House and gain seats in the House and Senate, Crystal Ball correctly predicted the outcome of 525 of the 530 political races (99% accuracy), missing only one House race, one Senate race, one governor's race and two states in the Electoral College.[9]
In August 2006, Crystal Ball predicted that the Democrats would gain 29 seats in the House of Representatives and 6 seats in the Senate, providing them with a majority in both chambers. Sabato's predictions proved correct: each of his 33 Senate predictions were accurate, and in the House, Democrats gained 29 seats on election night, the precise total predicted by the Crystal Ball (Democrats would go on to pick up a 30th seat in the December 12, 2006 run-off in Texas' 23rd district).[10]
In July 2008, Crystal Ball correctly projected that Barack Obama would win the presidency in a near-landslide.[11] Sabato predicted a 364-174 margin in the Electoral College, as well as the popular vote percentages.[12] The prediction was merely one point off the mark, with the actual result on November 4, 2008 being Obama 365 and McCain 173. Crystal Ball also accurately predicted 100% of all 35 Senate races, and 11 gubernatorial races correctly.[13]
In 2006 Sabato was named the most accurate prognosticator by MSNBC, CNBC, and Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism. In 2006, Sabato was the only national analyst who correctly predicted the exact Democratic gains in Senate and House contests.[10]
makes sense. thanks.
have they been accurate in the past? did they focus on the last two election cycles at all?
I believe this is the first year for the RAND poll to do politics, though they have a lot of experience at doing other surveys. Nate Silver and Cohn seem to like it and think it's relatively solid.
So much riding on this debate, goddam. I better be on some anxiety pills haha.
So much riding on this debate, goddam. Diablos better be on some anxiety pills haha.
I think he shouldn't go anywhere near Biden-level,
@PollTracker
AZ President '12: Obama (D) 44.0% Romney (R) 42.0% (Oct. 10 - Rocky Mountain Poll) http://tpm.ly/TgziN1
Haha sure.da fuq
da fuq
surprise arizona win for the presidency!da fuq
What did I say, WHAT DID I SAYda fuq
fixed
Obama doesn't get anxious. Which might be a small problem!
DOGGAMIT
:O
THIS IS AWESOME
HOLY SHIT
KJFDNGSKJDFGSDF
That number should not be considered incontrovertible. It probably underestimated the effect. But I'll not belabor the point because everyone acknowledges the effect is positive. However, your second point is erroneous. McCain's ground game was typical of most presidential campaigns. The problem was the Obama campaign's considerable numeric and qualitative advantage. They not only had a larger organization, they leveraged their field offices to target specific constituencies. And Romney's organization is not far better than McCain's. Based on a cursory review, they are roughly comparable. What is evident, though, is Obama's advantage.The number will likely be the same this year. Romney's ground game is far better than McCain's, who literally had no ground game; at the time his camp was arguing that Obama was wasting money on an unproven strategy. The GOP is still behind in this area, but will do better than last time having acknowledged what happened in 2008.
And let's not forget unions aren't doing as much work for democrats this as they were in 2008.
Sabato's track record is impressive. But I wonder if there's anything he didn't predict correctly, i.e. 2000.
btw I am drinking coffee right now. No cigs.
surprise arizona win for the presidency!
da fuq
da fuq
There are always going to be good polls and bad polls.Hey what a coincidence. I'm drinking some coffee too.
I'm all amped up now. My heart is set to explode if someone posts a bad poll here.
That number should not be considered incontrovertible. It probably underestimated the effect. But I'll not belabor the point because everyone acknowledges the effect is positive. However, your second point is erroneous. McCain's ground game was typical of most presidential campaigns. The problem was the Obama campaign's considerable numeric and qualitative advantage. They not only had a larger organization, they leveraged their field offices to target specific constituencies. And Romney's organization is not far better than McCain's. Based on a cursory review, they are roughly comparable. What is evident, though, is Obama's advantage.
My mistake. I forgot that. Could you provide the data on this? I admit my perspective on union activity is skewed by my family. So I'm curious as to what the data indicates.
There are always going to be good polls and bad polls.
In 2016 we might see Arizona as a purple state. Texas probably not quite yet.Of course that's just a sign of things to come when Arizona and Texas go blue there will be no viable for way to the GOP presidency. I'd say what about 15 more years before this happens? Of course I expect Republicans explode and rebuild before that because there positions will lose them the presidency anyway as their older base begins to die off.
I'm not from Arizona and never will be. I'm not believing this until I see another pollster back it up but it's still nice to see another state on TPM's map move from Romney to toss-up. I want more polls of Florida that aren't from right-wing shills.Diablos said:We need more AZ polling. Must. have. more.
Anyone know how accurate these Rocky Mountain folks are? AZ gaffers?
@fivethirtyeight
Arizona poll showing Obama leading reminds me a bit of Hawaii polls showing Bush leading Gore late in 2000.
‏@fivethirtyeight
Sorry -- keep messing this up. It was 2004 when some Hawaii polls showed Bush leading Kerry (not Gore):
Hispanics in AZ could be hella mad at Brewer and taking it out on the GOP. IT COULD HAPPEN.
Basically: Calm the fuck down liberals
"Calm the fuck down liberals" should basically be the Democratic Parties slogan, because I've never seen as many undisciplined children gathered into one group. absolutely no self-control or understanding of political gamesmanship whatsoever
obama has a bad debate
liberals meltdown, making it a catastrophic debate
obama has a bad poll
liberals meltdown, feeding the media narrative and making it a worse poll
obama makes a political mistake
liberals meltdown, making the mistake irreversible