Romney opens 5 point lead over Obama

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-virginia-ohio-polls-poll-obama-romney-swing-state-2012-9

 

In the Fox poll, Obama holds 7-point leads in both Ohio and Virginia, while his Florida advantage stands at 5 points.

 

Some key numbers from the polls:

 

Continuing the disturbing trend for Romney in recent polling, Obama leads Romney in all three states on the issue of improving the economy and creating jobs. In Ohio, he leads Romney on the issue by an astounding 7 points.

 

In Florida, Obama leads Romney by 13 points on "protecting Medicare and making sure it's there for future generations."

 

In all three states, more voters now say that Obama's policies have helped the economy than hurt it.

 

In all three states, Obama's approval rating sits at or above the "safe" 50-percent level for re-election.

 

A positive for Romney: He's winning among Independents in Ohio. A negative for Romney: He's losing among Independents in the other two states.

[dayman]

7 points behind in a state he wins independents in ... and it's a battle ground?

[B-Man]

7 points behind in a state he wins independents in ... and it's a battle ground?

 

 

So (of course) unless dems outnumber GOP voters by a huge amount (which they don't)

 

The numbers don't add up........do they?

 

 

 

 

.

[fjl2nd]

So (of course) unless dems outnumber GOP voters by a huge amount (which they don't)

 

The numbers don't add up........do they?

 

 

 

 

.

 

So, have you always disregarded polls or there something now that makes you completely ignore them? Recent history has shown polling to be pretty accurate.

 

 

 

I just read through the Ohio and the Virginia polls. Democrats do outnumber Republicans and in each, but what makes the difference is that Democrats are much more behind their guy.

 

25% of Romney supporters are only voting for him out of dislike of Obama. More Republicans are also voting for Obama than Democrats voting for Romney.

Edited September 20, 2012 by fjl2nd

[B-Man]

So, have you always disregarded polls or there something now that makes you completely ignore them? Recent history has shown polling to be pretty accurate.

 

Few things are static fjl,

 

if they are changing the way they are polling (for either side), then certainly we should question their accuracy accordingly.

 

and as to their past accuracy, most folks always cite their final polling data, and I spoke to that in post #560

 

Thanks.

.

[OCinBuffalo]

As the leader of the "polls are oversampling" school here in this thread(look back about 20 pages).....I can say that they will just keep doing it. But, it's not designed to "tamp down the R vote".

 

These polls themselves contain both the problem and the attempted solution to it. The problem is low D enthusiasm. The solution is: attempt to shore up that enthusiasm by projecting Obama as the winner. "Come on down to the polling place, and vote for the winning team" is the pitch.

 

That pitch is not for Rs at all. How could it be? The intended audience of this pitch is the white, working D, who has voted D their whole life, but who also thinks Obama = Carter. Reagan Democrats. These ladies and gentleman stay home in the numbers being suggested by these polls? Massacre. But, the flip side of this whole thing? Oversampling of Democrats could also mean oversampling of enthusiasm problems.

 

Reagan already proved that polls, in this economic environment, mean less than nothing. He was down 47-39 in October. The country is ready to fire Obama, just like they were ready to fire Carter. All Romney needs to do is apply for the job and have a good interview in the debates.

 

Thus, I refuse to bet anything based on the polls. In fact, forget the polls altogether and look at the behavior of the campaigns:

 

1. Romney has changed nothing: he is still running to capture the 5-10% independents. He just got done saying so with his "I can't get 47% of the country to vote for me, because they rely on the government, so I have to get the 5-10%" comment. The second part is the real message here. When the liberal media gets done yammering....they will have missed the point: Romney doesn't care if he offends the 47%, because he feels comfortable closing in on the last 5% of votes that will put him over the top, and he's not doing anything to piss them off. He must have data that suggests this course = win. Or, he's an idiot. We'll see which is true.

 

2. Obama has changed nothing: he is still trying to shave off 5k votes in this county in Iowa here and 10k over here in this little demographic over here. Each week it's another little packet of votes: this week was the autoworkers in Ohio. He also hopes that he will be able to "gin up" the same amount of anti-Romney sentiment as there is anti-Obama on the right. He hopes that he can put all these little packet of votes together, and that the sum will = a squeak by Romney. This is the same strategy he has been using for a year.

 

IF "THE POLLS" really were changing....we'd be seeing a change in behavior from both of these guys. We aren't, because the REAL data hasn't changed. It's still a tie, and most people are waiting for the debates.

 

The Democrats/Media commissioned 80+ polls this month....that's a record. Why? Because they are trying to inundate the market and shore up the enthusiasm of Ds. "So many polls saying the same thing".

 

Look....just like with gay marriage, some people are wise enough to see what is happening....and others...aren't. Talking about polls right now puts you in the latter group.

[1billsfan]

http://www.businessi...ng-state-2012-9

 

In the Fox poll, Obama holds 7-point leads in both Ohio and Virginia, while his Florida advantage stands at 5 points.

 

Some key numbers from the polls:

 

Continuing the disturbing trend for Romney in recent polling, Obama leads Romney in all three states on the issue of improving the economy and creating jobs. In Ohio, he leads Romney on the issue by an astounding 7 points.

 

In Florida, Obama leads Romney by 13 points on "protecting Medicare and making sure it's there for future generations."

 

In all three states, more voters now say that Obama's policies have helped the economy than hurt it.

 

In all three states, Obama's approval rating sits at or above the "safe" 50-percent level for re-election.

 

A positive for Romney: He's winning among Independents in Ohio. A negative for Romney: He's losing among Independents in the other two states.

 

I have no idea what's going on at Fox News. With this poll they're well on their way to becoming MSNBC light. These Fox polls gave dems a 6-7 point built-in advantage by oversampling using the 2008 model.

 

Keep it up and you can say goodbye to your ratings Fox.

[B-Man]

Some food for thought for the "its all over crowd";

 

 

 

 

 

This lists the races where incumbent presidents sought re-election since 1968.

 

It then shows how those races broke between two weeks after the incumbent president’s convention and Election Day. On average, they moved 3.7 points toward the challenger (positive numbers indicate movement in that direction; negative numbers show movement toward the incumbent). If you eliminate 1976, as Cohn suggests (since Jerry Ford was a pseudo-incumbent), the average movement is six points toward the challenger.

 

Indeed with the exception of 1992 -- a difficult race from which to draw conclusions given Ross Perot’s on-again/off-again participation in the race -- every contest with an incumbent has broken at least three points toward the challenging party from this point in the race through Election Day.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/20/state_of_the_race_part_2_why_romney_wins_115513-2.html

[John Adams]

Cool statistical breakdown B-Man. Let's hop eit's true. God knows Romney is used to being in 2nd and fighting back. That was the neverending story of the primary.

[/dev/null]

Cool statistical breakdown B-Man. Let's hop eit's true. God knows Romney is used to being in 2nd and fighting back. That was the neverending story of the primary.

Romney was the pre-determined nominee before the primaries even began.

 

The Iowa primary (3 way tie) was like UAB scoring on the opening drive against Alabama. The Dragons and Bayou Bengals shouldn't get their hopes up

Edited September 20, 2012 by /dev/null

[John Adams]

Romney was the pre-determined nominee before the primaries even began.

 

The Iowa primary (3 way tie) was like UAB scoring on the opening drive against Alabama. The Dragons and Bayou Bengals shouldn't get their hopes up

 

Thank you Tin Foil hat contingent. Romney did not have an easy primary.

[/dev/null]

Thank you Tin Foil hat contingent. Romney did not have an easy primary.

 

It wasn't a cakewalk but from New Hampshire on he was the clear favorite. The only thing making it look like a contest was the media who wanted the horserace because cakewalks don't bring in the ratings

[B-Man]

Despite the narrative of the left, and the media (but I repeat myself) the trend continues towards Mr. Romney.

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

 

 

 

Election 2012 Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney

 

Among registered voters

 

Obama Romney

 

09/13-19/2012 47% 47%

 

 

 

09/12-18/2012 47% 46%

 

 

09/11 - 17/2012 47% 46%

09/10-16/2012 48% 45%

09/9-15/2012 48% 45%

09/8-14/2012 49% 45%

09/7-13/2012 49% 44%

09/6-12/2012 50% 44%

09/5-11/2012 50% 43%

09/4-10/2012 50% 44%

 

 

and, yes, this certainly could be wrong also......................

 

and (eventually) if the trend continues,you will see it reflected on the electoral college map (where it really counts)

 

 

My point in posting this latest one is to demonstrate how hollow the Romney's falling way behind" meme that many here are swallowing.

 

.

Edited September 20, 2012 by B-Man

[C.Biscuit97]

Let me guess. Whoever really cares about these polls loves preseason power rankings as well.

[Koko78]

1. Romney has changed nothing: he is still running to capture the 5-10% independents. He just got done saying so with his "I can't get 47% of the country to vote for me, because they rely on the government, so I have to get the 5-10%" comment. The second part is the real message here. When the liberal media gets done yammering....they will have missed the point: Romney doesn't care if he offends the 47%, because he feels comfortable closing in on the last 5% of votes that will put him over the top, and he's not doing anything to piss them off. He must have data that suggests this course = win. Or, he's an idiot. We'll see which is true.

 

2. Obama has changed nothing: he is still trying to shave off 5k votes in this county in Iowa here and 10k over here in this little demographic over here. Each week it's another little packet of votes: this week was the autoworkers in Ohio. He also hopes that he will be able to "gin up" the same amount of anti-Romney sentiment as there is anti-Obama on the right. He hopes that he can put all these little packet of votes together, and that the sum will = a squeak by Romney. This is the same strategy he has been using for a year.

 

1.) So you're saying that Romney should not worried about offending the 47% of the population that either A.) Isn't going to vote or B.) Isn't going to vote for him? Preposterous! Offending delicate liberal sensibilities is just inhuman and racist!

 

2.) It should probably be noted that Obama is following the same strategy that he did in the 2008 primaries against Hillary. That's why he beat her; he took advantage of the process to select delegates to its fullest extent. It will be interesting to see if that strategy can actually work with the Electoral College. Especially since he doesn't have a record he can run on.

[OCinBuffalo]

1.) So you're saying that Romney should not worried about offending the 47% of the population that either A.) Isn't going to vote or B.) Isn't going to vote for him? Preposterous! Offending delicate liberal sensibilities is just inhuman and racist!

I would never say that any candidate, on either side should not be worried, under any circumstances. I get your joke....but, still

What's really preposterous...is the media continues to miss this point: the only people Romney may have offended...are within that 47% anyway. And, the enthusiasm gap suggests there's no way all of them show up. Perhaps it's time for the media to start reading their own polls?

2.) It should probably be noted that Obama is following the same strategy that he did in the 2008 primaries against Hillary. That's why he beat her; he took advantage of the process to select delegates to its fullest extent. It will be interesting to see if that strategy can actually work with the Electoral College. Especially since he doesn't have a record he can run on.

Hmm....

 

Interesting analysis here. I hadn't thought of it this way. Yes, it is sorta similar. The difference being that individual votes are a lot more granular, and heterogeneous than delegates. But still, the concept of divide an conquer by winning 4-6/10 in each little group, and hoping that you get more 6/10 than 4/10 and win by <1%, is relatively the same.

 

The problem is, you end up with a whole lot of "the other" 5/10 = pissed off Hillary people. That's because this strategy is doomed to keep your opponent in the race, just like it kept Hillary in the race, right until the end. Ask Pasta Joe: he's still butthurt about Hillary to this very day. Hillary hung around, and gained almost as much support as Obama. It's OK for a primary.

 

But in a general? No way. That's why I say: Even if Obama wins, he will be 4 year lame duck. Romney/Republican House and Senate candidates are hanging around, just like Hillary did. In a weird way, Obama winning may actually be the worst thing for the Democrats, in terms of their agenda. I know that sounds crazy but 4 years of "Obama is clinging to the agenda" WILL cause a scrutinization of that agenda, on a daily basis. This is a lot to risk....just to preserve a law in Obamacare that 65% of the country dislikes. It virtually guarantees a loss/major concession on every other issue, just to stay relevant, or dare I say: in office.

 

This strategy also virtually guarantees a Republican Senate as a result. Because...how can their be coattails in a <1%, scorched earth victory? But, does anyone think Obama truly cares about what happens to his fellow Democrats?

 

Let me guess. Whoever really cares about these polls loves preseason power rankings as well.

hehehe

 

exactly. It's not that they are all completely wrong....it's just that they aren't capable of showing us the little things that ultimately makes one team win vs another. Those things aren't clear until the season really starts...in this case, the debates are the "real" season.

 

This is true because of the nature of this election, the economic conditions, etc.

[DC Tom]

1.) So you're saying that Romney should not worried about offending the 47% of the population that either A.) Isn't going to vote or B.) Isn't going to vote for him? Preposterous! Offending delicate liberal sensibilities is just inhuman and racist!

 

The problem isn't the 47% of people who need the government to take care of them and wouldn't vote for Romney regardless. The real problem is the 10% or so that don't need the government to take care of them, but think it's the government's job to be everybody's mommy anyway, and now see Romney as an uncaring ogre who drinks babies' blood and kicks puppies.

 

Don't blame the davenport spuds for supporting the people that enable their couch-potatoness. Who the hell wouldn't. Blame the idiots that think people should be coddled.

[OCinBuffalo]

The problem isn't the 47% of people who need the government to take care of them and wouldn't vote for Romney regardless. The real problem is the 10% or so that don't need the government to take care of them, but think it's the government's job to be everybody's mommy anyway, and now see Romney as an uncaring ogre who drinks babies' blood and kicks puppies.

 

Don't blame the davenport spuds for supporting the people that enable their couch-potatoness. Who the hell wouldn't. Blame the idiots that think people should be coddled.

This is the real question: how many of these...."do gooders"? show up for the election, how many were already voting for Obama anyway, and therefore aren't "swing voters" in any sense of the word, and how many vote in general? And of course, how many are real independents....vs those who just say they are...because they don't want to tell a stranger they are Democrats, for any number of reasons. That's why "independent" is always a range....5-10%....rather than a fixed number.

 

These are the little things that these polls have no chance of telling us right now.

[TheMadCap]

This is the real question: how many of these...."do gooders"? show up for the election, how many were already voting for Obama anyway, and therefore aren't "swing voters" in any sense of the word, and how many vote in general? And of course, how many are real independents....vs those who just say they are...because they don't want to tell a stranger they are Democrats, for any number of reasons. That's why "independent" is always a range....5-10%....rather than a fixed number.

 

These are the little things that these polls have no chance of telling us right now.

 

Of course, I have no evidence to back this up, but my feeling is that Romney's statement on 47% will mean %$#&-all to those who are really independant...

[Nanker]

Things must be getting desperate in the Dem quarters. They started the campaign trying to "Kill Romney" and they haven't stopped. He's like Superman and they have no Kryptonite. Dog - nope, Horse - nope, Divorce - nope, Medical Insurance - nope, Killing women - nope, Vulture capitalism - nope. The debates haven't started and it's still a horse race. If Romney does well in them - and he will have to do that - he can win this thing. That's got the Dems in a frothing lather. Their guy sucks and all they can do is deflect. He doesn't know how to build anything except mountains of debt.

 

The President is a failure. His wonderful centerpiece of statesmanship - his Middle East policy - is burning daily and the vision of the sodomized and suffocated American ambassador to Libya is tucked away next to those of Bin Laden. The Muslims there don't hate us because of a movie, they hate us because they !@#$ing hate us. It's that simple. They don't like Jews, they don't like us.

 

I want to see the BO fanboys posting here when he releases the Blind Sheik after the election and support that move as a peace offering to the inflamed middle east.

 

BO is a !@#$ing disaster as a President. No, we don't have it "good", and yes, you're bad - really bad.