Romney +5 in 12-State Battleground Poll — USA Today/Gallup

Mitt Romney holds a 5-point lead, 51 to 46, among the Battleground States identified by USA Today which include my ten plus North Carolina and New Mexico.

The states in USA Today’s survey are: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.  This is huge for Romney because the only true red state is North Carolins and it is balanced by New Mexico’s inclusion.  So no state is unnecessarily skewing the results one way of the other and if anything the inclusion of Michigan and Pennsylvania unnecessarily help Obama. The most surprising takeaway is Romney support among the women surveyed was dead even at 48 a piece.  If it is anywhere near that on election day, look for a blowout with Romney carrying all of the above mentioned states:

Mitt Romney leads President Obama by five percentage points among likely voters in the nation’s top battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and he has growing enthusiasm among women to thank. As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48%, while he leads by 12 points among men.

“In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney” since his strong performance in the first debate, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says. “Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.” While Lake believes Obama retains an edge among women voters, the changed views of Romney could be “a precursor to movement” to the Republican candidate, she says. “It opens them up to take a second look, and that’s the danger for Obama.”

43 Comments

  1. TeaPartyPaul
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Crosstabs released yet?…also a very small sample for so many states “800+ likely voters”

  2. William Jefferson Jr.
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    His ads must be working with women in the swing states, who are seeing them. He should run some national ads and see what other states he can bring into play.

  3. Medicine Man
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This is nice. This will continue the positive narrative of the momentum the debate win has caused.

  4. jvnvch
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Great news. I just got home from voting for Romney and Ryan in Indiana, and I’m very confident they didn’t really need my vote here. Shouldn’t even be close this year, from everything I’ve seen and heard.

  5. M.Remmerde
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Anyone notice the ridiculous spin from the Team O pollster? Claiming that since Gallup’s likely voter model was off in 2010 mid-terms, so it must be off here. Trying to compare mid-term apples to general election oranges looks desperate. And trying to promote that somehow a registered voter makeup is going to be more accurate than a likely voter filter. Good luck with that, Team O.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted October 15, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

      True. Generic ballot surveys for midterm elections are almost worthless because many voters don’t even know what party their incumbent is. They just check the box next to the name they recognize; but when answering a generic ballot survey they are probably expressing approval for the party they want to see in power in Washington after the election.

  6. Eric
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Gallup showed bigger leads for Obama than what he got on election day in 2008, so it’s not like they are always wrong in the same direction.

  7. Tim
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Wait, so women like strong men who don’t stutter when trying to make a coherent point and who are obviously a leader? Knock me over with a feather.

  8. Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    No sense looking at a poll of swing states in aggregate when you have state polls out every day.

    • Medicine Man
      Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I knew Peter would show up around the time of the latest D+9 National Poll…like clockwork.

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        You need to let go of this party ID obsession, it’s not healthy. And it’s easily explained by Rs moving to the I column but still voting for Romney. Call it the Tea Party effect.

      • Keith W
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

        Peter
        Answer me this, if party id is easily explained by R’s moving to the I’s column, how do you explain the 2010 mid terms? That was at the height of the tea party, it WAS the tea party election. Yet the party id breakdown was 35D 35R 29I. So if R’s weren’t moving to the I’s column in 2010, how could extrapolate that they’re doing it in 2012?

      • Keith W
        Posted October 16, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        Still waiting Peter…

  9. valleyforge
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Today’s Battleground poll had Romney up 2 in the same states (Obama +1 nationally). This is a nice pushback to the false ABC/WP poll narrative of an Obama comeback.

    But it’s hard to square these two polls with the state-level polls showing Obama competitive or even leading in Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, NH, and Ohio. If Romney really is +2-5 in these 12 states then once you take out the known leaners like Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia, which roughly offset each other and account for 70% of the swing state population, then mathematically Romney has to be easily leading in the rest, including pivotal Ohio..

    • valleyforge
      Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sorry, Battleground leaves off Pennsylvania and New Mexico from their swing state subsample. That would imply Romney has a smaller than +2 lead in the full 12-state universe. So Gallup is out there on their own at the moment.

    • Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Don’t overanalyze this. This whole “the poll samples are rigged” routine is a bit silly. Just look at poll averages or, if you prefer, check one of the websites, like 538, that do a more statistical modeling. Once you go down the route of “this poll I’ll trust but this one I won’t” you only end up creating a false reality.

      Right now Obama is the favorite to win. That’s true of if you look at 538, or the Princeton Election Consortium, or the RCP averages, or one of the betting websites. Things can change, of course.

      • Keith W
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        No offense, but everytime I read one of your posts, all I can see in my head is Baghdad Bob. “Everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along….”

        I hope you won’t just disappear if things don’t go your way in November 6th.

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        I have no dog in this fight. I want Obama to win but if he loses it’s not the end of the world. You guys are the Baghdad Bobs by coming up with all sort of excuses as to why you can’t trust the polls. It happens every single election cycle, the losing party claims the polls are wrong, and then come election day the polls turn out to be right.

        Instead of this whole silliness of re weighting polls by you preferred party ID distribution, or inventing that Ras is the most accurate when he isn’t, just look at poll averages.

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        actually no the polls don’t turn out to be right. In fact in the 2008 what was it 3 were pretty much within a point and the rest were all over the map. Same with 04 and 2000. So no NOT ALL the polls are right.
        Generally Rasmussen, Pew have been neck and neck for best the last few years with a straggler here or there. Gallup is almost no where near the top.

        As for looking at Poll averages yes that is the best bet and Romney is winning that right now (national). But if you have 7 polls averaged in and 4 of them are pure outlier crap that skews the average. So yes the average of crap, mediocre and good are generally somewhere around fair.

        I am not one to try and say Pennsylvania is going to fall, Romney in a landslide. I am more likely to say at this point. Romney either wins Ohio or he is F’d. Because the odds he takes Nevada, Iowa and Colorado or Wisconsin and two of those three is next to slim and none.

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        shane, no need to make stuff up. Ras was off R+5 in 2010, and R+8 in 2000! Under no definition is Ras in the top. That’s just something right wingers have made up.

        Average of polls remains the best summary. Today’s RCP average has Romney +0.1%, so it’s a tie. And note that the poll average has been moving in Obama’s direction the last few days, Romney’s debate bounce is disappearing. More importantly RCP has Obama winning the Electoral College.

      • M.Remmerde
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        If you look, you’ll find that both RCP and 538 play the “this poll I’ll trust but this one I won’t” game extensively. Look at 538’s “Adjusted poll average”. 538 throws out a lot of polls and then does a weighting based on a 1-5 scale of the ones they do use. And also RCP does heavy filtering of its poll averages…very few polls actually get counted in the averages.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        I know Peter, you don’t have a dog in the race and you like Obama to win except u show up after 12 days after the debate. Intrade or Nates odds may favor and Obama win, but historically, for an incumbant being in the mid 40’s is not a good place. PerDogg has a great historical analysis regarding the popular vote and Ohio’s totals being LESS (than the total popular percentage wise) going back 40 years. If Obama doesn’t get above 50 percent from 46-47 when Romney is at 48-49 he won’t win. One thing that I am (if anything) is that I’m a realist. BO is at 50 percent at this moment to win the election. Tomorrow night will determine were he goes from there.

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

        uh yeah where was he in 04 and 08 PRESIDENTIAL? we all know he was way off in 2000 that was when he went back to the drawing board. 2010 he he overestimated as did many, including the RCP average.

        Right wingers have not made it up…it is called a fact. For the last 2 presidentials he was in the top 3 most accurate. And for the vaunted Nate Silver…his poll does certainly play the this poll over that poll as does RCP. Because some polls are better than others. Period. And when you have ABC News say Obama is up 2 but the poll of battlegrounds by USA Today has Romney up 5…gee where do we draw the line at good poll, bad poll.

        the answer is election day. the media will spin tomorrow as an Obama smash no question. they are hot to write the Obama comeback story and will harp it for the next 3 weeks. While covering up Libya and other issues within his administration.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

        Rass was created in 2003. They were not even around in 2000. I send the link once to Pete. I guess it doesn’t fit the template.

      • damien
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        straight off rasmussen website:

        Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. It was founded by Scott Rasmussen in 2003.

        so how he was off in 2000…is a question I await an answer

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Shane, at least you know what Ras did in 2000, maybe you can educate Damien and Medicine Man. And no, Ras was pretty bad in 2008, do you need the links for that?

    • jvnvch
      Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Scott Rasmussen co-founded a company called Rasmussen Research in 1994, and sold it in 1999. The name of the polling entity was changed by the new owner, as I recall, to Portrait of America, under which name presidential election polling was done in 2000. That company had and has nothing to do with Rasmussen Reports, which wasn’t founded until 2003, as noted elsewhere here.

      • jvnvch
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        By the way, most people don’t know that Scott Rasmussen co-founded a little enterprise called ESPN. He’s no dummy.

      • Posted October 15, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

        Incorrect jvn. Scott Rasmussen was the head of Portrait of America. He famously wrote the day before the 2000 election that Bush would win the popular vote in a landslide. He was so wrong he had to create a new company.

      • Medicine Man
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

        K. I stand corrected regarding Scott Rassmussen regarding being around to poll the presidential election. As a retort, if you look at his accuracy from ’04 and ’08 (apples to apples), he has really honed his methodology to being cited as ONE (not the only) the most accurate modern pollsters in presidential elections.

      • jvnvch
        Posted October 16, 2012 at 4:20 am | Permalink

        Peter, you seem to be under the impression Scott Rasmussen, Rasmussen Research, Portrait of America, and Rasmussen Reports are identical. I suppose that means you think ESPN and Scott Rasmussen are identical, also. Trust me, they are not.

  10. Sharpknife
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Peter, you’re way off. Ras had Party ID at R +1.3 in 2010 and it was R+0. I don’t see any history of 2000 in Ras’ Partisan ID history. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

  11. jpcapra1
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Peter is trying to convince himself with his posts, no one else. He still has not addressed the issue of obama writing off IN, NC and MO which were states he competed for last time. This is something no incumbent in recent memory has done. I can also tell you 0bama has been quietly re-allocating paid staff out of FL to OH. I know this because, I am ashamed to say, I have a cousin who is paid staff for them. He has only been here twice since the weekend immediately after his convention, both times for fundraisers.

    My point is the country, generally speaking, has moved away from obama, not toward him. It is improbable, although possible, that he will lose NC, FL, IN, win PA, MI and WI by considerbly less as well as most of the other states, and squeak out a win in OH or VA.

  12. jpcapra1
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I remember a year ago when dem operatives were talking about competing in GA and AZ. Now they are sending Jill Biden to MN and 0bozo is spending more time in WI than FL. How the mighty have fallen!

    • Kevin
      Posted October 16, 2012 at 1:20 am | Permalink | Reply

      I remember that now that you mention it. They thought they were going to compete in Georgia and/or Arizona due to demographics, boy were they way off. They also thought they had a chance to have another squeak by victory in North Carolina, why else did they hold their Convention in Charlotte.

      Now they’re fighting for their political lives in Colorado, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Ohio.

  13. Stephen
    Posted October 15, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, new PPP poll released in PA. O up 7, but D+11 and Women +10. How realistic!

    • jeff
      Posted October 15, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If its from ppp it means that they are really tied in PA. PPP is more propaganda than a legitimate polling firm.

    • Evan3457
      Posted October 15, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The turnout in PA in 2008 was D+7, and PPP thinks Obama will do +4 better in 2012. I don’t think so. Adjust the poll for the party ID and the PPP has Obama +3 or 4.

      • Evan3457
        Posted October 15, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        And that assumes the turnout from 2008 happens again. In 2004 it was D+2 in Pennsylvania. Split the difference, call it D+4.5, and the race in PA is Obama +1 or +2, which is in line with the other current polls in PA.

  14. Posted October 15, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So there’s now 5-6 polls showing PA being close (counting a PPP O+7 as really an O+2-3 or something with a proper sample weighting).

    Well, if PA is close, Ohio sure as hell isn’t in Obama’s column. Ohio is consistently 5-6% further Right than PA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: