Romney +1 in Iowa — Rasmussen

The latest from Rasmussen Reports in Iowa shows an airtight race with Mitt Romney leading 49 to 48:

Iowa remains neck-and-neck in the closing days of Election 2012, with Mitt Romney now showing a one-point lead. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Iowa Voters finds the Republican challenger with 49% support, while President Obama earns 48% of the vote. Two percent (2%) like someone else in the race, and one percent (1%) is undecided. The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Iowa was conducted on October 30, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points.

For President Percent
Barack Obama 48
Mitt Romney 49
Other 2
Undecided 1

52 Comments

  1. Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The Midwest looks to be really crucial here. I’m hoping Mitt pulls it out here, but it’s probably going to be close.

    • margaret
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I posted a link at the end of the previous threat to a Breitbart News article that shows Obama’s support among white Catholics has collapsed. Romney has a 14 point lead now according to Pew polling this week. Catholics, like most faith-based voters, fall in the very-likely-to-vote category, and the Midwest holds a big contingent of white Catholics. This is probably why OH early-voting is trending Romney, and they are moving to PA, MI and MN as well.

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

        That would make for a potentially decisive shift. I’m hoping for an early call for PA for Romney followed by a run through the Midwest. We’ll see if that theory pans out on Tuesday.

      • margaret
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

        So that’s why Biden has put out a new ad that he and Obama ‘share the values of the Catholics’ – which is a complete lie, It’s a desperate attempt to get back the white Catholic voters.

        Here’s a Lifesite news article about the ad:

        http://tinyurl.com/cmm54by

  2. Aaron
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith, I think I hit refresh a hundred times a day on your blog.

    • exe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      +1

    • displacedRhodeIslandConservative
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Agree. Used to be when I get home from work. Then a few times a day. Then on Iphone every hour or so….

  3. live_free290248
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

    While another poll released today (NBC/WSJ/Marist) shows Obama +6. So which one do we believe?

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      We believe Rasmussen, and the Marist IA poll wasn’t released today. Spreading false info = hidden dem troll.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        Is this thing a disease to call people with whom you might disagree, a troll? According to real clear politics, it was released today. Do you want a link?

      • damien
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

        he is just another concerned pubbie…um ya

    • Buckeye Bob
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The PPP and Marist polls continue to skew very much out of the norm. Nonetheless, with RCP’s inclusion of them, most of the state averages are trending Obama where PPP and Marist have polls included in the RCP average. Both PPP and Marist have had a big average of leads for Obama, with the latest being the Iowa poll by Marist showing a whopping 6 point lead. Again, it just illustrates the folly that the RCP poll of polls has become this year–biased pollsters using it to skew it their way–one poll with 6 point spread wipes out 4 polls that show a close race. RCP’s state averages have become less meaningful this year because of this, and that is a shame.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

        You cannot conclude the poll of polls is meaningless and the so-called “skew” makes it meaningless when the election has not yet occurred. After Nov. 6th, we can take stock of who was correct. I would bet the averages are better predictors of who will win than any single poll.

      • TeaPartyPaul
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

        NBC/WSJ/Marist D 34/R 31/I 34 D+3

        Iowa 2008 D+1 … 3 Times the turnout for Democrats in 2012 Iowa than 2008 …

        Hmmm…your turn Live_Free

      • Haus
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

        live_free you don’t seem to get it. Statistics 101 says that a poll/sample is supposed to be a sample of the population. In order to have a sample be “representative” of the population we expect to see some things in the poll that normalize the results to some of the knows about the population. None of these polls are doing that when they give results that are based on a D+10 sample when the population is knows to be D+4.

        If you take a poll that is DEM over weighted or REP over weighted then you will get skewed results. That is what is occurring in many cases

      • Dave Ped
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        What I have found very telling is look at the “red” states that are not considered swing such as MO, TX, TN etc. on RCP. They have all been moving further red from leaning to likely or likely to solid etc. There has been some real movement and RR average leads are huge even more than Bush 04 wins. It seems to me that states trend together somewhat even though the red states start out with a lead. There are no Marist, PPP, CBS crap polls in these non swing red states so there seems to be no average skew. I just want Tuesday to arrive.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

        “Statistics 101” seems to be a common phrase probably by people who do no have any concept of random sampling of a population and standard deviation. Let’s not even go there.

        Of course every poll is “over sampling” Ds which is another common theme for polls we don’t like. Now, if you truly understood statistics, you would know about LLN and its limits convergence.

      • Buckeye Bob
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

        The 1996 polls were probably the most embarrassing for any “major” pollster in the last 10 elections. For instance, the CBS/NY TImes final poll overstated Clinton’s margin by about 10 points. It is hard to dispute that in most, not all, elections, polls overstated the Democrats’ percentage versus the Republicans compared to the final results. In my opinion, the biased pollsters (Marist/PPP/NY Times)skew the polling averages, and thus make RCP Poll of Polls much less meaningful as they are bing “gamed” by such pollsters as PPP. Remember their Missouri Senate poll showing no loss in support for Akin with a out of whack Republican sample (so Akin could point to it as a reason to stay in the race). Reference state polls, you may be right that the RCP averages are the best indicator of the state races. My point is RCP doesn’t “throw out” any outliers, and treats them all the same. My guess is past proven biases or skews by particular polling agencies will once again be demonstrated in this election’s results. And yes, that does make the RCP averages less meaningful in predicting this year’s results.

      • exe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

        Live free – your LLN argument would hold if there was a balanced skew. In this case the skew seems to be sampling those that identify D at a higher rate than R or I. I tend to be a bit skeptical of the “over-sampling” argument but in general, it seems that there are very few polls where one could argue a skew in the favor of Rs.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

        exe, I have already made the point that you cannot gauge whether or not, that average is correct or incorrect because the election has not been held. If the numbers are wrong, a lot of polling companies will be tarnished. And I will be here bashing them with along with everyone else.

      • Evan3457
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

        We can conclude anything we like. So can you. We’ll see who’s right Tuesday night.

      • Pa John
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

        @ live free…there’s probably a Mother Jones blogs out there that will reassure you…or you could twit with Nancy Pelosi and Barney Fwank.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        Pa John, listening only to those with whom you agree distorts reality. You can count on one hand how many times I have visited Mother Jones website. By the way, your comment contributed nothing of substance.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

        Dave Ped, good point. Anyone else noticed at RCP how many already-red states have been added to “likely Romney” over the last couple of weeks? That bar was a lot skinnier 2 weeks ago, and the “lean” bar was much fatter. This has reversed.

    • TeaPartyPaul
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yea link me live_free…and put the indpendent vote cross tab and the D= shift if you could. I’ve seen it, i just want you to click crosstabs for whatever poll you quote.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

        You are saying you’ve seen and analyzed it, so there will be no need to link it. The points was that poll was also out today. Do you believe a single poll or do you believe multiples?

      • JGS
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        I think we all believe a single poll that makes sense in terms of the internals, over scads of polls that presume a 2012 electorate that is more Democratic even than in the wave election of 2008. Romney is winning independents; McCain lost them. Obama had huge African-American and youth turnout in 2008; will that be replicated? My hunch — not.

      • JR
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

        Think the difference is in the point of the polls. PPP, Q and Marist etc. just plug in 2008 turnout modeling and apply it to 2012. I think they do this so they can be “scientific” in an agnostic sense and claim to be totally impartial, but also knowing how it will shape their preferred outcomes of oversampling Ds for 2012. Until now (Nov 1) polls are released to make news every bit as much as to take a snapshot of the current horse race.

        Other polls actually attempt to be predictive for 2012 and make educated guesses using additional inputs and observations beyond just 2008. PPP & Marist can claim they’re just guided by good science, but there are enough signals (other data, observations and common sense) to know that their methodology is not in any way predictive of what will actually occur. I’m interested to see if they “re-calibrate” their modeling to save face and at least get within the MoE.

    • zang
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Marist seems fundamentally flawed based on its unbelievably early voter numbers, which far exceed that actual documented hard count from Iowa’s SOS. Obama will be back to Iowa for more campaigning. That ought to tell you whether he’s really up six or if its within the margin of error.

      • Evan3457
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Bingo. If he was up 6 in Iowa, or anything close to it, he’d be in other states.

  4. SpiritOF1776
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Rasmussen.

  5. JGS
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s the Marist poll. It has D+3 voter ID. Keith already decimated this poll earlier this morning (link second below). Long story short, actual voter ID in 2008 was D+1, and 2004 was R+3. So a poll with 2 points more D support than in the wave election of 2008 is highly unlikely to be accurate. IA is going to be very close.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/Iowa_poll.pdf

    http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/11/01/marist-you-magnificent-bastard/

  6. Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Real Clear Politics has Obama widening his lead in New Hampshire based on a NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that shows him +2, along with the democrat PPP at +2 and a poll from “New England College” showing him +3. RCP now shows Obama up 0.1 nationally based mostly on the strength of a poll from National Journal (!) showing Obama up by five points.

    I really think Real Clear Politics has jumped the shark this electon. They will throw a poll in from anyone as if it was as valid as one from an established polling agency.

    That being said, has this hurricane helped Obama that much in the polls? Will the pictures of him nuzzling Chris Christie on the beach get him reelected? This is too absurd to contemplate.

    • zang
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That NJ poll is the saddest joke of all. A sample of 700 quickly slapped together wipes out Gallup’s tracker of 3000 LV

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well clearly, the golden era of poll aggregators well have sailed its ship as a result of this election, if the results are what we expect. What will replace it is a healthy respect for RDI, and it’s amazing accuracy at predicting election outcomes.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The thing with RCP is, if you’re gonna average, then average ALL polls, no matter how stupid. A dumb Repub poll will cancel out a dumb Dem poll and hopefully you’ll get something resembling reality.

      Instead we get dumb Dem polls like PPP loaded into RCP but very few Republican-leaning polls.

      • Beef
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

        I had an email exchange with Sean Trende a couple of years ago, and that’s the point he made, that all the bias would cancel out. But most of the bias appears to be pro-Obama, as many of the polls come from university or democrat media groups. People who make their living polling have to have some credibility. New England College is not going to go broke because their polls were wrong. I think to be valid, a poll aggregator needs to weigh the past accuracy of a polling agency as well as apply some standards as to sample size and weighting factors. Outliers and amateurs should be dimissed. RCP’s product has lost any real value.

    • Freddie
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Real Clear Politics is a joke now. I never go there.

  7. TeaPartyPaul
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If Gallups LV tracker comes out tomorrow +3 or better we are in great shape.

  8. Dean
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I posted this on another thread, but in case folks missed it, here is the Iowa polling from 2008. Ras (averaging his two) hit the number on the mark. The rest were completely over the mark for Obama. This is especially interesting, in my opinion, because other state polls did not reflect the Obama wave in 2008 and underpolled him.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_mccain_vs_obama-209.html#polls

    If – and its a big if – the polls are off again this year, this makes Iowa a state that might fall to Romney by several points.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yea, I found that interesting. Nevada too, all way overpolled but Suffolk, who nailed it. I would think a better model or guess of which polls to take is to go state by state, find the pollsters that were within 2% in ’08 of the final result in that state along, and then only average them for ’12 in that state alone.

  9. John
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If the President did get a bump out of storm recovery today’s headlines may reverse that rather quickly (a sampling from Drudge below). He deserves neither the blame nor the credit for most of these things but ultimately people’s perception translates into feelings about the person at the top. I think whatever bounce he received will soon fade and may reverse as the situation on the ground in NYC gets out of control…

    Hungry Resort to Dumpster Diving in NYC
    Gas Shortages May Not End for Another Week
    ‘You’re not getting gas tonight’
    Some Siphoning From Cars!
    Troopers deployed to gas stations
    Darkness for Many until Nov 11th or Longer
    Fear Turns to Frustration, Anger
    Fistfights, Guns Drawn
    NYC Official: Red Cross ‘Absolute Disgrace’
    Looters Dress Like Con Edison Workers to Gain Access to Houses

    • Medicine Man
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      +5

      • TheTorch
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

        Yes that photo op may prove not so great after all. Because now he owns the issue. As Kevin Dujan from Hillbuzz pointed out, people will have little patience when they see the slowness of a unionised workforce and bloated goverment enterprise like FEMA, try to respond!

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So is it too early to say “Christie you magnificent bastard!”??

      • TheTorch
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

        ahaha. I think Christie did himself no favours, and the President always has a tendency to overplay his hand. Any benefit if there was one, will soon disipate, if people dont see real results and quickly. I think the Pres, forgot that bit…

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Is there no national guard for the President to deploy?

  10. TheTorch
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Good article on Breitbart, dont know if its been posted here, but worth checking out: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/01/Eight-reasons-Pro-Obama-Polls-Are-Wrong

    The last bit is also exactly how I see it too:

    In my opinion, and the data backs me up, there’s simply no question that these pro-Obama pollsters are living on another planet if they believe Obama’s going to best or come close to his 2008 turnout advantage. And yet, that’s what most every poll showing Obama up assumes. Regardless, we’ll know for certain on Election Day when Virginia closes at 7pm. If it’s close or Obama wins, we’re in for a long night. But if Romney wins Virginia by 5 points or more, we all need to tune to MSNBC and enjoy the show.

    • Evan3457
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Well, nearly every poll showing Obama up in the battleground states shows this. There are a few exceptions, but not many.

  11. Jan
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I´ve posted this yesterday in some thread, but I´ll put it here too as we´re discussing Iowa and it gives the chance to update for yesterdays numbers:

    Ok, so I’ve been playing with the Iowa numbers a bit. Here’s what we know from 2008:
    (an inactive registered voter (RV) means that mail from the state government does gets returned, so the State is not sure whether the person still lives in the state, but the person is still registered to vote)

    2008 statistics
    RV october 2008: 36D-29R-36I
    RV active october 2008 :35D-30R-35I
    Party ID actual voters: 37D-32R-31I
    Absentee/Early votes: 46D-29R-25I (nominal gap: 94K vote advantage Democrats)
    Breakdown Independents: 56D-41R (+15 Dem)
    Final numbers: D54%-R44% (nominal gap: 146,561 vote advantage Obama)

    Based on the records of Iowa I get this for 2012:
    2012 statistics
    RV october 2012: 32D-31R-37I
    RV active october 2008: 32D-33R-35I
    Party ID actual voters: ?
    Absentee/Early votes till now: 44D-32R-24I (nominal gap: 61k advantage D)
    Breakdown Independents: ? out of 3 recent polls Romney is up 12 points in one poll and behind 2 and 4 points in the other two. Although mixed results, all very different from 2008.

    2008 Vote on election day:
    D= 318,273 (32,41%)
    R=334,356 (34,05%)
    I=329,434 (33,55%)
    Total= 982,063

    RV 2012 compared to 2008
    D= -44,320
    R= +55,991
    I= +20,297

    RV active 2012 compared to 2008
    D= -74,534
    R= +35,178
    I= -16,747

    Turnout 2008 (of the number of RV):
    D=78,2%
    R=80,07%
    I=61,26%

    -Assume the early vote gap is 70,000 at the end in favor of the Democrats
    -Assume crossover is 0 (more likely that crossover will favor Romney, but ok)
    -Assume Indies break even for Romney/Obama (an average of recent polls shows Indies will probably break for Romney, but ok)
    -Assume turnouts are going to be same (more likely turnout will be better for republicans in 2012, but ok)

    Then the difference in (active) RV compared to 2008 should be enough to cling Iowa:
    Reps +45,184 and Dems -34,658 = 79,842 Net gain. Means: 9,842 votes up after closing the EV-gap.

    Numbers from yesterday 10/31:

    Ballots cast:
    Dems +8,968
    Reps +8,403
    Inds +7,927

    Previous gap: 61,195 (531,996)
    Updated gap: 61,755 (557,432)

    Doubtful if they’ll even get to a 70,000 EV margin..

    So I’d say, things don’t look too bad in Iowa at all…

    • Dean
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I read that earlier, but did again now.

      Interesting. Nice work.

One Trackback

  1. […] Read the whole story at BattlegroundWatch […]

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: