Romney – Obama Dead Heat in Wisconsin, 2% Undecided — Rasmussen

The latest from Rasmussen Reports in Wisconsin shows it is anybody’s race at this point:

Wisconsin which may prove to be the key to the entire presidential contest remains a tie less than a week before Election Day. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Wisconsin Voters finds President Obama and Mitt Romney each earning 49% support. Two percent (2%) remain undecided.  Wisconsin remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. Obama carried Wisconsin by a 56% to 42% margin in 2008.

The race in the Badger State was also tied last week after the president has led there in most surveys since October of last year. During that time, Obama has earned 44% to 52% of the vote, while Romney’s support has ranged from 41% to 49%.


  1. Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In 2008 Ras predicted Obama would win WI by 7. Final result? O+ 14!

    • Porchlight
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is an easy one. Pollsters are always fighting the last war. In 2008 they underestimated Dem support because they were relying too much on 2004 turnout models (Bush narrowly lost WI in 2004, so Ras was likely keying off that). In 2012 they are underestimating Repub support because they are relying too heavily on 2008 turnout models.

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

        actually the correct answer is Ras is almost always wrong and has a consistent GOP bias, even in 2010!

      • Peter Pan
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Ras has so much of a GOP bias that he is using a D+ sample even though his party ID poll shows a R lead

    • Bryan
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Ras published that poll on 10/23, two days before Strategic vision had a poll showing O+9. Strategic Vision had another poll a week later showing O+13. You can criticize Ras for not polling closer to election day, but criticizing him b/c a poll released 10-14 days before an election, where other polls showed significant movement during that time, seems misplaced.

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        I agree Bryan. That Peter thinks a poll ten days before the election is a prediction shows he does not understand polling.

    • Philanthropic_Extortinist
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      PP, how worried are you about Romney winning this election? I mean, why else would you be lurking on this site?

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

        what’s the fun in being in an echo chamber?

      • Philanthropic_Extortinist
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

        Touche! I’m here because I hate the stress and this is my warm fuzzy blanket.

    • Dean
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Iowa looks most interesting, based on a few tight numbers. If you look at the RCP averages in 2008, there seems to be some major problems. Pollsters change, like Ras did in 2004 where he was very good from a dismal 2000, so maybe this is nothing, but it is glaring.

      If you add the fact that early voting has been different in 2012 compared to 2008 there, we might be seeing something in Iowa, a state many thought was O’s even if he was running against the reincarnation of President Reagan.

    • Brad
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You keep clinging to that idea, Peter. In the meantime, let’s vote and see where we are at next Tuesday.

    • Yong
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Peter, Ras was close on the recall. He had Walker up 5 and he won by 7. Ground game may boost to 7. That same Gotv and Ryan will make difference.

    • Pa John
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He must be part of a deep rooted right wing conspiracy to destroy life for 47%ers.

  2. TTK
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Governor Scott Walker won by 9% in the recall election. There’s no way O is going to win Wisconsin.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Not only is Obama going to win, it won’t even be very close.

      • AJ
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

        Good morning peter, our friendly nay sayer!

      • JimmyB
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

        Is that why O is there today and coming back before next Tuesday? If his internals said ‘it won’t even be very close”, wouldn’t his time be better spent elsewhere?

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

        good morning, hope Sandy spared you!

      • Keith W
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

        Good lord Peter….So we’ve got Scott Walker, who 5 mos ago, won the recall by almost 10pts when the dem polls were showing Barrett winning, we have Reince Preibus as the chair of the RNC and we have a very popular congressman in Paul Ryan as the VP candidate.

        Yet Obama is going to the state to campaign a couple days before the election and he’s gonna win the state in a blowout….Now you’re just trolling

      • Medicine Man
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

        “Obama is going to win and it won’t even be close”. I guess that’s why he is campaigning in a state he won by double digits in ’08 the last week of 12….right….

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        keithw, not blowout, but not 1% either. Obama will win WI.

        By the way, wherever did you get that the polls had Walker losing? That’s simply not true. Note that the average of polls predicted the outcome pretty well.

      • kyle
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Seems like Peter has a good life

      • Interested Party
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

        You’re just trolling. Why was O in Milwaukee today? They need to drive up the Milwaukee vote. The mayor of Denver had it right–O’s turnout machine in WI isn’t getting it done. The R’s just won two elections with intense D opposition, and you’re saying it won’t even be close? In Dane County perhaps…

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

        why was O in WI? Why does a team continue playing when they are ahead with 4 min to go?

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

        Marquette was most accurate in the recall. However, it is volatile this month. It had Obama up 1 and then up 8 in 2 weeks. LV screen seems to be lax. Most polls had O up 2. Ras is stable and slight rise to Mitt winning Wis. R has better ground game (walker,Ryan,RNC) than Obama.

      • bks
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

        Interested Pary: Romney was in Florida yesterday and Bill Clinton is doing five rallies there today. Of the last ten polls Obama won 4, Romney won 4 and there were two ties. Florida is now more of a tossup than Virginia and way, way closer than Ohio.


      • Keith W
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

        The exit polls.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

        Not very surprising that PPP was able to score -4 off the Republican margin in WI. That’s probably about the reality check of how wrong PPP will be across the board for ’12. It’s one thing to be wrong on margin, but for a pollster to poll more support than a candidate actually receives, well, that’s just plain old lame. Yet that is what PPP did in Wisconsin, polled Barrett with more support than he actually got in the vote.

    • Dean
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Those polls posted by Peter show exactly what everyone is talking about in this election. The PPP polls showed a slight enthusiasm gap in voting for Walker over Barrett. They polled Walker by three. Marquette showed a 15% enthusiasm gap and were right on the number. PPP was terrible.

      This election, in almost every poll, we see an enthusiasm gap in favor of Romney, but only Pew, Ras and Gallup have it in their poll findings. The ridiculous National Journal poll is the worst (O+5), showing D enthusiasm higher than 2008. I don’t even think Katy Perry or Michael Moore think that will happen.

      This election is near dead even when looking at any rational poll. It’s closer than 2004, where turnout was the elephant in the room.


    • TTK
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Peter: “Why was O in WI? Why does a team continue playing when they are ahead with 4 min to go?”

      Team O continues to campaign in Wisconsin because they know they’re behind. They also know that the other team has Wisconsin’s favorite son, namely Ryan.

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

      Gumby Palco is in his own personal echo chamber.

  3. Bob San Diego
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Mostly, people here are going by the numbers.

    If you believe the Dems will turn out like they did in 2008 (or close to it) President Obama will be re-elected.

    Most of us here think that’s unlikely, which is why most of us don’t trust the top line of the polls that you see.

    To me, I see it this way – Romney will get all the states we’ve been talking about as done (FL,VA, NC).

    I think he’ll take Colorado and Iowa and lose Nevada.

    That leaves Romney at 263 with Ohio, Wisconsin and New Hampshire left.

    If I’m right, I don’t see why he’s doubling down on New Hampshire late, even if it may affect ME-2.

    There’s just not enough EV there to make a difference.

    • JGS
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Because if he loses IA and OH, but wins WI, he’s at 267 (your 263 – 6 for Iowa = 257, plus Wisconsin’s 10 = 267) and still needs NH (or NV or some other state, ME-2 won’t do it).

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If he loses Iowa and Ohio. Taking FL/VA/NC/CO is at 257. Romney can win WI and NH and be at 271

      The worst case scenario is taking FL/VA/NC/CO plus the two states closest in the polls right now, NH and IA, gets Romney to 267.

      If things point to that we will all be looking at Nevada.

  4. M. White
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Have you seen Obama this morning in Green Bay, WI….wearing his Commander In Chief leather jacket with Air Force One on the other side? Also, he is has changed his stump speech, being more bi-partisan, touting his willingness to reach out to Republicans, playing up the storm…makes me sick to my stomach, even more so pissed at Christie. He could have given thanks for the help and told Obama it would be just too much interruption during clean up efforts for him to tour the damage. I have lost all respect for Christie!!! He knows better regardless of the storm. Obama wasn’t going to deny funds or help for NJ as bad as the storm was, people would have been outraged…so still don’t understand the romance all of a sudden? I am completely baffled especially this close to an election that is critical for our country. I will never support Christie…ever. If he were to be a nominee at some point, will never vote for him. You can be thankful without throwing your candidate and party under the bus! Federal dollars would have flowed in there regardless!

    • JGS
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Quite agree.

    • NS
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree with your assessment, but I think not many folks will watch stump speeches. People who watch them vote for him anyway.

    • Dave
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Christie needs to learn that you dance with the one who brought you. If he thinks this helps is reelection prospects he’s mistaken. As soon as the dems can find a reasonably charismatic democrat who isn’t a Corozine wannabe to run against him, he’s toast..toast with NJ and toast with republicans.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Christie = the next Charlie Crist!

    • CP
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree on Christie. That said, when I lay aside my emotional ups and downs, my reason suggests that most Americans are going to vote on the economy next week, and Obama is indefensible in that regard.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Christie is a traitor and will be purged after a Romney victory. He could have conducted himself like Cuomo has done quietly and getting the job done. He could have maintained a respectful tone towards the POTUS without excessively cheerleading.

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

      Even now, with all the criticism, Christie is doubling down by Tweeting out the following — completely unnecessary and in my view disqualifying for future Republican office:

      Chris Christie ‏@GovChristieNJ
      Residents still without heat can get warmed up with all the hot air being expelled by critics of my partnership with President Obama. #Sandy

      • CP
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        Wow. His true colors are really coming out. “My partnership with President Obama”–puhleeze.

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

        You guys should have known what was up with Christie with his lame azz RNC speech. A fraud and a phony.

      • M. White
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        Wow, he really has thrown in the towel for Obama! I am completely taken back by this. In another tweet the day after the storm Christie sent a tweet about him and Obama leaning forward on the storm recovery. Using Obama and MSNBC’s logos…that’s really scary! Completely explains my disdain for him. As I stated earlier, I don’t give a damn what he says or does in the future, I repeat…I will never support him, and I mean not ever. This reminds me of Colin Powell, the wannabe Democrat, oh how fast he forgets who gave him all the opportunities in his career, the Republicans placed him in high places, I bet now they wish they hadn’t, another one is Justice Roberts, a turncoat, Christie is the same way, he is Governor because Republicans put him there and supported him with money and influence…then these crass tweets just make me want to smack him. Again, you can be gracious and thankful without stepping all over yourself to fawn and drool over the President. I am sure the President has been grateful for all the love that he can use on the campaign trail and it gives fotter for MSNBC and CNN and other liberal outlets. You just have no idea how much this makes me sick this close to an election and it will not be forgotten. If Romney loses Christie better hope the Democrats embrace him because Republicans won’t! Maybe Obama has promised him a job if he gets re-elected??? But I can assure you if Romney does win he won’t be getting a job and he would not get a nomination over Paul Ryan in 2020, or in 2016 if Romney loses. And as far as Christie’s re-election, he can bet Corey Booker, mayor of Newark will run against him and the very loving and hugging Democrat embrace of Christie will be long gone!!!

      • Porchlight
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

        I was willing to defend Christie up until now but that tweet is obnoxious. If he was doing this solely to benefit NJ, then why the raspberries to the critics? It’s unnecessary and presumably detracts from his task after the storm. If you are a serious governor of a state in a serious crisis, act like it. I know he’s up for re-election but this seems like a reach.

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

      Christie is up for re-election next year…just sayin’…

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

        I hope he loses in a landslide. Just sayin’.

    • easternimm
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Christie is going to have a tough reelection in a deep blue state. I think what he did was Ok, maybe he overdid a tad. he is minding his own interest in his state first. It looks very good in the eyes of NJ independents and moderate Dems. I don’t think he gave much credence to Obama’s bipartisan skills. I think most people have made their mind about that and it will not change the final outcome. For Obama this is a fire-up your own base election rather than an appeal to independents. It is too late for him to switch from bogus “war on women” and “I will protect you from the plutocrats” to a real independent stance.

      • edtitan77
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        He must no though any national GOP movements are now off to him. He refused the VP slot because he thought Romney had no chance. Thus making himself a contender in ’16. Now that Romney looks to have a good shot and more importantly has the next GOP star with him not only is 2016 closed off but so is 2020 on all likelihood.

        He needs to begin to pivot away from GOP if he’s to have a shot at nat office. He may pull a Bloomberg.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

        He needs to lose a ton of weight if he’s going to have a shot at a national office, too. How’s he doing on that front?

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Unless you live in NJ or NY, you’re the one getting the bill for the Feds to step in and foot this. It’s not going to work. His demoralized base is the problem.

  5. Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just looked at the Oregon ballot returns through 10/30/12. Looks like 4K more people have cast ballots so far this year as opposed to this many days before the election in 2008. The Democrats have a bout a 65K ballot advantage right now. 35% of Dems have returned ballots and 35.1% of registered Republicans. Only 21.8% of Independents have returned their ballots. It is going to be much closer here than 08′, but it is so tough when the Dems have a 176K voter registration advantage in a state with only 2.1mil voters.

    • No Tribe
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I ran across an article on it. They seemed to point to voters in rural counties being of higher rates than Multnomah, but I recall that usually being the case. I would not surprise me to see Clinton or Biden show up.

  6. Glen
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Nevada SOS just posted updated numbers. Statewide republicans are down by 37,279 votes cast to the dems. We lost about 4,000 votes to the dems in Clark Co. vs. yesterday’s report. In Washsoe, the dem advantage is now down to 28 votes.

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Down 37,000 is not horrible. I think the Dems think 35,000 is the magic number.

      • Interested Party
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

        I think 50-60K is the magic number. The I vote may be the key here.

      • edtitan77
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

        I’ve heard 60k is magic number.

    • Fred S
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Is the 60k for all NV? I heard that is for just Clark County.

    Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I just read that in early voting Oregon is tied up.

  8. JAS
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Obviously, the pro-R/R analysis has sought to explain away polls whose top line number seems to be skewed based on the respective percentages of self-identified partisans in the poll. The pro-R/R partisans say that if you look at the likely electorate, it will be more pro-Romney than the unfavorable polls, based on actual party ID. Keith’s searching analysis is an excellent example of this methodology. Until this election season, I had never heard this criticism of likely voter models, but it makes sense to me. Has anyone done any reverse engineering of the 2008 or 2010 polls to see if this type of analysis is applicable? If, for example, people’s self-identified party affiliation in polls never corresponds to the actual turnout on Election Day, but the polls do OK, that would undermine the pro-R/R line of attack, and vice versa. Interested in anyone’s thoughts . . .

    • JGS
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      As someone more knowledgeable than I posted in another thread, the issue is not the pollsters’ ignoring the party ID issue (essentially taking party ID as they find it), but their weighting by race which has the effect of skewing the polls based upon assumptions of the percentage white vote vs. the percentage black and HIspanic vote.

    • Interested Party
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      People have been doing this for weeks, if not months. When you adjust a poll for racial and age makeup, as well as which part of the state the votes are coming from (which they all do) you skew the party ID one way or the other. You can then look at the party ID as a check on your adjustment. If the ID is too out of whack, your adjustment is wrong.

      What the pollsters seem to be doing (to me) is adjusting their share of the white vote (as well as the youth vote) along more 2008 lines (or worse)–likely Axelrod’s threats to Gallup have driven some of this. Some of it is the belief that the white share of the current electorate is truly declining.

      Obama based his entire campaign on this racial and demographic shift. He basically said after 2010 “screw the majority white vote, I’ll get enough of the young and non-white to win no matter what I do or say.” He therefore did not run on his record (as we all know). He ran on getting just enough of the middle class white vote to get over the edge in a few states. Honestly, what else could he have done?

      The issues are two.

      (1) It is clear from the early voting stats (not polls, but actual votes cast) that the turnout of the young and non-white vote is not what the D’s think. Rove has a good piece on this in the WSJ this AM.

      (2) The other thing is that when you look at Ras and Gallup, although the racial demo may be close to 2008, it appears that a lot more whites are self-IDing as Republicans. Therefore there appears to be an R 0 to R +3 electorate this year.

      If you are O or Nate Silver, or any D leaning group you have to trust in your methodology. You’ve come too far. However, the Gallup party ID as well as the actual early voting numbers to date suggest that the R model is more likely reality.

      We’ll see in 5 days.

      • JAS
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        I’m confused. What many have been saying is that if a poll skews in party-self-identification in a way that renders it unlikely to match the actual party ID on Election Day, it is likely to be wrong. I am wondering if there is empirical evidence that that is true. The pollsters who have, unlike Rasmussen, refused to adjust the results to reflect a likely partisan ID say that the R/R partisans are wrong, and that you can only adjust for immutable characteristics such as race, gender, etc. But polling is not a new science. This is the same dilemma that faced pollsters in 2010 and 2008. Who is right? What does the mpirical evidence show?

      • easternimm
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        the problem with all this is that party identification is fluid. both Reps and Dems have people who declare themselves Reps respective Dems one day and Indies the next. so both sides may be right and both maybe wrong. that being said probably in 2012 there are a bit more Reps than Dems and this will make the difference. the contest is maddeningly close though…

  9. Tom
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Rasmussen has Romney up 1 in Iowa! Mitt-Mentum

  10. nvClark
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So, in an earlier thread a few posters were musing about their plans for election day celebrations and some of them mentioned tuning in to MSNBC so they could watch all of their heads explode. That sounded good to me but I had a problem, I don’t normally watch tv so I don’t have any cable television service, let alone the MSNBC channel. Well, I did some searching to see if I could find a live stream of MSNBC from the web. Once I found one I started watching it to make sure it really was the actual channel and to make sure it was fast enough and suitable (it’s kind of choppy). But anyway, I’ve been watching it for a while now and they are basically in an “All Hurricane all the Time” mode… But I’m not sure this helps Obama and hurts Romney at all, let alone as much as they seem to think it does. They are focusing on it so exclusively that they are ignoring just about everything else and not attacking in any other ways. If Obama showing up with Christie shows bipartisanship as they are so desperately trying to spin it, and if that has the potential to change anyone’s vote then maybe they are doing the right thing from their perspective. But if the storm is apolitical in most people’s eyes and if most people aren’t stupid enough to think that showing up and touring the storm damage with a Republican governor demonstrates any significant or relevant bipartisanship instead of just the bare minimum of responsibility and humanity in the face of a disaster, then all this focus on the hurricane and Christie/Obama’s bromance (they are actually using that term) is just a waste of time. A waste of time that takes away from any real message that they could be pushing. In other words, I don’t think that MSNBC turning itself into a “disaster porn” channel is really helping Obama and it could even be hurting him because it has basically neutralized one of his attack dogs by turning them into little more than a cat chasing the a laser pointer spot that they will never catch.

    • Tom
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You found the online link? You just doubled their ratings from 0.00000000001 up to 0.00000000002

    • Fred S
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      MSNBC is watched by hard-core liberals who would never vote for Romney, so their propaganda will have no impact on the election.

  11. Bob San Diego
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Literally almost no one watches MSNBC.

    • easternimm
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      they have better ratings now than CNN. far from Fox though.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        iirc, MSNBC has about 11%, CNN has 15% The three networks have 30% combined. This is for what channel people watch for news. Fox is above 30%

  12. NMVM
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    What was the historical RDI breakdown for Wisconsin? It would be great if someone had it for the recall election as well. Ras is using (and remember that he actively weights Party ID) a breakdown of 39/39/24. I don’t know, but R+2 sounds high for WI…

    In Iowa, Ras is assuming an RDI of 39/35/27 to have Romney up 1. Has Iowa ever been R+4? I know Iowa usually has a remarkably stable electorate, so that surprised me. Hopefully Ras is just onto something big, like a R wave even bigger than 2010, but I’m skeptical to say the least.

    • Evan3457
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Iowa was R+3 in 2004, D+6 in 2008.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        That’s an incredible swing.

    • Matt
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Recall was R+1

  13. Pete
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    No shortage of trolls- concern and otherwise showing up. Scared much?

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Citizen’s United apparently just released a poll showing Obama ahead of Romney in Wisconsin 49-47.

      That can’t be good news, as they are a republican polling outfit.

      Couldn’t find and internals.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

        *any* internals

      • Evan3457
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        Bury the lede, much? The same poll finds Romney up by 3 in Ohio. If he takes Ohio, he very likely doesn’t need Wisconsin.
        49-46, Romney +3 in Ohio.

      • M. White
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        On the WI poll from Citizens United…Obama still not at 50% or above!

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        The poll also shows Mandel leading Brown by five in the Ohio senate race.

        Does anyone believe that? Really?

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        Wenzel Strategies is the pollster

    • NMVM
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I am no concern troll. Please spare me. I am trying to figure out how those RDIs compare to history. If we’re going to pick apart clearly D leaning sham pollsters (PPP, Q, etc.) we should apply the same scrutiny to pollsters who give us favorable top line numbers. Otherwise, we’re doing a disservice to ourselves.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

        Iowa could probably swing from +4D to +4R and be in the realm of the possible. It’s pretty remarkable that Romney got a sweep of all the newspaper endorsements in Iowa.

  14. M. White
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Michael Barone just weighed on the state of the race, he again confirmed his projection that Romney will win and is seeing a landslide for Romney because of Inedependants and the fact that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats. He is almost always dead on, I have listened to him for years, he is not partisan, he digs very deep into the numbers for his conclusions. Also, Karl Rove projects a win for Romney, now I know he is a Republican but he predicted closely last time for Obama, he is another one that really digs deep down into the numbers. Also, Joe Trippi is a Democrat and he says it can go either way.

    • Bob San Diego
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I actually like Trippi – he seems to be an honest broker.

    • Edward Allen
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Where did you see Michael Barone’s comments? I too think he’s got a better, more even handed view of the numbers than anyone.

    • Porchlight
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Where did you see Barone? Would love to watch the video if it’s a TV appearance (I assume Fox).

      • M. White
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        Megyn Kelly’s America Live

      • Porchlight
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink


    • Keith W
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      • Porchlight
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

        Thank you….sounds like Barone played it close to the vest although he has said elsewhere that sees a Romney win coming.

  15. Glen
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The Nevada SOS just posted a second update that added some non-Clark/Washoe votes. Republicans picked up another net 227 votes cast vs. the dems. Republican votes cast statewide now trail the dems total by 37,052.

  16. M. White
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Watch this on PA!

  17. M. White
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I would be surprised that Thompson coule be up 6.4 points in WI but Romney down 11 pts. I think this is a terrible poll. What are the internals? Never mind…found them…this is a D+10 polls, way off the map!
    Here is the link:

    • bks
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So you guys are pinning your hopes on a supermajority of the pollsters being wrong? And beyond that, all being wrong in the same anti-Romney direction!? Don’t you ever step back and see how bizarre that analysis is? I can see studying the internals of the polls if you’re wondering where to spend the most time or money to change an outcome, but to look into unfavorable polls to find a reason to ignore them is just cherry picking.


      • Dean
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        I’m not doing that.

        I’m looking at the country polls and seeing a break to Romney, but slight disconnects in the states.

        It was not like this in 2004, or 2000.

        2008 was an odd election on the states, and 2010 was very odd as well with turnout changes.

        We’re in a new paradigm, so taking things at face value deserves to be questioned. Even Nate Silver showed Sharron Angle with an ~80% chance of victory in 2010, and she lost.

        If I can be quite honest, I cannot make heads or tails of the polls in this race.


      • JGS
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        People on this board look into the internals of all polls, unfavorable and favorable, to try to make a reasoned determination as to where things are truly at in particular states. If you do not think that there is bias (and in some cases serious bias) embedded in certain of these polls, and a strategy to try to use polling data to alter momentum, expectations and thus turnout in these finals days, you are sadly mistaken. That bias exists on both sides, which is why you need to go behind the numbers. This is true not only of the state polls, but also of national polls, including the very large sample size in the Gallup and Rasmussen monthly voter ID polls showing that 2008’s party ID is not likely to be replicated but rather that 2004’s or even perhaps 2010’s is likely to be replicated. You also need to look at the early vote, how it is actually coming in (not the polling data which can be badly skewed by inclusion of early voters and by soft RV/EV screens, but the actual party ID of those casting ballots) which according to both Gallup and Pew shows a 52-45 Romney lead, vs. where things were at in 2008 when Obama was up substantially at this point nationally in the early voting. True, you have to go state by state, but it seems that even in Ohio and Iowa, where Obama has substantial leads in the early voting, the extent of those leads is much smaller than it was in 2008. It’s also true that Romney seems to be doing way, way better with Independents in ALL of the polls — not just those that skew right, but those that are favorable to Obama — than McCain was in 2008. So a combination of changes in voter ID from 2008 to 2010, changes in enthusiasm on both sides, changes in the percentage of the vote that is likely to be white vs. black vs. Hispanic, changes in the participation rate of voters 18-29, changes in the attitudes of voters self-identifying as independents on who they are supporting this year, for all of these reasons I remain cautiously optimistic.

      • bks
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        JGS: You’re implying that you know how to do a poll better than the professionals. That’s even more bizarre. Those guys are betting their businesses and/or reputations on getting it right. You’re risking nothing.


      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        Well essentially both parties and candidates are asking the same questions.

        This isn’t, at least the majority here think, an issue of say the New York Times calling up their pollster company and saying “hey we want this to show Obama up 6, make it happen” This is not an effort to be dishonest, skewed, etc.

        This debate boils down to two fundamental different views of what the electorate will look like on Tuesday. And that is not necessarily the party ID, etc this is demographics. 1 side is basing their poll on demographics that look like 2008 or better. The feeling among the democrat side and the belief that public polling firms are adopting the idea that the white vote will drop from 2008 but that all the other demographics for race will increase, younger voters will increase, etc. The other side believes that while the african america vote will probably be stable, they foresee the hispanic voting dropping from 2008 and the white vote increasing back to a more standardized number from 2008. Also in turn the republican side sees more enthusiasm and actually both sides polling shows that republicans are more energetic about their voting and candidate.

        So it boils down to which side accurately gauged how it will turnout. Polling is not really a science, there is science involved, but a lot it judgement and finese. Sometimes models break down you plug in the wrong parameters and you gauge it wrong.

        Things happen. Look at NASA the top scientists in the world and they sent a rover thing to Mars a few years back that smashed and blew up because they didn’t covert their measurements to metric. Mistakes happen sometimes when the metric used are incorrect.

        But yes, we are banking that most of the media polls are wrong and the democrats and banking that all the republican polls are wrong.

      • Terry
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

        Even the internals of the “supermajority” of polls have Romney leading with independents and Republicans leading in enthusiasm (these are not cherries and everybody agrees with this)… Please explain with facts how Obama can win when he is losing with independents and enthusiasm… You would have to believe the polls are wrong about these two things for Obama to win.

        The truth is this election is the opposite of 2008… Romney is winning Independents and Republicans have the enthusiasm to turn out… game, set, match.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

        Actually, what we are banking on is the national RDI being the overwhelmingly correct measurement of the outcome. And that’s going by Gallup and Rasmussen’s projections of it. And since it worked very accurately in ’04, ’06 ’08, and ’10, all we are really banking on is that 4/4 will lead to 5/5.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

        If you don’t screen for voters you’re going to see lovely polls for Dems which overpredict their success or underpredict their failure.

        Turnout is 65-70%, not 100%. We don’t live in Candyland.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        You’re implying that you know how to do a poll better than the professionals.

        Check out how the professionals performed in 1980:

  18. M. White
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    bks…we will see on Tuesday! Most pollsters are liberal minded and they know if they can make it look like Obama will win no matter what, then you suppress the other side’s vote! Look, nobody really believes the Dem. turnout will be as it was on 2008 or even close and pollsters know this. But they want people to believe it’s true, it works. I can also say that conservative Democrats that trusted Obama in 2008 will not be there on Tues. Half of my family are Democrats, have been all of their lives and none of them will vote Obama this time but they would still be considered in the Democrat turnout, but not voting Democrat. Not all Dems will support Obama this time…trust me I live around many Democrats who voted for Obama last time, but NOT this time. You may be very shocked on Tuesday!

    • M. White
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Also, if pollsters manage to suppress the vote enough by making people think one side is going to win then your turnout models may work…but it won’t happen, people are fed up and it may be a silent majority but they will be there on election day to make their voice heard!

    • bks
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      M.White: When you say “Most pollsters are liberal minded …” are you basing that on personal knowledge or what? Do you really think these guys are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress GOP turnout? It’s possible but I’d need to see extraordinary evidence. Plus, why would they start doing it in this election as opposed to the last one or the last ten?


      • Aaron
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        You want extraordinary evidence. Look at Gallup’s voter Id poll Massive sample of 9400+ people showing a shift in voter ID to 35 D/ 36 R/ 29 I…. I would call that extraordinary evidence. If you have that huge a shift and the pollster’s are still using D +8,9,10,11,12 weightings then ????

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

        It’s nice to entertain these know-nothing liberals in small numbers, where registration isn’t a problem and their noise doesn’t bury the signal.

        Kid: YES, we’re saying universities and media companies have a leftist bias. Welcome to reality. Note: I’m not supporting the idea of conscious bias affecting the polls. I think there are other, more plausible explanations.

  19. Big Mac
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t believe any of the polls. I live in Virginia and know that people are really angry about what has happened over the last 4 years. People know if Obama is reelected that America will cease to exist soon as we know it. The turnout will be greater than 2004 and bigger than 2010 for the Republicans. Republicans and Independents will give Romney a HUGE victory and a Republican majority in the Senate. I guarantee it. We are pee’oed and not going to take it anymore.

    • bks
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Big Mac, What specifically are they “really angry” about. I have some relatives who live in VA near DC and they’re not particularly angry.


      • SpiritOF1776
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        There isn’t enough room here or time to state what has made the right so angry. You did witness 2010 didn’t you? It’s going to be worse this time because Obama is on the ballot.

      • Commonsenseobserver
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        Presumably because they live near DC. The Californians shouldn’t be particularly angry either. They love big government and high taxes.

  20. Aaron
    Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I live in Florida and I travel all over the state and talk to a very diverse group of people. Romney will win this state by a minimum of +5. I just hope the same is going on in Ohio. I heard one of the commentators call this the Chick fil a election. I truly believe that is what is going to happen (and in a lot of cases already is happening). Millions of people on the right standing up and taking back the country. The beauty of it all will be the liberals losing their minds on Tuesday because they are so ARROGANT they could never imagine losing. I should know I have been raised Dem all my life and please god forgive me voted for Obama, however Obama has insured he was the last Dem ever to get my vote.

    Posted November 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    BKS –

    A couple of questions for you if you care to answer – Do you think Obama can win an election if he loses independents by 8 points nationally? Do you believe Gallup (who is also staking their 70 year reputation) when they say Romney is leading in early voting by 52-45?

    • bks
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I used to write software for pollsters to use to do surveys. I know how hard they try to get it right. I know that they know more about the sources of error in polls than I do. They have guys with PhDs in statistics, political science, economics, sociology and anthropology who agonize over sampling and data processing. They go to conferences and discuss how to minimize error and how to cope with a changing population. That’s what they get paid to do. So while I believe that individual polls may go wrong, really wrong, I trust the polls en masse to be more or less right.

      I do not believe that “independent” means much and have never even thought about that question. I have not seen that Gallup poll. I do know that Democrats in Florida are asking to have early voting hours extended and the GOP is resisting:


      • Aaron
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        Have to draw a line somewhere if D had their way early voting would start Nov 7th.

      • Barf
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        He should say no. People are angry that he liberal progressives shoved Obamacare down our throats without one single Republican vote. Rock the vote? Romney will win big.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        “I do not believe that “independent” means much and have never even thought about that question.” Well, that’s about 1/3rd of the voters that you might want to think about!

        If you’d be so kind. Please think about it a bit here and now.

        Let us know why the polls show Romney winning the ’12 Independent vote that Obama won in ’08.

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

        No Tribe: I’m an independent. I don’t think the term means much.


      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        So, the concept of Independent voters is new to you. Read more, post less.

    Posted November 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here is a link to the Gallup poll I referenced.

    While you may not have thought about independents before they are crucial in a Presidential election – no candidate for President has ever won office losing independents at a rate that Obama currently is.

    • Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

      A new article today suggests that the “independents” may be misunderstood by Republicans, since many of them would have called themselves Republicans in 2008, but now call themselves independents. Thus, if I get the gist of the article right, the Democrat author is claiming that we are essentially counting our votes twice by expecting more Republicans this time, when in fact many Republicans from 2008 are now just calling themselves independents. This would lead to a skewing of the independent vote in the Republican direction but also cause there to be fewer actual Republicans than our models expect. Can you, Keith, or one our our able commenters explain this better than I have and answer the claims being made. I want Romney to win big time!

      • SpiritOF1776
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

        It’s not correct because in most states you have to register via party, and it’s fairly easy to count R’s and D’s and I’s. Salon is a left wing rag.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

        Steve Kornaki is a Democratic hack, first of all. But let me look at the data. I bet its skewed by one or a couple of the same pollsters we are seeing in ’12 cause the problems.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

        Sure enough. Go to TPM, where he gets the data, and redraw it with just PEW, none of the others. Surprise, no change. In fact, the only drop is from Dem to Ind in ’09.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        Very odd that TPM doesn’t include both Rasmussen and Gallup in this poll of polls on RDI too, isn’t it? Sometimes Josh Marshall is such a transparent hack.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        The whole premise of the TPM article is apples to oranges. Just switch the ‘population’ screen to only LV, and there’s not change at all.

      • No Tribe
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

        Just go to that chart on TPM, under pollsters, exclude Fox from the pollsters and redraw the chart.

        See? No change at all. It’s funny how people will try and prove anything with a chart just by using selective data.

        Also, DRI is calculated by Pew, Gallup, and Rasmussen, as the most reputable. Pew is on the chart, they show no change. Gallop and Rasmussen, not on the chart.

        I mean, Steve Kornaki and Josh Marshall are relying on Fox polling here to make their flimsy partisan point, haha.

      • Svigor
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    • bks
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That’s not very useful, PJ. It needs to be broken down by state.


    Posted November 1, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So your premise is that Obama can lose independents at -11 (latest NPR poll) but as long as he loses them in the right states he’ll win? That is similar to saying a baseball team can fall behind 8-0 in the first inning and make it up later. It happens but you’d be a fool to bet on it.

    Also, I’m seeing some really transparent concern trolling going on here – quite a bullish sign for Romney. 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: