Skip to comments.Rasmussen Daily Tracking: Thu: 10/11/12: R:47% O:48%: Obama -11%
Posted on 10/11/2012 6:39:55 AM PDT by SoftwareEngineer
Thursday, October 11, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows President Obama attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 47%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.
Consumer confidence spiked immediately following last weeks jobs report which showed unemployment falling to 7.8%. However, after approaching the highest levels of 2012, the bounce quickly faded. Confidence today is back to the pre-jobs report level. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Americans now believe the economy is getting better. Thats exactly the same as before the jobs report. Fifty-three percent (53%) believe it is getting worse.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
I would suspect Rasmussen is afraid to show the real Romney lead. He does not want the lawsuit from David Axelrod. Romney wins big next month...........flaws and all. To paraphrase another old saying, “dammit he might be be a liberal, but at least he’s our liberal”.
Life as we know it ends for the United States if the America-hating marxist is put back in office. A GOP dominated House and probably Congress can keep Romney in line. No so with the marxist-in-chief.
Tonight, Romney will be campaigning in Buncombe Co NC.
Yes, very odd. Do we know for sure that he is using a D+5 sample?
Thanks for your well reasoned response. I still think Ras’s latest D+5 is a bit excessive in favor of the Dems. I realize 2008 turnout factors come into play, however what annoys me the most is that 2010 turnout stats seem to mean NOTHING to ANY of the polling firms. And 2010 is more recent than 2008. Everyone is acting as if 2012 is 2008 all over again. And it isn’t. The economy sucks crap and Obama now has a record to defend. Obama should be toast if it’s still all about the economy, stupid, as James Carville once famously said.
I'd rather not get there. Let's just work our asses off with taking the polls in context(IOW using them to determine WHERE resources are best applied) to make sure Obama is defeated.
I have to concur that I think D+5 is excessive. My gut (with nothing but anecdotal data) tells me that, which can always be wrong.
We talk a lot about demographic shifts here, but I don’t think there’s a huge difference in the electorate since 2004, when both parties were highly motivated and went to the polls in almost equal numbers.
I could see a D+2, but D+5 makes me suspicious.
Let’s say you had a dozen previous elections with an average of what percent voted Republican, Democrat, and other. It represented the history of these things.
Look at it like the baseball card of presidential elections.
Now we have THIS season. And this Season your guy is batting .315 but his baseball card says he is a lifetime .287 hitter. Based on that what kind of hitter would you say he is?
You have a history say of Dem +5 and you have a current voting public identifying as R+3.
What would you do that is most likely to be corrct at the time of the actual election?
As an engineer, I would go with what is happening now.
2010 voter turnout shouldn’t and won’t be used to fully guide 2012 turnout, as an interim election year, when there isn’t a presidential election, doesn’t typify a presidential election turnout. It is very rational to assume that the presence of Obama on the ticket this year will bring many more voters (who often support him) that wouldn’t turn out in 2010. The key issue is if, for example, blacks vote at 11, 12, or 13% of the total turnout. This variance with many groups who came out strongly in 2008 (blacks, young people, women, etc.) will basically determine the outcome. Turnout, really, is all that matters this year, and all the current data suggest that the GOP turnout will be stronger than average, and the Dem turnout weaker than average. This is why I predict Romney will win.
I’m not sure why a Dem enthusiasm advantage in 08 gave them an unprecedented D+8, but an obvious R enthusiasm advantage this time can’t give us even a D+1 or an E turnout.
That seems reasonable to me.
I would not. I’d come up with a formula that incorporates both.
Just saw this post. I think we might agree that some combination of the two makes sense. History + contempory somehow combined.
And just who was off work enjoying the extra dauy off? Teachers and government workers. Just sayin'...
D+2 is Ras’s usual model. Wonder what caused him all of sudden to switch to D+5?
“If we get a D+1 election, Romney will win in a romp due to his big margin with the Independents.”
This is a great point that everyone seems to gloss over. In the crosstabs of every poll I’ve seen, Romney has a lead among Indies. Some polls have the margin as low as R+5, others have the margin as high as R+20. It’s probably somewhere in-between — around +10 to +15. And last time around, the Marxist won Indies.
If it is a D+1 election and Romney wins Indies by only +10, I don’t see how he doesn’t end up at around 54-45 (1% to 3rd parties) in the national vote — and a margin that large could never be overcome in the electoral map.
Rasmussen uses a D+3, not D+5.
The exact party breakdown is D 39 R 36 I 25.
(This is basically a 6 point swing from his party affiliation survey which has R+2.6) Makes no sense to give Dems benefit of doubt.
Another important demo is Race - given that Obama gets 95%+ support so every extra point is almost a full point of support.
Raz’s race demo is White 74 Black 13 Other 13.
(13% was high point for black turnout in 2008. Normal is 11%. So if not 2008 turnout, shave a point or two off Obama’s numbers).
A few days ago, this poster reverse engineered his sample to D+5. Posted all the math used too - looked like it added up to me.
Why does Rasmussen use D+3 (or D+5) when his own party affiliation summary shows R+2 (or R+3, rounding up)?