Posted on 10/31/2012 10:21:06 PM PDT by Steelfish
Polls: Obama Ahead in 3 Key States Romney Moves Within Striking Distance in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, but Iowa Looks Out of Reach
BY NEIL KING JR.
President Barack Obama holds narrow leads over Mitt Romney in the battleground states of Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa as the candidates enter the campaign's final days, new polling shows.
In Wisconsin and New Hampshire, Mr. Romney remains well within striking distance, despite signs that opinions are hardening and the pool of undecided voters remains small, according to new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist Poll surveys.
Mr. Obama holds a 49%-46% lead in Wisconsin among likely voters, half what it was two weeks ago, and a 49%-47% lead in New Hampshire, down from his lead of 7 percentage points there in ..
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Today’s polling averages:
O+0.03% - Current RCP Average
O+0.56% - Average using the 2008 turnout model
R+2.23% - Average using the D+3 turnout model
R+4.46% - Average using the 2010 turnout model
R+4.51% - Average using the 2004 turnout model
R+6.24% - Average using the Rasmussen Party ID turnout model
which was what?
Does anyone really believe these polls? When more demodummies are interviewed than reoubs, tell me the poll is an accurate one>
The “final” poll will be on Nov. 7th........when its over!
I lived through that too. It was the second presidential election I voted in. I sense something different. I remember a "cult like" enthusiasm for Reagan. Having just come back from visiting Communist Eastern Europe, I was a card carrying member of that cult. I still am. Also, throughout that campaign, there was no positive support for Carter. He led in the polls because people were afraid of the image they had of Reagan.
This time, the enthusiasm on our side is all anti-Obama. And unlike then, there are countless idiots who actually like what Obama has done. I still think that Romney wins. He could win comfortably. But I will be joyfully surprised if it is a blow out.
No wonder you are known as one whose elevator is stuck in basement!
Ah, the Trollfish comes up for air.
That is the best rejoinder you can come up with?
Wisconsin:
LV: D+5 (D-34, R-29, I-35)
RV D+6 (D-34, R-28, I-36)
NH:
LV: D+1 (D-27, R-26, I-47)
RV: D+1 (D- 26, R-25, I-48)
Iowa:
LV: D+3 (D-34, R-31, I-34)
RV:D+1 (D-32, R-31, I-36)
Rejoinder? See the posts by others who intelligently rebut the foolishness of those few FRs who cannot handle, analyze, or interpret polls that reflect anything outside their echo-chamber bubble.
Says Trollfish who has NEVER come to grips with the OH absentee spreadsheet, most likely because he can’ understand it.
I have seen none of that rebuttal.
As it stands LS is one of the more astute analysts of these polls.
It is totally false that most of us do not look at the internals in determining how much credence to put in a poll.
The only ones who take the Pig in the Poke are those who believe The Disaster is winning and going to win.
It is UNDENIABLE that the only way pollsters can manufacture any lead at all for The Disaster is by manipulation of the poll sample to show 3+ more for RATs than is justified.
Check the post by mosesdapoet.
The problem with internals is that all polls have them. And we all know that the internals matter. But we cannot attack Gallup one day because the polls did not favor us (as was the case some weeks ago) and them embrace Gallup when it supports our nominee. This is what I mean by living-in-a-bubble. I appreciate those who take the time and analyze the internals and tell us what’s wrong if any, and why. But simply discarding information that is carried by reputable non-partisan groups (FoxNews, WSJ) is to reflect an innate disconnect with the messenger rather than a review of the message. We all know you can slice and dice the internals based on national or state voting patterns in presidential (2008) and non-presidential election years (2010). Accordingly to a reputable blog in the Evening Standard the variations can swing from +5 Obama to +5 Romney depending on what metric one uses. We ought not to discount and resort to a mood of complacency by simply rejecting as false all polls that don’t favor us and oly embracing all polls that support us. That does not do either the readers or the candidate any favors. Indeed, about the same time some polls (only Rasmussen) were showing Romney ahead in OH, every other poll including RNC internal polls (if you believe Gov. Kasich on FoxNews) was showing this was still a dead even race or Obama in a slight lead. So does one suppress a reporting of this poll?
Check the post by mosesdapoet.
The problem with internals is that all polls have them. And we all know that the internals matter. But we cannot attack Gallup one day because the polls did not favor us (as was the case some weeks ago) and them embrace Gallup when it supports our nominee. This is what I mean by living-in-a-bubble. I appreciate those who take the time and analyze the internals and tell us what’s wrong if any, and why. But simply discarding information that is carried by reputable non-partisan groups (FoxNews, WSJ) is to reflect an innate disconnect with the messenger rather than a review of the message. We all know you can slice and dice the internals based on national or state voting patterns in presidential (2008) and non-presidential election years (2010). Accordingly to a reputable blog in the Evening Standard the variations can swing from +5 Obama to +5 Romney depending on what metric one uses. We ought not to discount and resort to a mood of complacency by simply rejecting as false all polls that don’t favor us and oly embracing all polls that support us. That does not do either the readers or the candidate any favors. Indeed, about the same time some polls (only Rasmussen) were showing Romney ahead in OH, every other poll including RNC internal polls (if you believe Gov. Kasich on FoxNews) was showing this was still a dead even race or Obama in a slight lead. So does one suppress a reporting of this poll?
Gallup was justly criticized for months because it polled REGISTERED VOTERS. Critics, including me, pointed out that this gave The Disaster at least 2-3% pts more than justified.
Gallup SWITCHED to Likely Voters within the last month which flipped the poll into a more accurate estimate. The latest polls are not more believable because we like the results but because it is methodologically sounder.
Rasmussen, contrary to his own findings, has consistently had a +3 D sample and only lately has it tied in Ohio. Why?
When you ask Why? with all these polls the answers are not good.
While I am one who has consistently predicted a landslide for R that belief is based on more than the polls
(although that would be enough) but also on the same kind of feeling I had in 1980. I was not even a big Reagan fan but realized that he was going to wipe the floor with Carter. I have the same feeling now.
Even the supine American electorate can be aroused by outrageous incompetence and policies. That happened in 1980 and is going to in 2012.
And the gigantic untold story is the complete ignoring of the Tea Party’s influence. Does anyone believe that it has dropped since 2010?
Who suggests suppressing any poll? I would not publicize one which hides its internals which some have started to do once it was realized that we were on to them.
OK, now we are talking analysis which is what is needed here. And I appreciate your distinction on how Gallup switched from registered to likely voters.
There is an interesting piece by Michael Barone, the undisputed maestro in polling analyses, who in today’s online National Review dissects the changing electorate in some of the key battleground states and why a paucity of “affluent suburbs” and less so in OH that in other states like WI and MN and PA which explains the phenomenon we are seeing. This goes beyond analyses of internals.
While sociological and economic trends are very interesting the pollsters would not have to manipulate their sample to get the results they want if they told the whole story. They would actually use an appropriate ratio of likely voters.
Another tactic is to over-sample women.
The way I see it is that Romney must win two of these three states to get to the White House: IA, WI, OH.
This is Obama’s firewall. And his campaign schedule for the next three days confirms this. If the margins of error are accepted, then this is a dead heat. There is no poll that shows any candidate ahead of the other by more than five points.
Yes, the motivation is a wholesale rejection of obama, more than any great vision being laid out by Romney.
But, I think he does grasp that and may surprise us yet.
I’m hoping to be pleasantly surprised as well!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.