Fur­ther­more, in a poll with lots of peo­ple who rep­re­sent them­selves as Indies, it’s entirely pos­si­ble that peo­ple (con­sid­er­ing the Bush era and the débâ­cle of this year’s Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial field) are too embar­rassed to asso­ciate them­selves with that par­tic­u­lar clown car.

Sorry I asked...seriously.

they polled 11% more Democ­rats than Repub­li­cans. For the polling res­i­dent polling experts, does NBC/​WSJ actu­ally think 11% more Dems will vote than Reps.

Nope. That’s what sampling error is all about. Sometimes they’ll oversample one side or the other, since they don’t know who will answer the poll until they answer the poll.

Some polling firms will adjust for this sampling error by increasing the weight of the underrepresented party and/or decreasing the weight of the overrepresented party. If they do so, they have some sort of method by which they estimate what the partisan breakdown will be. This, of course, leads to all sorts of sample bias opportunities, which manifest themselves in house biases (which is why Rasmussen gets adjusted left by one percentage point, and PPP by about 4.5 to the right, in my calculations).

they polled 11% more Democ­rats than Repub­li­cans.

Any repeated random sample will sometimes have more of Flavor A than Flavor B. The question isn’t who they got more of. The question is whether afterwards they weighted their numbers to account for the demographics of the actual population. I suspect NBC/WSJ knows how to properly weight a sample.

Furthermore, in a poll with lots of people who represent themselves as Indies, it’s entirely possible that people (considering the Bush era and the debacle of this year’s Republican presidential field) are too embarrassed to associate themselves with that particular clown car.

Obama approval — 49%

Obama over Romney 49 — 43.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/12768_July_Poll.pdf

An interesting tidbit — they polled 11% more Democrats than Republicans.  For the polling resident polling experts, does NBC/WSJ actually think 11% more Dems will vote than Reps.

As I recall, every­one was sure that Gore would make W look ter­ri­ble in those debates.

Everyone thought he’d make W look stupid. And he did. But, as someone so succinctly put it at the time…
W spoke as if English wasn’t his first language. Gore spoke as if English wasn’t our first language.

Prior to the Gore/Bush debates, we hadn’t seen Gore in any significant debates. We already know how Obama looks in them. We also know how Romney looks in them. There shouldn’t be any surprises there.

Regarding 2012 comparisons to 1980 lol suffice it to say mittens ain’t no Reagan!

And even though Gore was quite wooden/stiff in those debates, one must remember he got more votes than Bush, eh.

>

As a side note, can one imagine how pissed off cons would be if Clinton could run for a 3rd term ie wiping the floor w/Bush41’s little boy after being impeached! Hell, if not for the 22nd amendment, Clinton might still be president.

@astrodude

Debate performance is often in the eye of the beholder, and in how the media choose to portray/replay key moments. Many Democrats actually do think Gore made W look terrible, but the general public got a different impression because the media chose to ignore W’s lies and other outrageous statements in favor of replaying Gore’s sighs.

A single, key one-liner delivered well can make or break a debate performance, especially in today’s sound-byte world. Likewise, one bad line or momentary lapse can doom a debate performance, depending how much the media chooses to focus on it to the exclusion of the other 99% of the debate.

Which is a really long way of saying that I agree with you, that no one should be confident in how the debates are going to go, because how the debates go may depend largely on what narrative fits the story that the media chooses to tell.

I’m not sure that I would be completely confident about how the debates are going to go.  As I recall, everyone was sure that Gore would make W look terrible in those debates.

Wow, shiloh, you remember 1980?

I completely agree (borrowing from my comments on the ICANN’t thread), that the Internet and correlated blogosphere have totally transformed the way politics are conducted. In the early 1980s, the primary ways for campaigns to get out their message was TV advertising, the Debates, and door-to-door/retail politics. Even into the 1990s, the Internet remained a niche product, with politics still conducted mainly over the airwaves and door-to-door.

Now, the Internet and social media have largely replaced retail politicking. Ads are shared faster and spread farther on social media than on TV, which many people watch using TiVo or OnDemand or otherwise mute/skip ads. Candidate flubs and newsworthy moments aren’t just played once a night on the late night news, but 24–7 on YouTube and blogs. And if a candidate tries to tell everyone what they want to hear, it’s far too easy to cobble together clips of them saying contradictory things. Even since 2008, the spread of Twitter and Facebook has yet again changed the way politics is conducted.

You’re absolutely right that the comparison to 1980 is almost worthless if looking for some sort of political precedent.

explained that because it hap­pened once …

Not sure if you/they are talking about 1980 when the presidential election broke for Dutch in the last week, but …

The most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election (Oct. 28, 1980). Over the course of two hours, the entire race changed drastically, and what was considered an extremely tight race with the President slightly ahead became a comfortable Republican victory for Reagan. Nothing of that magnitude has happened since in any televised confrontations.

Also, because of mass media/cable/internet etc. comparing 2012 to 1980 is useless. Again, GOTV is key which is why Republicans are trying soooo frickin’ hard to disenfranchise Obama voters.

The only remaining question:

Can conservative billionaires buy the election for mittens? As Obama will clean Romney’s clock in the debates.

Repeating, most experts say Kerry won all (3) debates w/Bush and yet he lost! ie the power of incumbency, especially a wartime incumbent.

>

And if just before the election polls indicate an Obama victory, how many cons will stay home?