Reëlection Watch: October 6, 2012
This week has been a time of major change. We have some pre-debate data, and some post-debate data, so you’ll see both in this week’s edition of Reëlection Watch.
What’s the latest news? Let’s dive in and see.
National Polls
In the national popular vote matchup of President Barack Obama versus Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the President’s lead has shrunk a hair. It’s not that Obama’s numbers have been dropping; we’re still seeing a number of polls with Obama garnering 50 percent of respondents. Rather, Romney’s numbers have been rising more quickly than Obama’s, closing the gap. Obama’s lead over Romney still comfortably exceeds that of President George W. Bush over Senator John Kerry on this date eight years ago, but is just over half the size of his lead over Senator John McCain four years ago.
Going into the debate, Obama’s favorability polls improved beyond their already promising levels, with all exceeding 50 percent. Romney’s favorability polls have improved somewhat, but he still has yet to break the 50 percent ceiling. Obama has consistently held a three to five point edge over Romney all year, and was at six points going into the debate.
While these polls remain suggestive of an Obama victory, they are typically farther removed from the key signal of electoral votes than are many other indicators. We’ll hit the others down below.
As of yesterday, Intrade had Obama at 69, down ten points from last week. It’s the first reversal in a month, and the loss has clearly been tied to the debate performance on Wednesday.
Overall, things still look good for the incumbent President at the national level, though Intrade suggests they’re not as good as they were a week ago.
The Debate
Wednesday marked the first of three debates between the two candidates. Romney clearly overperformed expectations. His section opening answers were extremely well rehearsed, and he was able to keep Obama off guard by announcing, to everyone’s surprise, that he would not support a tax policy that raised taxes on the middle class, or that increased the deficit. That he was unwilling to explain how he would achieve this while simultaneously cutting marginal rates by 20 percent across the board was essentially beside the point. At least for Wednesday night.
While he had a number of whoppers that he delivered, his steadfast insistence that his tax policies wouldn’t do what the analysts concluded they must do clearly unsettled the President, and took the wind out of the sails of much of his argument.
The net result here is that Mitt Romney has, for the first time in the campaign, managed to not squander an opportunity with which he has been presented. It’s too early to tell if this is a new trend or an anomaly, but it bears watching going forward.
It’s too early for the debate’s effects to show up in a meaningful way in any but a few polls; next week’s installment should show them all over the place.
Early Voting
The absentee and in-person early polls have opened in the District of Columbia and 24 states, highlighted below in green:

Of them, the ones of most interest in the battle are Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin; we need to pay especially careful attention to those states’ polls from here on out. Next week’s batch includes the important states of Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and Oregon.
The Electoral College
Here’s what the Electoral College looks like, based on current polling data:

Here are the 15 states with new data since last time, covering only those discussed around the Internet as “leans” or “tossups”, from reddest to bluest:
- Arizona got polled by HighGround/Moore and Public Policy Polling, both of whom saw comfortable leads for Romney. Arizona remains “Likely Romney”, though not by enough to drop off the list entirely.
- North Carolina was polled three times in the past week. SurveyUSA saw a two point lead for Obama, but both American Research Group and Rasmussen found Romney up by four. Public Policy Polling came away with a tie, which leans to Romney. North Carolina is still a “Leans Romney” state.
- Iowa was polled twice in the past week. The Des Moines Register and WeAskAmerica both saw Obama ahead by four. Iowa moves to “Leans Obama”, which is important since Iowans can currently vote by absentee ballot, and in person…and have been doing so.
- Florida got polled twice this week before the debate. NBC/Wall Street Journal/Maris and Gravis both saw Obama up by one. There were no adjusted leads for Romney between May (!) and the debate. Since then, Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica both saw leads for Romney, by two and three points, respectively. Florida’s systemic forces are enough to push the state an additional point and change, making the Sunshine State “Leans Romney”. Floridians have been able to vote since Tuesday.
- Colorado was polled before the debate by WeAskAmerica, who saw a three point Obama lead. Last time I noted that Colorado was right on the cusp of being moved to “Leans Obama”. This latest poll does the trick.
- Virginia was polled before the debate by NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist, who saw yet another two point lead for Obama. In the two post-debate polls, both Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica saw Romney leads, by one and three points, respectively. It’s enough to move Virginia back to “Tossup”. Virginians have been able to vote by absentee ballot for two weeks now, and Obama was ahead for the bulk of that time.
- Nevada got polled before the debate by WeAskAmerica and Gravis. WeAskAmerica found an astonishing 11 point lead for Obama. While that smacks of an outlier, given the history, even Gravis found a lead for Obama (albeit a mere one point). The overall trend looks like about six points in Obama’s favor. Had that been a static number with some history, I’d move Nevada to “Likely Obama”, but because the Silver State has been more like quicksilver of late, Nevada remains “Leans Obama”.
- New Hampshire was polled before the debate by WMUR/University of New Hampshire. They saw an astonishing 15 point lead for Obama. While I suspect that’s an outlier, it’s not going to be a double-digit outlier. I said last week that I’d move New Hampshire back to “Leans Obama” if I saw confirmation of his lead, and now I’m doing so.
- Ohio was polled five times this week. Before the debate, The Columbus Dispatch ran an automated poll, which found a nine point lead for Obama, close to the eight point lead seen by NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist (who uses one of the most rigorous polling methodologies of all the firms). Public Policy Polling saw a four-point Obama lead. On the other hand, in the two post-debate polls, Rasmussen found Obama up by a mere one point, and WeAskAmerica came away with a Romney lead by one. On balance, Ohio remains “Leans Obama”…mostly because people have been able to vote in Ohio for nearly a week. But it’s clear that Obama’s comfortable pre-debate lead in the Buckeye State has all but evaporated. Another week like the Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica polls, and Ohio will become a “Tossup” state.
- Wisconsin got polled before the debate by Marquette University, who saw an 11 point Obama lead. Given last week’s automated poll from WeAskAmerica, this number is credible. I no longer consider last week’s poll an outlier. Instead, I’m moving Wisconsin out of “Leans Obama” into “Likely Obama”.
- Michigan was polled before the debate by WeAskAmerica. That new poll indicates a dozen point lead for Obama. Barring a significant shift to the right, Michigan is sufficiently deep into “Likely Obama” territory that it drops off the list after this week.
- New Mexico was polled twice before the debate. WeAskAmerica’s automated poll gave Obama a ten point lead, close to Rasmussen’s 11 points. Like Michigan, this is the last we will hear from New Mexico unless we see a dramatic lurch to the right.
There was a lot of movement in both directions this week. Pre-debate polls in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin shifted those states to the left. The post-debate polls in swing states shifted Virginia and Florida to the right, and are in danger of doing the same to Ohio. Based on the model, Obama has a probable 303 electoral votes. It’s been three consecutive months in which Obama could lose all tossups and still stay in the White House.
But the post-debate polls are just beginning to show up, and they are not looking good for the President.
Conclusion
If I had to predict an Electoral College result based on the model, I’d keep things close to where they have been for three months. The lone Tossup, Virginia, would go to Obama. That prediction would give Obama 303, and Romney 235. That’s the same as it has been for a couple of months.* But I suspect we’re going to see more states shift to the right in the next week.
How do you feel about these predictions? Do you differ on them? If so, how, where, and why?
*Editor’s note: I did some bad math in an earlier version of the article.
Related articles
Reëlection Watch: September 29, 2012
Obama Walloped On Intrade Early In Debate
They Want You to Think the Election is Over
Poll: Romney holds advantage in North Carolina
Obama 348, Romney 190: UAH astrophysicist, who got it right twice before, predicts electoral results
Moody’s predicts Obama victory over Romney

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on October 6, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Reelection Watch. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by rgbact 7 months ago
As expected, Rasmussen and WAA are showing decent bumps for Romney in FL and VA already. I’d expect him to take a slight lead in some national polls soon–non withstanding the opinions of liberals that 70M people watched a debate for pure entertainment and not to actually inform their voting. Nate Silver is probably still denying the debate thrashing since his models say its not possible.
-
#3 written by Max 7 months ago
“Nate Silver is probably still denying the debate thrashing since his models say its not possible.“
Unlike some folks, who SHOULD know better, Nate is NOT correlating the subjective results of a single presidential debate with what his long developed models objectively predict.
You possibly COULD make that observation about the bettors and the bookies, in the short term and about the PATTERNS of bets and laying odds.
-
Nate actually gives a level-headed assessment of what the current polls are saying, and why.
It seems that Romney benefited more from the breathless coverage and analysis of the debate than from the actual debate. That being the case, debate coverage now falling into shadow beneath the unexpectedly good jobs numbers could cancel out any advantage that debate coverage gave. And in both cases, it is far to early to determine either the magnitude of any polling shifts, or the staying power.
My own addition here: What may be more important is that we’re going to have three more of these events over the next four weeks; the Veep debate and two more Presidential debates. Each of these may have temporary effects on the polling, and there isn’t any way to predict at this point which direction those shifts will go. Even temporary shifts will have cumulative affects, particularly if a majority of them go in the same direction. We’re into the two-minute warning of this football game, and even small temporary gains could well affect the final outcome.
-
#5 written by Max 7 months ago
“We’re into the two-minute warning of this football game, “
Sorry to disagree, but it was a LONG 1st half with Obama ahead by 10, Romney ran the 2nd half kickoff back to the 50 or so, and now has advanced and kicked a field goal, bring him to within a touchdown. Yesterday, Obama took the ensuing kickoff back to his 40, midway in the 3rd quarter.
We’ll see how this series goes.
-
#7 written by rgbact 7 months ago
Each of these may have temporary effects on the polling, and there isn’t any way to predict at this point which direction those shifts will go.
Actually, I disagree. It seems that while its true that the “challenger” typically does well in debate #1 and its very likely things will level out in future debates.….I don’t believe any challenger has reversed his gains in future debates. IOW, its unlikely Romney will get smoked in future debates so any base of credibility that Romney was able to achieve with his debate #1 performance is unlikely
to be reversed. Therefore, future debates will generally just solidify his credibility. -
#8 written by Max 7 months ago
“ future debates will generally just solidify his credibility.“
A sad misstatement of fact.
The ONE thing (other than his firing of Big Bird) that came of of Wednesday’s debate was Romney’s “severe” flip-flops versus his earlier positions and his own misrepresentations of the truth!
-
rgbact,
We do have a comparable historical model, which was the 2004 debates between Bush and Kerry. Kerry killed Bush in the first one, and leaped ahead in the polls. Bush came back strongly after that in the following debates, and more than made up for Kerry’ initial bounce.
I think Romney’s credibility is going to get eroded even without taking further debates into account, as more people realize he did well in the first encounter by lying, and by reversing himself on all of his major positions. Such straightforward flipfloppery isn’t appreciated by the voters. Even his nutty far-right base is going to begin wondering whether this new pattern of throwing them off a cliff will mean that he wasn’t serious about all the things he’s been promising them over the last couple of years. In the end, I think he really hurt himself with such a convincing portrayal of a conman.
-
#10 written by rgbact 7 months ago
Bush came back strongly after that in the following debates, and more than made up for Kerry’ initial bounce.
I guess Kerry did have that “voted for it before I voted against it” moment—but I’m not sure if it was Bush who brought it up. Still seems every debate allows a spotlight to shine on Obama’s record. Not sure what Obama has planned to put Romney on the defensive. Hard to call him a tax cheat in a debate.
-
Still seems every debate allows a spotlight to shine on Obama’s record.
Let’s hope so. It’s a damn good record.
Not sure what Obama has planned to put Romney on the defensive.
Perhaps quoting Romney’s flipflops (then asking which time he was lying), and highlighting how the things he is now saying defy common sense (how, exactly, are you going to cut tax rates by 20% without reducing revenue? Why did you say you would keep the no-denials-for-pre-exisiting-conditions part of Obamacare, when you in fact oppose doing that? etc.)
-
#12 written by mclever 7 months ago
-
#13 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Romney will rue the day he took aim at Big Bird. All kidding aside, the tweet traffic increased 800,000 % with that as a subject line. Never dis 2 whole generations icon. Although it’s only anecdotal, 8 year olds everywhere are asking, “IS that Man Going to Kill Big Bird”. Talk about Meme warfare!
On a lighter note, does anyone have any ruminations on the voter suppression activities of the GOP as a method to reduce voting to a ‘zero sum game’.
-
#14 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
The place Romney is most vulnerable is a assault on his support of Citizens United, and Koch and Adelson. By placing ‘Secret Agenda’ on the block, and how much each man including Romney will make off his, Romney’s, tax plan, whether correct or not, you fill in motivation for why Romney is a flip flopping opportunist. Going forward, this is a prosecution in which the components of Romney’s ‘Crime’ MOM, means, opportunity, and motive, are elucidated in public. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
-
cc,
does anyone have any ruminations on the voter suppression activities of the GOP as a method to reduce voting to a ‘zero sum game’.
I’m having trouble following this. I have plenty of ruminations on voter suppression activities…I had planned earlier in the year to run a series of articles on the topic, but it’s truly a mountain to cover adequately and I couldn’t find enough time to get it done. But I don’t understand why you refer to it as a “method to reduce voting to a ‘zero sum game’.”
-
mclever,
It makes sense to run ads of this sort. Romney’s MO is to tell the audience whatever he thinks they want to hear, and since he talks to so many different audiences, he says many conflicting things. I suspect that there’s a grain of literal truth in everything he’s been saying, but that it’s been spoken with the intent to deceive. -
#17 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Michael,
what I’m getting at is that by minimizing the participating groups in an election, you at the same time minimize the issue base(s) that matters. You reduce complexity. The categories of meaningful interaction between a candidate and the electorate goes down, and you remove the necessity of dealing with the nagging issues of some groups, because you diminish the practical impact of those groups on the election. At some point, the election or game becomes zero sum, with only a simplified set of winners and losers. The strategies that win those games are a lot more straightforward and logistically manageable than a complex game in which large numbers of constituencies and competing interests have to be addressed. As long as Romney, for instance, has to dance with the 47%, so to speak, and be truthful, he’s in a pickle…but when that issue is removed by rendering a large chunk of that vote effectively neutered at the polls. For instance tit for tat works in a zero sum (or Nash) game, but is a complete failure in a game with complex interconnectivity.
Sorry to be so long winded, but I was reading about Bain’s investment strategy in negotiating for access to a company with it’s shareholders, and the economist they used at times were game theory/von Mises type Austrian School Libertarian guys. Bain succeeded in many ways because access to information others didn’t have (asymmetry) while keeping the playing field simple, by denying that information to their prey.
-
#18 written by shortchain 7 months ago
An election is never a 0-sum game. Even the losers get a properly elected and legitimate president or representative. Hence the benefit of democracy over other forms of government.
As for limiting information, it’s hardly necessary in America today, when one can simply provide information that supports one’s preconceptions, or, as Jack Welch (and rgbact) said today (I’m paraphrasing here), “I have no evidence whatsoever to back up my outrageous claim, but I think it may be true anyway.”
In other words, object reality means nothing to some people, giving them a significant advantage in political discussions.
-
#19 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
shortchain,
elections can be made short term zero sum games, IMO. A Game, in this case, is not so much about outcomes, as strategies and simplifications a ‘zero sum’, Nash game bring into play. It’s somewhat similar to converting a three front war into a single front war, pardon the metaphor, but they do call a parties strategy location, the war room for a reason.
On another topic, Iran perhaps showed the first nuclear material compromise today, as they began the conversion of weapons quality fissile stocks to a form suitable for fuel/medical applications. The first of many tiny steps lets hope.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-goodwill-gesture-shifts-uranium-to-fuel-stock/ -
An election is not a zero-sum game if you look at the larger truth that both the “winner” and the “loser” get a legitimately-elected government. From the point of view of a political partisan, however, either your side wins or it does not; there is a single prize (an elected office) which goes to exactly one player. So it depends on whether the fate of the nation matters more to the player than do the points scored by a political party.
On Jack Welsh, I don’t know if he believed his nonsense propaganda about the people in “Chicago” influencing a false jobs report. In any case, he isn’t advancing that idea because he believes it (he might or he might not believe it — my point is that the state of his belief isn’t the reason why he’s advancing it). He is making noise about this fantasy because he wants the meme to affect the outcome of the election.
It’s a truly absurd meme, but its purpose is to continue adding to the idea of the President being an illegitimate office holder, i.e., in addition to the birther idiocy, we now can think of him being the ringleader of a criminal conspiracy that is bending the entire structure of nonpartisan governmental bodies to his will. Be afraid, be very afraid.
This stupid idea sounds credible only because of four years of propaganda planting seeds of an illegitimate president, coupled with paranoid fears of dark takeover plots, and the anti-gubmint rhetoric with roots back to Reagan. We can’t trust the gubmint; even less can we trust a black socialist Muslim from Kenya. Beside the vile paranoid rhetoric reaching back to Reagan’s day (“government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem”; the nine most frightening words in the English language; etc) Welsh’s conspiracy theory is pretty tame.
It’s a dog whistle. It isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. It’s intended merely to incite fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Since the whole point is to appeal to the pre-rational reptilian hindbrain, there doesn’t need to be “evidence” to support the craziness. All that’s needed is fertile soil. which the Republicans (and their propaganda arm, FOX “News” and conservative radio talk shows) have furnished in abundance. We all know bullshit is one of the best fertilizers.
(On Iran: I am reminded that Romney apparently has no idea what a “dirty bomb” actually is. A statement he made about a week ago clearly indicated he thinks it requires “fissible material.” This ignorant clown is actually running for President???)
-
#21 written by Max 7 months ago
Zero sum = Only way I get points is to take them from you.
The GOP, for the last four years, have turned away from the traditional role of governing, which calls for compromise. (I get the best possible deal I can even though it is not 100% of what I’d like) They have turned to either no compromise or blatant obstruction.
That essentially changes the rules of politics such that the election becomes part of what is now zero sum game.
-
#22 written by shortchain 7 months ago
CC,
Any contest whatsoever can be made a zero sum game by proper definition of the cost and benefit function. As you have not done so, your argument is simply hand-waving (not that there’s anything wrong with that).The real problem with this argument is that, as I pointed out, the vast majority of people, even those who vote as partisans, do not view the game as zero-sum. In fact, neither Romney nor Obama regard the game as a zero-sum game, which can be seen by the general collegial attitude they display toward each other.
In fact, the apparent horse-race mentality displayed by pundits is strictly for the consumption of the public (who aren’t buying it, as turnout in elections clearly demonstrates) — the people on your media outlets are all well-paid, typically to a tune that has 5 zeros behind the first digit, which is not a 1. They’ll do just fine no matter who wins.
So if you want to “regard” the game as a 0-sum, you really need to give a formula for that cost-benefit function and let us see if it makes sense.
-
#23 written by shortchain 7 months ago
-
-
#25 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
shortchain,
if you look at the phase relationship of the polling data, it might give you a glimmer of what I’m getting at. BTW, my speculation is focused on an attempt by the GOP to drive the election in that direction, not a fait accompli. As you intuit, it’s by constraining the so called utility function that constraints can be applied to drive a contest to a limit or so called zero sum, ergo voter suppression and constituency elimination from the salient public arguments. Might I suggest a little less caffeine. If you want a formula, go pull Morgenthau and von Neumann’s book off the shelf, it’s what Nash cribbed anyway.
Monotreme, if I recall, and it’s been a while, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is subject to Nash equilibrium, and therefore can be played as a zero sum game. Is that your recollection? -
#26 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
The issue of zero sum or not is succinctly stated here:
“However, utilizing utility theory to justify the above assumption raises a new difficulty.Namely, the two players may have different utility functions. The same outcome may beperceived in quite different ways. This means that the game is no longer zero-sum. Weneed an assumption that says the utility functions of two players are the same (up tochange of location and scale). This is a rather strong assumption, but for moderate tosmall monetary amounts, we believe it is a reasonable one.”
So the issue is to functionally make the two players adhere to the same utility function, and force the game zero sum. IMO, by pruning the electorate the GOP is attempting to do that, by defining the electorate by it’s granularity and complexity, the Dems are rebutting that strategy. Just my speculation.
Source of quote, Appendix 1 may satisfy your algebra quest shortchain.
-
#27 written by PNE 7 months ago
Michael,
You’ve made the same mistake as so many other election forecasters. You are actually using the trash polls put out by Republican organizations such as Gravis Marketing, We Ask America, and especially Rasmussen.
All of the “movement” to Romney after the debate has come from polls from those (and other Republican-oriented) firms. All of which continuously, consistently, and shamelessly produce ridiculously Republican-leaning polls that really can’t be adjusted, like you try to do. These polls have severe methodology issues (such as Rasmussen’s weighting by partisan affiliation) and they are pretty much always complete outliers when reasonable polls are released. The only thing that can be done with polls from trash organizations like those is simply to ignore them.
Therefore, there was really no justification to move Florida away from tossup. I haven’t even seen any actual evidence of a Romney bounce at all, in any state.
-
#28 written by mclever 7 months ago
-
#29 written by mclever 7 months ago
-
#30 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#31 written by mclever 7 months ago
@CC
Technically, the Presidential election is a zero sum game regardless of voter supression and other shady gimmicks, because Obama and Romney can’t share a portion of the win. It’s absolute either win or lose, whether it’s by 1 vote or a million votes. Voter suppression doesn’t make it more or less zero sum, though the tactics might be signs of the lengths that certain people will pursue to win in the zero sum situation.
Yes, I acknowledge DC’s point that from the *voter’s* perspective it might not be “zero sum” because they get a duly elected President regardless, but that’s kind of tangential to the strategies of the candidates themselves.
-
#32 written by mclever 7 months ago
-
#33 written by PNE 7 months ago
-
#34 written by mclever 7 months ago
BTW, watching TV is exceptionally painful today. The last commercial break was 5 straight political ads. Obama, local Republican Congressional candidate, Priorities USA, Romney, Romney’s PAC, in that order. The only non-political ad was a plug for the local news.
For those interested, the Obama ad was another new “Romney lies” ad that linked him to Gingrich and Cheney.
-
#35 written by mclever 7 months ago
For those interested, this site is a useful place for keeping a eye on the early vote:
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
For me, personally, I’m very happy with the Iowa numbers. So far, the United States Elections Project at GMU is showing about 190K early votes, and 110K of those are in Iowa where 62% of those are registered Democrats with the remainder split roughly equally between Independents and Republicans. Iowa has already recorded about 1⁄5 of the total number of early votes from 2008. I’ll note that the proportion of Democrats is also running ahead of 2008 when the early votes were 47% Democratic and 29% Republican.
-
PNE,
You’ve made the same mistake as so many other election forecasters. You are actually using the trash polls put out by Republican organizations such as Gravis Marketing, We Ask America, and especially Rasmussen.
I’m not making quite the mistake you think. I do correct for their biases when I add them to the mix. WeAskAmerica is not a trash poll, and they lined up with Rasmussen.
-
#37 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
mclever,
it’s been a long time, but I thought there are constraints in the PD or maybe the iterated PD in which lessening ones jail time (using the classic example) as the only motivation is abandoned, and it can be played as zero sum. Maybe that’s what was being talked about, but I’m not sure. Ask your better half, because the classical PD is, as she says, the archetype for a non-zero sum game.
-
#38 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#39 written by shortchain 7 months ago
@mclever,
Sure, as you say, if your cost function is +1 for a win, –1 for a loss, it’s a zero-sum game. That does not reflect the true cost function to either the candidates or the populace, of course, so, although mathematically correct (and, BTW, I first read Morgenthau’s intro to game theory in about 1965, so I’m fairly familiar with the mathematics) — it’s pointless in any real sense.In point of fact, neither of the parties has a strategy that remotely resembles anything suitable for a zero-sum game.
-
#40 written by PNE 7 months ago
-
#41 written by PNE 7 months ago
I wish RCP had an option where we could adjust their averages by taking out the trash polls. For many states, the pattern on the averages there is that Obama has a small, but firm, lead. Then polls from Rasmussen, Gravis, WAA, and other Republican firms come and make the state seem a lot closer than it actually is. Then other, reputable polls come and push the trash polls out of the average, and the state “moves” back to the Obama lead that it actually had all that time. This pattern, happening repeatedly, can get very annoying.
-
#43 written by mclever 7 months ago
@shortchain
1965? Well, that explains some of it… My stats and game theory classes were much more recent than that, and some of the ways those terms were used have been updated since then. The definition of a zero sum game in newer texts like “Games of Strategy” is apparently much more straightforward than the definition you are using.
-
#44 written by shortchain 7 months ago
@mclever,
No, the zero-sum definition has not changed. It’s always been that the sum of the costs and benefits to all players is 0. That’s been the mathematical definition since the beginning.As I have said repeatedly, if you define your cost function as +1 for a win and –1 for a loss, you can basically turn any game into a zero-sum game for two players. But that ignores the true cost and true benefit, which, in modern politics, is nothing like a zero-sum game.
-
PNE,
Gravis has been far to the right of the consensus, but Rasmussen and WeAskAmerica have had a Republican bias in the couple point range. They haven’t been so far off the mark that they’re useless. But I understand your concerns about right-leaning polls. It’s the same sort of complaints we hear from Republicans about PPP. I don’t toss them out, either. -
#46 written by Mainer 7 months ago
Yup them damned liberal polls that were all wrong last week are all correct this week. Fox says Romney is ahead by 2 points nationally but even they are saying Mitt is behind in important swing states. I’m starting to think national polls are pretty meaningless for either candidate. As a guess one might think that the traditional red states just ate up the debate the other night but those were states I would seriously doubt the president was ever going to see an EV out of any way so that Mitt now getting 60 or 70% approval in Alabama or Mississippi still will not gain him any additional EV’s but it does skew the numbers on the national polls. I suspect the same is true of states like Maine for Obama but it appears he has less of those states than say Mitt.
I find it interesting though that the Wisconsin data would have the president up by 10 with out Raz numbers and RCP still has the president up by 6.6. I suppose that could erode more but I have faith in Mitt finding a way to screw it up.
-
#47 written by mclever 7 months ago
@Mainer
I think national polls are more likely subject to poor samples, because it’s hard to get a representative sample from each demographic in all fifty states when you’re only calling 2000 people or so. They’re only calling about 40 people per state, and if they’re trying to balance the state respondents according to population, they might only be calling 5 or 10 people in some states. Can they be sure that all 10 people they got ahold of in Maine actually represent the variety of views in Maine, for example?Just as a hypothetical example, perhaps the poll gets a response from only one Asian guy in California. This one guy ends up representing all So-Cal Asians, who are a varied and complex demographic. But, if a pollster is polling California specifically, they’ll get several Asians in their sample, which will give them a much better idea of what folks are actually thinking.
Anyway, that’s part of why national polls often seem “off”…
-
-
#49 written by mclever 7 months ago
-
-
#51 written by Mainer 7 months ago
-
#52 written by Mainer 7 months ago
-
I get the sense that this mittward poll phasing may be the ‘sugar high’ we heard about earlier for a different situation.
Ordinarily, such a ‘decisive’ debate win would be accompanied by excited media chatter about all the wonderful assertions, stunning solutions and striking choice presented by the winner.
But noooo. The chatter is all churning exactly how full of shit mitt is… really fulla shit… sorta… and the hissing mouth breather hordes can’t consolidate this imaginary gain and close the deal because they are occupied defending mttacity and tossing counter dung.
In some ways this at least deflects from further scrutiny of the non plans mitt chucked up but after the “how much did he lie” churn subsides he may well be back to square one with his chance to be grandiose once again slipping through his mitts.
This is the pattern I’ll be watching for. Will his slide resume once inevitable consensus sorts out the lie morass . -
And the spew stunt is like a RPG. It only works once, that’s it.
What does mittles do to top it?
Premature expostulation… the wad’s shot.
What does he do for an encore now that everyone is on to that stupid trick like Bullwinkle doing the “Rocky.. watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat..” routine -
http://www.roboromney.com/ looks fun. Nate is indicating the tide seems to be going out again so he got 4 days.
-
#56 written by Mainer 7 months ago
Chris I don’t think this is going to deflect from Mitt and Ryan’s plans in fact it may make it worse because now the question has to be what exactly is your plan for it can’t be all of the above.
What does he do next? Hell Mitt will try the same damned thing as will Ryan. Only probably more of it.
-
#57 written by Armchair Warlord 7 months ago
-
-
It’s interesting that the coverage of how “well” Romney did in the debate, and how “poorly” Obama did, is all about style. Have we heard anything about how Romney plans to balance the budget, or create jobs, or improve education? Anything about new ideas or what the tax structure will look like if Romney puts his hands on it?
Not a word about anything substantive. We hear instead about Romney seeming energetic and Obama seeming listless (that’s not how I saw it, but that is what we’re hearing). The questions about Romney’s substance that existed before the debate still exist today. In fact, the questions have gotten worse, because Romney denied virtually all of the hints at substance he’s made so far.
The one substantive thing we got out of the debate is something people are not talking about — Romney would dismantle Medicare and substitute for it an annual insurance discount coupon, which will decay in value over time. He admitted that. This isn’t going to play well among seniors.
And that’s the reason Romney gives no direct answers. None of his actual programs will play well with the public. For the people who paid attention, that much was also clear last Wednesday.
So it isn’t any wonder wonder that the breathless Republican cheerleaders are talking about style rather than substance. Substance would tank Romney.
-
The GOP is a marketing party. Style is everything and masking substance is essential.
You have to stoke the disgruntled, mainly the Angry White Guy circuit and help feed their conviction that their diminished lot is caused by meddling and not by demographic shifts.
The interesting discovery will be how much the electorate has changed after four years of protracted recession. What if many of the glib assumptions driving the GOP pitch machine were predicated on a fatter, happier and shallower electorate, pre 2008 and the whole aim now is to just improve pitch delivery?
What if four years of recession have made the electorate more observant and alert than in those fatter happier time when shallowness was a more affordable luxury? -
-
-
-
There is a regular growing genre of Romney’s fulla shit video art. That one is going viral fast.
This one is like that dummy clip.
http://youtu.be/SQUmnAiz_4E -
#66 written by Armchair Warlord 7 months ago
-
#67 written by dawolf 7 months ago
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Michael Weiss (322 posts)
Michael is a jack of many trades, and master of a few. His varied background includes government and private businesses, both large and small. His experience in the financial services and computer industries has led him to computer security.






Based on current polls, I am moving FL back to Romney (OK, Sunshine Staters, I’m getting CTS from all this changing back and forth!), so my current no toss-up is 303–235 Obama.
PaddyPower made a significant move in Romney’s direction this week, erasing all the movement towards Obama for the previous 3 weeks.
They have Obama at 2–7, exactly were it was 3 weeks ago. A $1 bet gets you 28c versus 14c last week.
Romney bettors are offered 5–2, slightly worse than the 9–4 from 3 weeks ago. A $1 bet will pay you $2.50 versus $4.50 last Saturday.