Reëlection Watch: October 20, 2012
This week has been yet another time of major change as we close in on Election Day. For the first time in a long time, my Electoral College prediction has shifted.
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 Republican has maintained his RealClearPolitics lead from a week ago, though it has shrunk a hair. Gallup’s tracking poll is the only thing holding Romney above Obama, and Gallup is sufficiently far from the consensus as to be considered an outlier. Historically, when Gallup is far from the consensus, Gallup is the errant pollster. Investor’s Business Daily and Rasmussen both indicate a tie at the national level. The President’s position is now two points behind President George W. Bush’s on this date eight years ago, and eight points below his position four years ago.
After the first debate, half of Obama’s favorability polls had him below 50 percent. In the past week (and all before the second debate), they rose again above that magic threshold. Romney’s favorability polls have continued to improve, and he now matches Obama. Obama held a three to five point edge over Romney all year until this week. The two candidates are now tied in this metric.
Obama’s job approval polls show him about 1.5 points worse than Bush was in 2004.
Like last week, the national polls suggest that Obama might lose the upcoming election.
As of yesterday, Intrade had Obama at 62, unchanged from last week.
Overall, things on the national level continue look sketchy for the President.
Early Voting
Early voting has spread to 49 states this week. The green states are accepting absentee ballots, but not early in-person ballots, while the gold states are accepting both.

All states other than Pennsylvania are at least taking absentee ballots. Sixteen states allow in-person voting today; of the battleground states, this includes Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and North Carolina.
The Electoral College
Here’s what the Electoral College looks like, based on current polling data*:

Here are the key states with new data since last time:
- North Carolina was polled once in the past week. Public Policy Polling saw Romney ahead by two points, but their left bias translates to something more akin to four points. Of those requesting absentee ballots, 54 percent are registered Republicans. North Carolina moves to “Likely Romney” as the clock winds down. The Romney campaign feels the same way; they pulled their advertising dollars out of the state earlier this week, in favor of spending more money elsewhere. Intraders give Romney an 80 percent chance of carrying the Tarheel State, up seven points from last week.
- Florida got polled four times in the past week. Public Policy Polling, Rasmussen, CNN/Opinion Research, and FOX News saw Romney up by one, five, one, and three points, respectively. The overall weighted and corrected average translates to a three point lead for Romney, but they’re trending in Romney’s direction. Absentee ballots have been coming in; about four percent of the 2008 total have already been cast, with Republicans outvoting Democrats by a four point margin. Florida moves to “Likely Romney”, based on the consistency of pro-Romney polls in the Sunshine State, the trend in Romney’s direction, and the systemic advantage Romney already enjoys. Floridians have been able to vote for nearly three weeks. Intraders give Romney a 65 percent chance of picking up Florida’s 29 electoral votes, up four from last week.
- Virginia was polled this past week by American Research Group and Rasmussen, who saw a one and three point Romney lead, respectively. Rasmussen’s adjusts down to two. It’s not that Obama has been trending down so much as the undecideds in the Old Dominion are breaking heavily for Romney, according to recent polls. All in all, it’s close enough to keep Virginia a “Tossup”, in part because Virginians have been able to vote by absentee ballot for a month now, and Obama was ahead for much of that time. The Intrade market has Romney barely ahead, at 51 percent, down two from a week ago.
- Colorado had two polls published this week. WeAskAmerica found Romney ahead by a point, while Public Policy Polling, the only one to poll after the second debate, saw Obama up by three, which adjusts to something more akin to a tie. There’s still no evidence that Romney’s debate bump has faded here. Colorado stays a “Tossup”. Intraders agree with me; the Colorado market is tied between the two candidates. This represents a four point shift in Obama’s direction this past week.
- New Hampshire was polled this week by Suffolk/7News, who saw the race as tied, Rasmussen, who saw Obama up by one, and Public Policy Polling, who saw Romney up by one. Rasmussen’s poll adjusts to a two point lead, and PPP’s adjusts to three, but on balance the three polls aren’t enough to move the Granite State a column left; it stays “Tossup”. On Intrade, Obama has the lead at 62 percent, up four from last week.
- Ohio was polled twice this past week. SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and FOX News saw leads for Obama by three, one, and three points, respectively. Including the house biases, that keeps Obama narrowly in the lead. Ohio still sits just on the “Leans Obama” side of the border with “Tossup”. Buckeyes have been able to vote for three weeks now. The Intrade market gives the edge to Obama, at 62 percent, up three from a week ago. But Ohio’s market is one of the few competitive states where the sum of the two candidates don’t add up to 100 percent; this market adds up to 101.7.
- Iowa was polled four times this week. American Research Group saw the race tied, while WeAskAmerica found Obama ahead by three, and NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist saw an Obama lead of eight points. On the other hand, Public Policy Polling saw a one point Romney lead, which would typically adjust to three. This is a real mess to decipher. Marist and PPP are the only two to cover days after the second Presidential debate, and they differ by nine unadjusted, and 11 adjusted, points. Both diverge from the historical trend and each other, which suggests that they’re both outliers, though Marist by a bit more than PPP. I think this converges on Obama up by two or three points, so Iowa remains “Leans Obama”, a position it has held during the entire time ballots have been able to be cast. On Intrade, Obama has the lead here, with a 63 percent chance, up three from last week.
- Nevada got polled again this week, this time by the Las Vegas Review Journal/SurveyUSA and Rasmussen. This time, both saw small Obama leads. Rasmussen found the race tied. Obama’s lead crept up this week. This is a tough call for the model, which sees the following: growing lead for Obama, little time before Election Day, and yet a relatively small lead. This is what has led to the whipsaw of “Leans Obama” two weeks ago, “Tossup” last week, and now “Leans Obama” again, and moves several states down this list. Intraders still have faith in the President here; he is trading at 69 percent, down a point from a week ago.
- Wisconsin got polled this week by Marquette University, who saw Obama ahead by one point, and NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist, who came away with Obama up by six. This is a tough call. Every poll after the first debate, except for this latest Marist poll, showed Obama up by one to three points. But, like their Iowa poll, Marist’s is the only one to include people surveyed after the second debate. I’m leaving Wisconsin as “Leans Obama”, but we should look for a trend here and in Iowa. Intraders remain confident in Obama here, trading him at 68 percent, down one from a week ago.
- Pennsylvania was polled three times this week. Public Policy Polling, the Morning Call, and Quinnipiac saw Obama leads of seven, four, and four points, respectively. That puts Obama in the lead by somewhere between four and five points; that this lead has remained consistent as the debate bump faded in the Keystone State means we keep it at “Likely Obama”. Pennsylvania does move one step up this list this week, though. The markets at Intrade agree with this, putting the President at 79 percent, down four from a week ago.
- Michigan was polled once this week, the day after the second debate, by EPIC-MRA, who saw a six point lead for Obama. This is significant, because last week they found Obama up by only three. On the other hand, the consensus of the four pollsters last week was more like five or six. Regardless, Michigan stays “Likely Obama”, but not by enough to be off the list entirely. At Intrade, Obama is trading at 85 percent here, up four from last week.
- Connecticut makes this list this week, not because the outcome is particularly in question, but rather because the outcome has been suggested at various times to be in question. The two polls that came out this week should put this to rest. Siena and Hartford Courant/UConn both show commanding leads for Obama. At no time this year has a poll shown Obama ahead by fewer than seven points, and these latest two show him ahead by twice that much. Connecticut is “Likely Obama”, and barring a huge shift between now and the end of the month, we won’t see Connecticut on the list again. This heavy Obama lean is reflected at Intrade, where Obama is given a 90 percent chance of winning the state.
Three states shifted this week. Only Nevada moved one column to the left, putting six more electoral votes in the “Leans Obama” zone. Florida and North Carolina moved from “Leans Romney” to “Likely Romney”. This is the first time states moved into “Likely Romney” since we started this series. Based on the model, Obama has a probable 281 electoral votes, down 22 from last week, but still enough to win. It’s been more than three consecutive months in which Obama could lose all tossups and still stay in the White House.
The Vice Presidential debate didn’t have a visible impact in the polls, and it’s still too early to discern the broader impacts, if any, from the second Presidential debate.
Conclusion
The national polls show the race effectively tied, while the state tallies continue to indicate a comfortable Obama lead. Historically, the state-by-state tallies have been more accurate than the national ones, which leads me to believe that Obama still has the edge.
What if I’m wrong, and the national numbers are right? If so, then we should shift the states about two points to the right. Romney would pick up Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire, giving him 261 electoral votes. Romney would then need ten more electoral votes. In this scenario, Ohio would be an up-the-middle tossup, and would therefore be to the 2012 election what Florida was to the 2000 election. While the systemic forces in Ohio aren’t as strong as they are in Florida, they are probably enough to push Ohio to Romney if the national numbers are right, a further reflection of 2000.
If I had to predict an Electoral College result based on the model, which puts more emphasis on the state polls, I’d shift things a hair from last week. Both tossups would move into Romney’s column. This would give Obama 281, and Romney 257, the first change in over two months.
How do you feel about these predictions? Do you differ on them? If so, how, where, and why?
Author’s note: The map erroneously had New Hampshire as “Leans Obama” instead of “Tossup”. I regret the error.
Related articles
Reëlection Watch: October 13, 2012
About that Gallup poll: Is Romney really up by 7? And will Obama win the election anyway?
Romney has edge in key national poll, but swing states remain close
Romney campaign, feeling confident, pulls some staff out of N.C.
With 284,000 Florida votes already in, absentee vote data more critical than polls
Intrade Odds Show Romney Gaining After Libya, First Presidential Debate
How to Make Money on the Presidential Prediction Markets
Even with Gallup, This Race is Tight
Absentee-ballot war: 500,000 Floridians have voted; Democrats slightly trail Republicans
Polls: Gallup still has Romney up, Marist shows Obama leads in two swing states

This entry was posted by Michael Weiss on October 20, 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 DrFunguy 7 months ago
Ohio is important (and had interference in the vote by Republicans in 2004) that is why “the connection between the Romney family, Bain Capital, and ownership of voting machines” in Ohio is so troubling
-
#3 written by PNE 7 months ago
Whoa. There is one change that I agree with, and two that I strongly disagree with.
First of all, thank you for moving Nevada back to Lean Obama. Since Democrats have a history of overperforming the polls there, I think it should be likely, but I’ll take Lean.
Your two other decisions, however, are mystifying. First of all, Florida. There is no trend toward Romney in Florida, in fact the opposite could be true, seeing as Mason-Dixon’s 7-point FL outlier has now fallen off the radar screen and SurveyUSA gives Obama a 1-point lead in their most recent Florida poll. Rasmussen should be ignored, and therefore the four recent polls in Florida are R+1, R+1, R+3, and O+1. These average to R+1. Florida is clearly still a tossup.
As for North Carolina, Obama was given a 3-point lead by Grove, and PPP does not have a leftward bias anymore. Additionally, Obama has an excellent ground game in NC, and Romney is showing overconfidence there the way McCain did with Indiana (and we all know what happened then). Also, the only firms showing Romney with a lead of greater than two points are Rasmussen and Gravis Marketing, both of which should be ignored. NC should be either a tossup or maybe a Lean Romney, but definitely not Likely.
Everything else I agree with.
-
A Salt Lake City daily serves up the following.. (pretty funny.)
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844–82/romney-obama-state-president.html.csp
As for polling likelihoods, there are all manner of odd fog banks, under polling latinos, a decline in the number of people who are even willing to be respondents, corporate manipulations to sell ad spots and drive eyeballs.
There isn’t much in that whirl of factors that favors Romney. I love the way the media is flogging the ‘angry mittins’ pic from debate 2 as he does look a bit like dracula’s nephew. -
PNE,
There is no trend toward Romney in Florida, in fact the opposite could be true, seeing as Mason-Dixon’s 7-point FL outlier has now fallen off the radar screen and SurveyUSA gives Obama a 1-point lead in their most recent Florida poll.
Mason-Dixon was an outlier, so I don’t consider them part of the trend one way or the other. SurveyUSA’s one-point Obama lead (which was published after my article) is not enough to give Obama a state where the procedural deck is stacked against him. And I don’t ignore Rasmussen, I correct for his house bias.
Regarding North Carolina, there hasn’t been a single poll with Obama ahead since the first Presidential debate. Absentee ballots have been favoring Romney as well. North Carolina went for Obama by a third of a point in 2008, and there’s no reason to believe that the race is as lopsided in Obama’s favor this time as it was last time. With the volume of polls coming out now, so little time before election day, and so many absentee ballots arriving, two points is plenty to call North Carolina “Likely Romney”.
-
#6 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
What if this whole thing comes down to sampling error/inadequacy? After the revelation that in some places, 80+% of those question refuse to respond to a pollster, the complete inadequacy of polling Hispanics, and finally, early voting is breaking 2⁄1 for Obama.…I’m in a quandary to make sense of any of it. Beyond trying to average things out in polls or polls, as per 538, an act of faith may be necessary to believe in any of their reliability.
Intrade is an interesting example of an option/futures, or gambling estimator. Whether you adopt the futures market perspective, or sports book one, both can be wildly inaccurate if the reporting system is gamed by purposeful or situational bad information, like voters who either lie about their choices, intentions to vote or refuse to respond to a pollster at all.
In that vein, I think the only declaration of ‘intent’ that can be taken as meaningful is voter registration, not a declaration of someones likelihood to vote. That’s like asking a baseball pitcher does he want to throw strikes.
-
#7 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#8 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#9 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#10 written by PNE 7 months ago
Michael: I agree that SurveyUSA’s poll isn’t enough to “give Obama” the state, but it is definitely enough to rate the state as either tossup or Lean Romney.
As for NC, you said, “ there hasn’t been a single poll with Obama ahead since the first Presidential debate.” This is false. 538 shows a poll by Grove with Obama ahead by 3. Also, early absentee ballots in NC always favor Republicans, because they mostly consist of old people. I wouldn’t read too much into that. And also, being ahead by two points in the polls is hardly a guarantee of victory, for either side.
-
#12 written by Rose 7 months ago
-
#13 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
The Salt Lake Trib endorsement came as a surprise to me as well. Mormon owned or not, they have the highest circulation in Salt Lake. Funny, they are owned by Alden Global Capital, who has had as an investment strategy media aggregation. Interestingly, this last year when Warren Buffet began to buy media companies, Alden acted as something of catalyst in persuading creditors of some of Buffets targets to consolidate their holdings and submit to a substantial haircut to bring the targets out of bankruptcy for a price that Buffet ‘felt’ was reasonable.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/52825934–79/circulation-news-tribune-average.html.csp
-
It raises questions about various rumors that rose back when Harry Reid was carping about Mitti’s taxes.
Mittster may have been shorting his tithe or some such thing. Maybe LDS isn’t as monolithic as it may have once been with factions rising?
You’ll recall after much bluster, the right was reasonably content to sweep it all under the rug.
And there was one theory making the rounds that Mitt’s tax stuff might reveal this tithe shirking and that this was a greater factor in his refusal.
We may look back on this election cycle as the one when older modes of opinion entrail reading finally collapsed from a convergence of things such as:1. Increasing numbers of people who are fed up with the maniacally invasive world corporatocracy has given us with demands for opinions on the other side of every mouse click, or bubbling out of that ringing phone.
2. Demographic tipping points where the once formidable angry white guy cohort is a victim of declining AWG birthrates. The surveys no longer model well to an America that is strikingly less white. What of all the other growing demographics that barely show up such as South and East Asians?
3. A completely lazy media that does very little to make sense of the actual ground operations and social media metrics of both candidates. Once upon a time, someone like David Broder would head off to the back waters to attempt to take the public’s pulse. Journalists would once try to dig up that back story stuff.
Now we mainly have grossly overpaid lazy airheads yapping crap from the distance and comfort of whatever clumsy corporate monstrosity signs the paycheck.
-
#15 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Chris,
here in NorCal what I hear from my few Mormon friends is that something of an insurrection is going on. Hispanic, Pacific Island, and Black Mormons are forcing the issue about access to the inner councils of Mormon power. They, in many cases, have relatives who are victims (their POV) of US Immigration Policy, and want it liberalized. Many of them were recruited into Mormonism as a consequence of Missions to their native countries, and in some cases immigrated to the US to move closer to the seat of their church. They arrive, and find the political posture of Mormonism to be sort of pre 1978, when everyone supposedly became equal in the eyes of the church. A lot these folks in NorCal were recruited into the Prop 8, anti gay marriage war and are now finding the sort of bell tolling for them as they tolled for gays. I know that several identical geographic areas have multiple stakes organized along ethnic origin lines, especially if traditional customs are assaulted by Mormon convention, particularly with Pacific Islanders, who use ancient drugs as part of social ritual.
Anyway, probably for political purposes, a lot of Reid’s constituents in Nevada are 1st generation Mormon, as is he I might add, and are upset about this ‘self deportation’ rhetoric. The Salt Lake ‘blue bloods’ like Romney don’t impress them as even handed people. As a Pratt descendant, Romney is about as blue blooded a member of the Mormon central circle as you can get.
-
#16 written by Max 7 months ago
-
#17 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#18 written by mclever 7 months ago
@Rose
Sometimes pollsters ask if voters have already voted, and if so, for whom. There are no exit polls for early votes.
In some states, the Secretary of State releases voter registration statistics of votes received. Here in Iowa, for example, the SOS publishes the current tally of who has voted. Here, voting early means essentially submitting an in-person absentee ballot which is not opened and counted until election day, but they still know the registration of anyone who has voted, so we know that ~50% of the early votes are Democrats vs. ~30% Reublicans and ~20% indy/other in a state where the actual registration numbers are about 33/33/34. We also know that 45% of the absentee ballot requests were from Democrats in Iowa, for example. We don’t know for certain which candidate the registered Democrats or Republicans voted for, but the registration numbers are suggestive of an advantage for Obama.
In some other states, the early ballots are submitted electronically (hello Diebold), so election officials can peak at the early counts. They’re not supposed to release those numbers, but secrets generally don’t stay kept for long.
So, those are some ways that people can make reasonable estimations of how the candidates are doing in the early voting.
-
#19 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Interesting new book by Chrystia Freeland at Reuters I think.
“Rise of the Plutocrats.…“
http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-Rise-Global-Super-Rich-Everyone/dp/1594204098/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350077521&sr=1–1&keywords=plutocrats+the+rise+of+the+new+global+super-rich+and+the+fall+of+everyone+else -
Good old Kava Kava.
But then Mormonism was probably born of a fly agaric binge when Vermont hick Smitty picked the wrong shrooms for a stew. It seems like something you’d cook up while bent on crappy psilocybin or bufotonine.
Maroni… jeeze. As if all the other gawdawful monotheistic sky god screeds weren’t toxic enough.
Then the gathered gaggle gets run out of town after town for being insufferable yapping manic pests until the quiet mineral loaded barrens of Utah beckon with many a chance to fleece the wretches passing through on wagon trains.
When I lived in the Puget basin we had the three pests who came to the door.
Seattle Times subscription peddlers were the least offensive and would get a gracious no.
Then there was the holy rollers from the Our Lady of the Broken Crack Pipe store front church, strange flailing recovering druggie white folx. I’d insult them a bit and tell em scram.
Then finally, the LDS zombies. They came in uniforms of blue ties, white shirts and dark chinos with bulging adams apples like CIA bureaucrats in training. They’d get a loud Get..The.. Fxxxk… Outa Here!!! …with a brisk loud door slam for added drama.
That would be funny to see them hung on the zeal petard as a sort of cross culture blowback. And 1978 sounds like a stab at ‘goin legit’.
America continuously cranks out these exceptionalist crackpot sky god sects churning ever more schismatic hairsplitting to lay over the jumble of other ridiculous sky god crap spawned in the old country.
The game seems to be like the mafia, you run weird for a century or so then ‘go legit’.
-
#21 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#22 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#23 written by astrodude 7 months ago
Hey, for you folks who regularly post your electoral college predictions, or at least refer to them (Michael, Max, rgbact, mclever,…) which swing state would surprise you the most if it went the opposite way that you had predicted? I say swing state because of course we would all be shocked if, say, California or New York went red, or Utah went blue. So, a state that is at least nominally in play but in your mind is pretty close to a sure thing.
-
#24 written by PNE 7 months ago
Astrodude: Although you didn’t mention me, I’ll answer your question anyway. It would surprise me A LOT if either Ohio or Wisconsin voted for Romney. Of course, if that were to happen Romney would almost definitely win, however I don’t think there are any comparable states on the other side. I would not be terribly surprised if Obama won North Carolina, and states like Indiana and Missouri aren’t really swing states. I guess the state most comparable on the other side would be Arizona; I would be very surprised if Obama won it.
P.S. I’m expecting Ohio to vote 51–47 Obama, Wisconsin to vote 52–46 Obama, and Arizona to vote 52–47 Romney.
-
#26 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
-
#28 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Interesting speculation on why scare tactics are being used to get a early solution to the ‘fiscal cliff”.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-corporate-america-is-freaking-out-about-the-fiscal-cliff-2012–10
-
#29 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#30 written by astrodude 7 months ago
Thanks PNE, Max, and Michael for your thoughts, and apologies to PNE for not including him/her in my initial list!
I’m not sure that I would have put Florida so solidly into team R territory, but when both Michael and Nate Silver do so on the same day, it has an impact.
My biggest surprise would be if North Carolina were to go for Obama.
-
#31 written by mclever 7 months ago
@astrodude
Of the states mentioned as “swing” states, I’d be most surprised if Romney won Pennsylvania or Obama won Arizona. I don’t really think either should count as a “swing” state.
Next most surprising would probably be Obama winning Florida. Just as I expect Democrats to overperform in Nevada, I expect Republicans to overperform in Florida.
I’d also be surprised if Romney won in Iowa. The polling is very, very close here, but the DNC/Obama ground game is much more active, as evidenced by the early voting numbers that are tilted heavily Democratic. The RNC and Romney are flooding the airwaves and making multiple robocalls per day, but I’ve mentioned before about how much more effective face-to-face campaigns are in Iowa especially. I expect the Republicans to do better than they did in 2008, but a Romney win here would go against the character for the state.
-
#32 written by rgbact 7 months ago
PNE–
I agree on FL. You could make a case for WI though. It might not be as attainable as it seems and Obama is almost at 50%. Chuck Todd mentioned this week certain states where even though you’re 2–3 points down—-those points are unattainable. So many conflicting signs at this point. Analysis paralysis.
Anyway, I’m lending more credence to state polls this week. Gallup is just too much an outlier (or are they a trendsetter?). Therefore, I’m way down to Romney 279 this time(but we’re counting chads in OH).
-
-
#34 written by Max 7 months ago
You and your heated rival are at a public function, say a fundraiser for the new town park. Do you publicly berate the other person and carry on that feud in the setting?
Your company is considering expansion which would include a purchase of properties adjacent to the existing. It’s early in the planning stage. Do you make public announcements of the fact, or do you quietly negotiate and take out options to buy those properties?
Those who make an issue of, and demand full public disclosure of every move in the diplomatic arena seem to advocate “yes” in the first question and “publicity” in the second.
And they would be just as ignorant, with the related costs, in their actions in all events.
-
#35 written by parksie555 7 months ago
re: #22 — NYT is already walking back this story after the White House denied the report.
Further erosion of the credibility of the NYT as they are completely in the tank for Obama at this point.
They see the writing on the wall and are fighting hard to give the Won any scraps he can use in the final debate.
Still a coin toss election at this point. Pennsylvania is a tease as always, will ultimately disappoint the elephants. Not sure if using resources here is a winning gambit at this point, although the R’s get a bit of a two-fer here if they can force some defensive play from Obama and possibly swing the Smith-Casey race (although I think this is a bit of a longshot as well).
All comes down to Ohio once again.
If the Gallup numbers are even close to reality, this thing is over. Romney will win Ohio and Wisconsin and post a handy 289–249 EV win.
Basically the RCP no-tossups map today with OH and WI swinging to Romney.
I think the reality of the horserace number lies somewhere between the Ras +2 and the Gallup +5, call it 49.5 — 46 Romney.
So my call at this point is 279–259, with Romney winning OH and Obama hanging by a thread in WI.
-
#36 written by Max 7 months ago
parksie,
Wishful thinking, so far, on your part. Wrong, OH and WI are NOT “basically the RCP no-tossups map”. That map is 277–261 Obama with OH and WI in the O column. And Virginia is a tie in the average of polls, moving BACK in the O direction from the R, so RCP is keeping it in the R column. A tenth of a point move to the left and it goes back to Obama and it’s 290–248.
-
#37 written by rgbact 7 months ago
-
#38 written by mclever 7 months ago
@rgbact
How can anyone make sense of this? Small sample-sizes and erratic response rates from voters. The methodology behind selecting the random sample to call might be fine, but when only 10% of those called are willing to answer the questions, that presents a heavy self-selection bias on the part of respondents. I think the margins for error are much wider than conventional estimations would suggest. I also think the national polls are more likely to miss than hit in this polling environment.
-
#39 written by parksie555 7 months ago
Max — I said “the RCP no-tossups map with OH and WI swinging to Romney”, based on the fact that I put a little more stock in the Gallup number than MWeiss and the overall momentum in the race.
RGB — Gallup and Ras. The guys that do this for a living are the ones to listen to. I pay little attention to the media polls — they are trying to sell papers and pageviews. PPP is obviously in the tank for the Dems, they will publish what the KosKids demand. They will not bite the hand that feeds them.
-
Gallup and Ras. The guys that do this for a living are the ones to listen to. I pay little attention to the media polls — they are trying to sell papers and pageviews. PPP is obviously in the tank for the Dems, they will publish what the KosKids demand. They will not bite the hand that feeds them.
See, this is the sort of sentiment one hears from people who are so desperately looking for a particular outcome. And I’m not singling parksie out here; many liberal regulars here say the same thing, except they want to include PPP and exclude Rasmussen. Both sentiments say more about the speaker than they do about the polls. We have years of data from these polling firms, and can readily determine by now the degree to which they show a meaningful picture, and what corrections need to be made to bring them into focus.
Read over my entire series of Reëlection and Senate watches. Notice how many times Rasmussen has shown a better outcome for Obama than do the others in that same period. Notice, too, how many times PPP has shown a better outcome for Romney than do the others in that same period. Statistical noise is statistical noise. One can see any signal one wishes to in the noise, if one is so primed. The entire point of creating a dispassionate model is to eliminate the personal bias, and let the numbers speak for themselves.
Bottom line: if the election were held today, the results would be what we see on the map above. Or, on the relative long shot of the nationals being more accurate than the states (which would be a first, by the way), it would be as I described in the closing section.
-
#41 written by rgbact 7 months ago
RGB — Gallup and Ras. The guys that do this for a living are the ones to listen to.
That was my theory early on. NBC/CBS/Fox have a vested interest in gaming results to draw in viewers. Figured Gallup especially was immune to that and wasn’t trying to sell other products (website/papers/books). Then Axelrod got them to change their sampling and I’ve lost some faith.
See, this is the sort of sentiment one hears from people who are so desperately looking for a particular outcome.
I don’t see anyway to avoid it. Its human nature to grasp at data that confirms your beliefs and shun data that negates it. Election modeling pretty much is the most extreme example you can find on Earth. Thinking people can be impartial is just not reasonable imo.
Bottom line: if the election were held today,
Its not being held for 2.5 weeks though.
-
rgbact,
I don’t see anyway to avoid it.
Then you’re not looking very hard. I told you how to do it a few minutes ago. You create a model without knowing the numbers that will go into it.
Bottom line: if the election were held today,
Its not being held for 2.5 weeks though.
Actually, it is being held today. The polls don’t close for another 2.5 weeks, but people have been casting votes since September 6. Moreover, both sides are pretty much out of the big ammunition. There might be some movement between now and November 6, but it’s likely to be pretty small, based on historical evidence. Enough to change the winner of the Presidential race? Maybe, but not particularly likely.
-
#43 written by Max 7 months ago
parksie and rgbact,
When rg compares STATE polls with NATIONAL ones, and wonders about results, there is a distinct disconnect!
It would be like comping here in Texas with national polls and wondering why Romney isn’t ahead by 10 nationally!!
The whole thing is less of an issue by looking at RCP’s average of polls and more so their more recent state poll results for the state-by-state EV projections.
-
#44 written by rgbact 7 months ago
The polls don’t close for another 2.5 weeks, but people have been casting votes since September 6.
Some people have. According to WaPo, IA is the only swing state with over 5% of votes cast as of last week. VA and NH don’t even have early voting. I suspect the earlier voters tend to be pretty partisan too. Not many independent types.
-
#45 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#46 written by WA7th 7 months ago
-
#47 written by mclever 7 months ago
@CC
rgbact is correct that early votes rarely reflect the final tally, but they are often an indication of the relative ground-game. And, he’s wrong about how many early votes have come in already. Iowa isn’t the only state with more than 5% early votes in already.
Florida has ~9% early votes already, with about 45% R to 40% D.
Georgia has more than 10% in, but they don’t release registration #s.
Nevada has ~6% in with 51% D to 33% R.
North Carolina has over 10% in with 50% D to 31% R.
Ohio has over 11% in, but they don’t release registration #s.
Virginia also has ~6% in, but they don’t release registration #s.Other swing states have begun early voting, but not all release as much information as North Carolina or Iowa… Of the swing-ish states reporting early numbers, only Florida is showing an R advantage in the early vote.
-
#48 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
mclever,
interesting info. I found this data on response rates to polling that was really disquieting Over the years, the response rate has fallen from ~30% to 9% this year. Within those responding (from another study) the refusal to co-operate may be from 4 %- 70% .

These numbers and their progression leave me scratching my head about te sensitivity to sampling error. BTW, low income, often inner city groups often don’t respond because they fear the poll to be some kind of ‘sting’ operation. One might ask, why would that be, witness ‘stop and frisk’ policy in NY and the Cleveland signs about arrest and felony threats associated with voting. I’m beginning to wonder if there isn’t a whole new dynamic at work.
I also discovered Gallup doesn’t weight their entire ‘likely voter’ cohort. Years ago, apparently, they did a study in which weighting likely voters by their enthusiasm level didn’t effect results for interviewees who ranked in the last (lowest) quartile (1950s). That lack of weighting may effect the regression fit they get with their model significantly in today’s respondent voters.
-
#49 written by shortchain 7 months ago
CC,
Consider the question of whether to respond to pollsters from the standpoint of a rational voter who understands the way the American government is supposed to operate: we’re supposed to elect good people and let them decide, by compromise or common agreement, with the representatives from other districts and states, what our laws, our taxes, etc, should be.How is that served by polling on who you are going to vote for? The person ahead in the polls has no reason to take a courageous stand. The person behind in the polls has only one incentive: to be more like the person ahead in the polls, because, obviously, that’s the person the people like more.
The only time I answer questions about who I would vote for is when I tell them I’m a Muslim voting Libertarian, or a Buddhist voting straight Green Party. But mostly I’m too busy these days to even bother.
In summary, there’s no benefit to answering polls for the individual, and people have mostly figured it out. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine who, in this election cycle, has less incentive to bother answering polls.
-
#50 written by mclever 7 months ago
@shortchain
According to political science, the vast majority of people who answer polls are sincere and honest in their responses, and those who aren’t tend to cancel each other out. However, I’ve received an obscene number of polling calls this year. (Of course, this is the first Presidential election season where I’ve been in a swing state, and no one cared what I thought when I lived in Texas or California.) During this past month or so, I’ve been getting a call almost every day, sometimes more than one per day. At first, I answered honestly, but lately if it’s a robopoll, I just press numbers randomly. I even took the Spanish version once. heh. I can’t be the only voter experiencing polling fatigue, which probably partly explains the dramatic decline in participation. That has to impact the reliability of polls.
-
#51 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
shortchain,
what I’m getting at is that ‘perversion’ you seem to enjoy, is not randomly distributed. And further, there are some specific societal rational that ‘may’ explain it.
Me, I never do polls, except perhaps for recreation or curiosity. As a committed capitalist, if they want marketing info from me, pay me and not Google for it. I won’t even wear a logo T-shirt unless I personally have an affinity for it.
-
-
#53 written by shortchain 7 months ago
@mclever and CC,
I think that past studies in the honesty of poll respondents may be a bit out of date. These things do change, as you illustrate, when polling becomes more of an occasional thing.My own fuse is, of course, very short, and I passed go about 10 years ago, sometime during the first term of C+ Augustus. I think I have now been joined by a majority of the electorate.
But the fun part here (and for the pollsters, too) is guessing just which way their polls are being thrown off by this phenomenon.
-
There’s another dynamic at work in polling, and it’s really unclear what effect it has.
Starting October 1, the FCC began enforcing the “no automatic dialing for mobile phones” rule with more teeth. The fines are significant now. For this reason, the polling firms are obligated to use better techniques to ensure that their autodialing doesn’t accidentally captrue mobile numbers (e.g., for numbers ported from former landlines). As a result, the number of mobile phones polled after October 1 likely dropped appreciably.
This, of course, coincided with the first Presidential debate.
So…how much of the shift to the right after the first debate was caused by the debate itself (i.e., by shift in voters’ opinions) and how much by the change in sampling? I truly have no clue. In order to determine the answer, we’d have to look at polls conducted on October 1 and 2, and compare them to those on October 4 and 5. I doubt we’d have a statistically significant number to go on with such a small window of time, so we may never be able to determine the answer.
-
#55 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
shortchain,
it would be time for a big party if all polling vanished. That requirement to create a narrative in the media and the constant polling that it’s built around goes a long way to explaining the vacuity of the public political discussion. It keeps us (the body politic) stupid. The next big narrative driver may be fact checking, IMO. At least then Chuck Todd will have a real job.
-
#56 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
-
#58 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About Michael Weiss (325 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.





Call it stubborn, but I am still holding at 303–235, Obama. The tightness of all the polls a factor, I am waiting now for more input after Monday’s debate. By next Saturday, I will make my last EV prediction.
PaddyPower moved not at all since last week, with current odds still at 2–5, paying $0.40 on that $1 bet for Obama.
And 15–8, still paying $1.88 on that $1 bet for Romney.