Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

[MattusMaximus]

RCP, as Ben mentioned. They moved NH into the "Likely Obama" from "Undecided" and Missouri from "Likely Romney" into "Undecided". It's now at the point that any one undecided state gives Obama the brass ring and Mitt will need to not just sweep the undecideds, but also move one of the recent turnovers (NH and OH). Regardless of the national polls, the three yards and a cloud of dust ground game keeps grinding out the yardage.

Holy balls.

If Missouri really is moving to the "undecided" column, then Romney is completely screwed.

ETA: Okay, this makes no damn sense. I just checked the RCP site and they have Missouri, as of today, at +5.3% in Romney's favor yet they still call it "undecided". Seems pretty decided to me.

What am I missing?

 

[Tricky]

Holy balls.

If Missouri really is moving to the "undecided" column, then Romney is completely screwed.

ETA: Okay, this makes no damn sense. I just checked the RCP site and they have Missouri, as of today, at +5.3% in Romney's favor yet they still call it "undecided". Seems pretty decided to me.

What am I missing?

Well, it's not really. The change has been minute, just enough to push it over a statistical barrier.

ETA: Just read your ETA. We're on the same page.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Over at IEM, Romney has gained some ground, but he's still way, WAY behind on the WTA numbers...

Obama 71.1%
Romney 30.0%

Same at Intrade...

Obama 68.3%
Romney 31.8%

ETA: I'll take another look in 24 hours, to see if there has been any effect from the debate.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, it's not really. The change has been minute, just enough to push it over a statistical barrier.

ETA: Just read your ETA. We're on the same page.

Yeah. Until I see solid evidence to the contrary, I'm calling b.s. on the whole "Missouri is in play" meme.

 

[Tricky]

Yeah. Until I see solid evidence to the contrary, I'm calling b.s. on the whole "Missouri is in play" meme.

North Carolina, on the other hand, really has gone into undecided territory from where it was a month ago. Still pretty likely Romney though.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Holy balls.

If Missouri really is moving to the "undecided" column, then Romney is completely screwed.

ETA: Okay, this makes no damn sense. I just checked the RCP site and they have Missouri, as of today, at +5.3% in Romney's favor yet they still call it "undecided". Seems pretty decided to me.

What am I missing?

Well, it's not really. The change has been minute, just enough to push it over a statistical barrier.

ETA: Just read your ETA. We're on the same page.

Yeah. Until I see solid evidence to the contrary, I'm calling b.s. on the whole "Missouri is in play" meme.

I agreed (to myself) that it sounded a little dodgy. I have no dog in this fight and no reason to push support RCP's way and, in fact, have questioned whether they time some of their releases to make the race look more interesting. But then,... this morning we have Rasmussen calling Missouri "Romney +3". With their historical bending, RCP may have been onto something.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting developments on the prediction markets (IEM and Intrade)... last night, right after the debates, President Obama took a hit and his WTA numbers went down from about 70+% or so to 65% (or lower); meanwhile Romney's WTA numbers went up by about the same amount.

However, now the trend has reversed. Obama's numbers have stopped falling and are, in fact, starting to go back up; likewise, Romney's numbers have stopped rising and are beginning to drop again. Obama is still at a net loss from 48 hours ago (he's down by about 6-7%), but the fact that his numbers are not continuing to fall is telling.

That's quite a short-lived bump for Romney on the markets. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out in the polls over the next few days, but based upon this I don't see how last night's debate is going to translate into any lasting positive effect for Romney.

 

[BenBurch]

Romney needed to excite people last night, and he largely failed. I think people are waking up and finding themselves faced with the same choices they had yesterday.

 

[DavidJames]

The interviews I saw with locals (here in the Denver area) who claimed to be undecided before, said they came away feeling better about Romney. They didn't say they now support him but the debate improved his image in their mind.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I think this may have already been posted, but:

First Debate Often Helps Challenger in Polls

<snip>

So a reasonable best guess, based on the historical precedent and without considering any factors specific to this race, is that Mr. Romney will gain a point or two in the polls by next week, while Mr. Obama’s number will hold steady.


<snip>

But here’s the bad news for Mr. Romney: no candidate who trailed by as much he did heading into the first debate went on to win the election. In the two cases where the lead reversed after the debate, 1980 and 2000, the trailing candidate was down only one or two points in the polls. The FiveThirtyEight “now-cast,” conversely, pegs Mr. Romney’s deficit at about 5 points instead. (Other methods put it at between three and four points.)

More bad news for Mr. Romney: although there has been a tendency for the challenging candidate to gain ground immediately after the first debate, there has not been any tendency for the challenger to gain over the remaining weeks of the election. On average during these years, the challenging candidate trailed by 1.5 percentage points in polls conducted just after the first debate — and the challenger eventually lost the election, on average, by 1.4 percentage points, a nearly identical margin.

source

 

[Foolmewunz]

Fearless prediction time....

On Sunday, the Rasmussen poll is going to show Romney with a two point lead. Since Rasmussen is supposed to be the linking topic of the thread, I figured I'd throw this in.

And on what do I base this prediction? Simple. Scott Rasmussen was on O'Reilly this morning (evening USA time) and when asked when the next poll will come out, he responded that it'll be out Sunday and that they're polling right now. And Scott says that it'll be a four point swing for Romney, from two down to two up.

Let's see if he's able to shoe-horn his results into his predicted range. (Yeah, yeah... I know the counter-argument... That he's a professional pollster and has no doubt seen the early trending that they're getting in. This is solely for entertainment purposes.)

 

[SezMe]

Scott Rasmussen was on O'Reilly this morning (evening USA time) and when asked when the next poll will come out, he responded that it'll be out Sunday and that they're polling right now. And Scott says that it'll be a four point swing for Romney, from two down to two up.

Let's see. I'm working on the polling data and have some judgement calls to make. Then I see my boss on national (nay, international) TV stating what the results are gonna be. Thank gawd, my job just got easier. Now, where'd I put those weighting factors?

 

[remirol]

I'm going to put a date down. Sept. 27th is when Rasmussen will finally be forced by the Tidal Wave of Obvious™ to shift over to +Obama and stay there for the rest of the election. (Alternately phrased, Sept. 26th is the last day Rasmussen will report +Romney.)

I will, of course, expect my million

I lose According to RCP, the 9/14-9/16 poll is the last time Rasmussen held a +Romney position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Missouri is not really a swing state. If Obama wins Missouri it almost certainly means that he won in a landslide and had more then enough electoral votes to spare.

You're probably right for what it would mean this year, but Missouri is a swing state. McCain won it by a very very slim margin in '08.

The demographics are very nearly 50/50 metropolitan/rural and Republicans/Democrats.

Missouri went to the winner of the presidential election in all but 2 elections since 1904.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agreed (to myself) that it sounded a little dodgy. I have no dog in this fight and no reason to push support RCP's way and, in fact, have questioned whether they time some of their releases to make the race look more interesting. But then,... this morning we have Rasmussen calling Missouri "Romney +3". With their historical bending, RCP may have been onto something.

Also, remember the numbers in Missouri are much lower than numbers in larger states and way lower than national polls. So it takes a lot fewer votes to change a percent. (Also, I believe it was only relatively recently announced that the Libertarian candidate would be on the Missouri ballot. That could change things by a few percent in itself.)

ETA: I'd say it's in play, but an uphill fight for Obama (one that he doesn't seem interested in taking on). Also, Claire McCaskill is using the Al Gore campaign strategy (trying to be the most Republican-like non-Republican). She's openly bragging that she's been rated the most moderate Senator rather than trying to debunk the misinformation about Obamacare that keeps being repeated in attack ads.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Today's polls put some of this in perspective. If a Missouri shift to "Undecided" was a concern to Romney, how must the Obama camp feel losing Ohio from "Leans Obama" to "Undecided"? Two polls from 10/4 show it a 1 point race (Rasmussen and We Ask America).

I will repeat my accusation that RCP is making things look close intentionally. Today's tightening in FL and OH are based on polls from an eight day window. I'm not arguing that the later polls are less important, as they're obviously more significant. But they have previously used 10 and 11 day composites. And if you look at the polls a couple of days earlier, there were some bigger numbers for +Obama and those states would have a perceptible shift towards blue. Would that shift make the data from 10/4 less valid? Not necessarily. I'd just like to know that if I go to a source I can count on them using the same methodology at all times.

Now, I'm of two minds on this. I want them to be accurate on the one hand. I agree that polls from 9/24 might not be nearly so relevant as polls from 10/4, but hanging out on the JREF I've learned that I want my data to be consistent. If they're now going to shift to an eight day average on all frequently polled states, I'm fine with it. But if they shift from one to the other (8 vs 10 or 11) I want to know why.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, some polls are in, and - as expected - there does seem to be some movement in Romney's direction, but just how much and how long-lasting is quite uncertain. Nate Silver breaks it down nicely.

However, at the markets (IEM and Intrade) it looks as if President Obama and Romney are back to their pre-debate WTA numbers. Actually, Obama is a little higher and Romney a little lower than the pre-debate snapshot (on IEM, at least). I think this likely is reflecting the fact that the more favorable than not jobs report is probably blunting an momentum Romney may have gotten from the debate. In addition, I don't think Romney did himself any favors by bringing the news back around to his 47% comments.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, some polls are in, and - as expected - there does seem to be some movement in Romney's direction, but just how much and how long-lasting is quite uncertain. Nate Silver breaks it down nicely.

However, at the markets (IEM and Intrade) it looks as if President Obama and Romney are back to their pre-debate WTA numbers. Actually, Obama is a little higher and Romney a little lower than the pre-debate snapshot (on IEM, at least). I think this likely is reflecting the fact that the more favorable than not jobs report is probably blunting an momentum Romney may have gotten from the debate. In addition, I don't think Romney did himself any favors by bringing the news back around to his 47% comments.

I'm really not sure why Mitt chose to bring up the 47% thing himself. I know it was on Hannity, but I'm quite sure Sean could be counted on to not ask the question if Romney requested. Maybe he really believes he turned the whole thing around in the debate and only has to humble-down to get those Reagan Democrats back? If so, he's mistaken. He was better off leaving it unsaid - that Obama didn't bring it up so it must not be that significant any longer.

Someone posited that what we saw was the prepared response for the debate and that they were all so pleased with it that they were miffed that they didn't get to use it, so the first chance they had he trotted it out. Whether he classifies it as "wrong" or not, the statement and its explanation still say to many voters that the guy will say anything to pander to whomever he's addressing. And the upshot of that is not a positive thing. Those people polled said their opinion of him went up - they didn't say they were convinced, and he just told them that they were the group he was pandering to on the night of the debate.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm really not sure why Mitt chose to bring up the 47% thing himself. I know it was on Hannity, but I'm quite sure Sean could be counted on to not ask the question if Romney requested. Maybe he really believes he turned the whole thing around in the debate and only has to humble-down to get those Reagan Democrats back? If so, he's mistaken. He was better off leaving it unsaid - that Obama didn't bring it up so it must not be that significant any longer.

Yup. It didn't take Romney long to eat his foot again. I'm sure he can be counted on to do more self-inflicted damage...

Someone posited that what we saw was the prepared response for the debate and that they were all so pleased with it that they were miffed that they didn't get to use it, so the first chance they had he trotted it out. Whether he classifies it as "wrong" or not, the statement and its explanation still say to many voters that the guy will say anything to pander to whomever he's addressing. And the upshot of that is not a positive thing. Those people polled said their opinion of him went up - they didn't say they were convinced, and he just told them that they were the group he was pandering to on the night of the debate.

Well, when your unfavorable numbers are as low as Romney's, then saying that the general opinion of the man went up isn't really saying much, is it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Hey, just for the lulz, what say we start referencing the new right-wing spinmeisters at http://unskewedpolls.com in addition to the more reputable... errr, dirty lying liberal... pollsters and markets?

Please?!