Skip to main content

As was the case on Tuesday, a new day brought another smattering of presidential polls with results that had a spread of a full ten points. Taken as a whole, they give a picture of a race that is reasonably close, and tightening to some extent. Individually, however, there is a poll to fit every partisan and their favored meme.

And, thanks to some eagle eyes in our own Daily Kos community, we can begin to explain, and understand, a possible root cause for that disparity. Simply put: it's race.

More on that after the jump. For now, the numbers:

(GOP) PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY POLLING (Yes ... there still are some!):

NATIONAL (CBS/NY Times): Romney 54, Gingrich 20, Paul 12

NATIONAL (PPP): Romney 54, Gingrich 24, Paul 14

PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TRIAL HEATS:
NATIONAL (CBS/New York Times): Obama tied with Romney (46-46)

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Romney d. Obama (48-44)

NATIONAL (PPP): Obama d. Romney (50-44)

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Romney d. Obama (47-43)

NEW YORK (NY1/Marist): Obama d. Romney (57-35)

DOWNBALLOT POLLING:
FL-SEN (PPP): Sen. Bill Nelson (D) 47, Connie Mack IV (R) 37; Nelson 47, Mike McCallister (R) 35; Nelson 48, George LeMieux (R) 34

FL-22--D (Anzalone Liszt for Frankel): Lois Frankel 46, Kristin Jacobs 16

IN-SEN--R (McLaughlin and Associates for Mourdock): Richard Mourdock 42, Sen. Dick Lugar 41

PA-12--D (Susquehanna Research): Jason Altmire 43, Mark Critz 39

UT-GOV--R (Dan Jones and Associates): Gov. Gary Herbert 61, Morgan Philpot 12, David Kirkham 10, Ken Sumsion 5

UT-SEN--D (Dan Jones and Associates): Pete Ashdown 39, Scott Howell 31

UT-SEN--R (Dan Jones and Associates): Orrin Hatch 61, Dan Liljenquist 21, Chris Herrod 4

UT-SEN--R (Mason Dixon): Sen. Orrin Hatch 62, Dan Liljenquist 20, Chris Herrod 6

UT-01--D (Dan Jones and Associates): Donna McAleer 42, Ryan Combe 37

UT-02--D (Dan Jones and Associates): Jay Seegmiller 43, Dean Collinwood 13, Mike Small 7

UT-02--R (Dan Jones and Associates): Chris Stewart 34, Dave Clark 21, Jason Buck 6, Cherilyn Eagar 5, Bob Fuehr 3, Howard Wallack 3

UT-03--D (Dan Jones and Associates): Soren Simonsen 28, Richard Clark 19

UT-04--R (Dan Jones and Associates): Mia Love 38, Carl Wimmer 25, Stephen Sandstrom 18, Jay Cobb 5

A few thoughts, as always, after the jump...

Yesterday, several of our sharp-eyed readers took note of a most interesting poll analysis done by Ron Brownstein over at National Journal. In his article, Brownstein (long of the Los Angeles Times) took a look under the hood of the polling at Gallup and made the following observation:

the Gallup track, which is conducted among registered voters, has a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012: only 22 percent of the Gallup survey was non-white, according to figures the organization provided to Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz. That was close to the non-white share of the vote in 2010 (23 percent), but in 2008, minorities comprised 26 percent of all voters, according to exit polls; the Obama campaign, and other analysts, project the minority share of the vote will increase to 28 percent in 2012. In its survey, Pew, for instance, puts the non-white share at 25 percent.
As it happens, our own SEIU/Daily Kos State of the Nation Poll assumes a non-white turnout of 29 percent. If Gallup is at 22 percent, and PPP is at 29 percent, that could go quite a bit of the way towards explaining the ten-point spread in their numbers.

Why? A cursory look at the demographic breakdowns of the SEIU/Daily Kos poll released today break it down rather easily. Almost every non-white group (save for the rather small, and perplexing, movement to Romney among native Americans) goes heavily for Obama. He carried African-Americans by 82 percent, predictably. But he also carried Hispanic voters by 22 points (and many polls have that gap wider), Asian voters by 34 points, and self-identified "other" ethnic groups by 38.

Therefore, a sample with fewer of these groups chiming in is a sample that is going to favor Mitt Romney.

In other news today:

  • It was Utah-palooza downballot, as Dan Jones and Associates (a local pollster) and Mason Dixon (a national pollster) both looked ahead to the coming week's state conventions in Utah, trying to divine whether the tea-infused challenge to incumbent Senator Orrin Hatch (R) will bear fruit. The answer, for now, appears to be a resounding "no." It is becoming increasingly likely that Hatch may end this thing at the convention level, where he needs 60 percent support to clinch the nomination and eliminate the prospect of a June primary. Governor Gary Herbert, according to a poll of delegates by Dan Jones, also looks good to go, as he was easily repelling the challenge from a handful of intraparty rivals. Jones and Associates gets even deeper into the weeds, so if you were really wondering who will be the sacrificial lamb to challenge Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz this November for the Democrats, now you know!
  • The big electoral story on deck next week, besides the growing interest in the Democratic primary in PA-17 (Holden v. Cartwright), is the incumbent-on-incumbent battle between Jason Altmire and Mark Critz in PA-12. Today's independent poll by Susquehanna (which is a GOP pollster but does independent work for media outlets, including the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) is the best poll we have seen for Critz to date. It's even better than Critz's own internals have been to this point. Could this race be a bit closer than previously thought? It was already one to watch next week, but it is becoming increasingly evident that there will be good reason to keep both eyes peeled on Southwest PA on Tuesday.
  • It is not always a safe rule, but here is my take on the new poll for Richard Mourdock in Indiana, where he now claims an internal poll gives him a one-point edge over longtime incumbent Republican Dick Lugar in the forthcoming GOP primary: if Lugar had better news, he'd have released it by now. If we don't see contradictory data, and stat, I have to really wonder about whether his long career in the Senate may be in jeopardy long before November rolls around. Also, tellingly, Mourdock did not release general election data. Another possibly errant conclusion: if he had closed the electability gap when paired with Democrat Joe Donnelly (previous polls have shown him in a dead heat, while Lugar wins rather easily, when paired with Donnelly), it would have made its way into that polling memo.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:30 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, but the Florida polls I really want to see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Christopher Walker

    are for FL-02, FL-18, and FL-22.

    Lewis & Clark Law class of 2015

    by James Allen on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:39:41 PM PDT

  •  The question people should be asking is (17+ / 0-)

    how is Mitt going to win Ohio ...after supporting "Issue 2" as he call it...how is he going to win VA after supporting the Blunt-Rubio amendment...how is he going to win Rick Scott's Florida giving that holding the convention in Florida would only highlight his inadequacies as a governor.

    How is Mitt going to win NV after "let the housing hit bottom"

    how is Mitt going to win MI after "let Detroit go bankrupt"

    how is Romney going to bring out the fundamentalist in NC to offset Black women in NC.

    How is Romney going to win Iowa NH and NM?

    I don't think ...the "YOU TOO" strategy is going to win him the election.

    /If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer/. Thoreau

    by hron on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 05:57:10 PM PDT

    •  Mitt's had a real good week... (4+ / 0-)

      He's been able to get at least a daily hit on Obama in the headlines without gaffing.  He seems to be much better at etch-a-sketching the general than the primary, which is worrisome.  He's so slick and mushy, it's hard to get a punch back on him.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:08:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Simple (5+ / 0-)

      If the climate favors him:

      He can win Ohio because it's a swing state that leans GOP.
      He can win Florida because it's a swing state that leans GOP, and governor popularity does not affect presidential results.
      As for winning Nevada and Michigan, he probably won't, because those have leaned Dem these last few cycles. Bush won without Michigan, so can Romney.
      North Carolina still has a prevalent southern white culture that can easily elect a Republican.
      Romney may win Iowa, but I don't know, it leans Dem. Same for New Mexico. There was a poll today showing him up 2 in New Hampshire, although that is down from 8 last time they polled. But whatever, Romney can easily win it if the climate favors him.

      My point is, you can't confidently claim a candidate he can't win a state because of one event or policy. That was like claiming Obama couldn't win Pennsylvania because of what John Murtha said.

      NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

      by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:19:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since when have issues ever defined a presidential (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        camlbacker

        election?

        GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

        by LordMike on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:27:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My point is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          devtob, LordMike

          that you can't say someone will win or lose a state for any one reason. If the economy goes south, Romney could win all of them.

          NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

          by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:37:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the economy goes north, (11+ / 0-)

            Obama will win all of them, and a few more.

            It's inching north now, so one can hope.

            A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

            by devtob on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:07:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that is the only analysis that matters. Nt (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, Commander Shepard
            •  And I'll remind everyone here (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA, mmacdDE, Liberal Lass

              that while the economy is HUGELY important, it is not without precedent for a president to win an election without a thriving economy.  FDR did it, two times. Other presidents have done it, albeit, far less dramatically.

              Actually, I'd put Bush forward as a president who won a second term despite a sluggish economy.  Many just didn't realize how sluggish the economy was in 2004, so scarred was this country by 9/11 and the GOP's manipulation of that fear.  But if you look at the economy over Bush's two terms, short of the great recession that GOP policies finally wrought, it SUCKED.  GWB presided the lowest amount of jobs created by any president on the record.  Which of course, set us up for the deep pain of the crash.

              Sure, anything can happen.  But this economy is slowly coming back, but yes, it will not be better than "slowly" by November.  

              But remember, this country already knee jerked to the republicans in 2010, looking for a fast fix.  We didn't get it. We got everything but.

              History is cyclical to a point, and then it just heads off on its own path and creates an entirely new paradigm, which then becomes part of the cycle.

              I JUST DON'T BUY that the economy is going to defeat Obama.  Call me crazy, but I don't feel it.

              •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                James Allen

                I won't call you crazy until you vote against Obama 88 times.

                22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

                by sapelcovits on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:01:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The economy (0+ / 0-)

                Was going gangbusters in 1936 and 1940, and if anything he underperformed. It only looked bad because it had fallen so much.

                NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

                by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:09:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                  To describe the economy as going "gangbusters" in 1936, pretty much argues with the history of the depression.  Yes, by 1936, the economy was beginning to show signs of life again, just like it is today.  But to call it "gangbusters" is ridiculous.  How did we all miss that part of the depression that was just like the roaring twenties?  

                  By 1940, we were involved in the war, and that used to stimulate the economy.  And to say that FDR underperformed at this point in time is a very careless statement in a complex equation.  

                  •  Personal income rose over 10% (0+ / 0-)

                    In 1936. If you can't win a landslide in that environment there is something desperately wrong with you.

                    NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

                    by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:24:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not buying this, Commander. (0+ / 0-)

                      Please supply links.  Geez, to hear you tell it, 1936 was like 1996.  Everyone positively bubbling with prosperity!  That didn't happen, bub.  Things may have gotten better by 1936, but then one has to consider how bad they were to begin with.

                      I don't care what poppy cock numbers you're judging by, you are SO alone in judging 1936 in America as High Times for the American middle class.

                      •  I never said middle class (0+ / 0-)

                        And I would provide links, but I read it in a book that is not online. And it's late.

                        And I never said that those times were the high times for the middle class. But people judge presidents by improvement, not absolute numbers. Sure, the economy was not great in 1936. But compared to 1932, it was amazing.

                        People were far better off then they were 4 years before.

                        NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

                        by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:48:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, ok then. (0+ / 0-)

                          You read it in a book somewhere, and it's late.  I'll go with that.

                          But the fact is, today, people are better off then they were 4 years ago. Not everyone, but many, just like in 1936.  You can see that in retail numbers alone, and don't argue with me, because that's my business. You can see it in the consumer confidence index.  You can see it in an improving, if still sluggish housing market.

                          The distinction is whether folks were so "far" better off in 1936, that it was "amazing."  I can tell you, those in 1936 would not have said so, just like they won't say so today.

                          Your idea that it was SO obvious to Americans that the country was well on its way in 1936, compared to today, is simply false.  

              •  maybe you don't buy it; I can (0+ / 0-)

                You have to remember that Amurrikans ain't good at seeing the big picture, in economics or much else.  For very understandable reasons, they care about themselves as individuals first and foremost, and project those perceptions about how they do individually on to the rest of society.  If not enough people are back to work by November, or at least are seen as being back to work, it'll be duck soup for the Repukes to hammer on the economy meme, especially given how well they've gone the "What's The Matter With Kansas?" route.

                "It's only in books that the officers of the detective force are superior to the weakness of making a mistake." (Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone)

                by chingchongchinaman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:03:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  When they're fake issues (0+ / 0-)

          Like wolves vs. bears in the forest or how Dems will take away yer guns.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:34:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'll take clueless or fickle voters for $200, Alex (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, ER Doc, dufffbeer

      Ohio now has less than a handful of Dem reps, 1 Dem senator, and Republicans hold the governorship, both state level legislatures, and pretty much all other state offices.

      It all will come down to who actually comes out to vote, not who supported or didn't support Ohio SB 5.  Sadly, red voters in Ohio are usually pretty good at getting out to vote.

      •  Agreed to a point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA, ER Doc

        But I think it's not unreasonable to hope that Ohio SB 5, politicized many on our side.  In much the same way I hope the Wisconsin recalls will serve as a ramp to the general election---with Wisconsin also under GOP control since 2010.  

        But that's the point.  Since 2010.  A life time ago in politics.
        We'll see. One thing's for sure, it all comes down to who comes out to vote.  

        Yeah, Republicans are always good about "getting out to vote."  But how good are they at "getting out the vote?" Democrats do well with this in presidential elections, and I have to say, it ain't gonna be the Democrats suffering an "enthusiasm gap" this time around.

    •  But none of that happened! (0+ / 0-)

      Remember the Etch-A-Sketch? Romney will spend millions proving he never said any of those things!

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:32:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    devtob, Dave in Northridge, dufffbeer

    why everyone is saying that Obama has no chance in Indiana. Sure, it's not the best focus of his resources, but there's no reason to think that it will go back to the 60-40 state it was.

    The last poll (and we only have one), down Obama down 6 points to Romney. If that margin were to hold, that would be huge. That would drastically change the state's PVI.

    NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

    by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:08:49 PM PDT

    •  You've missed a lot of info (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tk421, itskevin

      There have been repeated news stories that the Obama campaign concedes Indiana as non-competitive this time.

      And a very good public poll was done just this month by Howey Politics showing Obama down 9, 49-40, with a poor 39% job approval.

      Indiana is off the table.

      44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:19:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        devtob, madmojo, ArkDem14

        right, it was nine points. But there are still signs that the state is trending Democratic, even if it is not competitive yet. Even losing Indiana by 10 points is a huge improvement for Democrats than over the last few cycles (excluding 2008). Ellsworth in 2010 did better in an open Senate seat race than Kerry did in 2004 in a presidential year.

        I don't think Obama would win it, but there are signs it is slowly becoming friendlier territory.

        NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

        by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:29:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You think so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        devtob

        if Lugar loses the primary?

        •  Of course I do. Why does that affect... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Commander Shepard

          ...the Presidential?

          Unless you misread my comment and thought I was talking about the Senate race?  I wasn't.  In the Senate race, if Lugar goes down then I consider Donnelly to have a serious shot at victory.  But that doesn't help Obama one bit for his own Indiana performance.

          44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:44:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I had thought it might (0+ / 0-)

            convince some folks there that the R's really are that far right.

            •  No, it won't (0+ / 0-)

              Problem is, even though the far right has adopted Mourdock as a vessel, Mourdock does not actually have a far right public image.  He's a plain vanilla low-level elected statewide official with no history of controversy.

              Our hope for Donnelly vs. Mourdock is that simply that Mourdock isn't the popular Lugar.  Maybe Donnelly tries to paint Mourdock as far right compared to Donnelly as an anti-abortion (which I can live with from a Dem in such a conservative state) centrist, but that tack seems a heavy lift.

              44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 06:58:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  He doesn't need Indiana to win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike

      Do we even have a chance at the senate, house or state levels? Indiana is pretty out there in the RW nutty department these days.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:33:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christopher Walker

        Rs are favored for both Senate and Gov but we could have a shot at both. As for the house, we're running strong underdog campaigns in IN-02, IN-08, and IN-09, and IN-08 especially could become interesting depending on the primary results.

        22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

        by sapelcovits on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:39:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Another point (12+ / 0-)

    people neglected to mention (I think): Obama's approval in the CBS/NYT is 48-42, a turn-around from 41-47 from last time.

    NY-12 (born and raised), NY-25 (college), DKE newbie Liberal poll junkie and casual video gamer (but not Call of Duty, so don't ask about it.)

    by Commander Shepard on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 06:43:16 PM PDT

  •  Interesting the-dog-that-didn't-bark (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, ER Doc

    take on Lugar/Mourdock.

    I think Lugar will lose the primary, because he does not have motivated voters anymore.

    And then Donnelly has a decent shot, because he's a moderate and Mourdock is a tea-party extremist.

    The McLaughlin poll is probably pretty accurate, and that's the good news.

    A public option for health insurance is a national priority.

    by devtob on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:52:52 PM PDT

  •  If we actually elected Presidents simply by total (5+ / 0-)

    national vote, I might pay more attention to these national polls.

    Since we don't, the only polls that are interesting are the state level ones...

    •  The national polling numbers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dufffbeer

      do translate into some indication of the electoral college outcome.  Only in extremely close elections (like Florida scenario of 2000 when we're  talking less than a percentage point dividing the candidates in one or two specific states) is the popular vote/national polling number irrelevant.

      I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

      by Delilah on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:21:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A challenger wants to be leading strongly (0+ / 0-)

        Otherwise it's the incumbent's to lose. Right now the math looks good for Obama on the chessboard. If Obama wins Florida Romney has no chance. If Romney's having to fight for Florida in the last weeks it will mean more swing states are slipping out of his fingers.

        Unless Romney is surging in the polls by Summer, then it's pretty much in Obama's hands, and it'll depend if he gets his supporters out.

  •  Polling Shmolling (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Says Who, Fury, ddn

    This election will be decided by turnout, and the Senate and House will follow.  Start planning now to get women, Latinos, and Blacks to the poles in the key states, and we will be fine.  Never let people forget what kind of dreck we're up against, and we will not regret it.

    •  This is the same type of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, madmojo, ArkDem14

      thinking that dismissed the trend that we were going to get our asses kicked in 2010.  No one -- and  I mean NO ONE -- around these parts dismisses the importance of turnout.  Most of us will be working hard to ensure that turnout will be at historic proportions because we understand the stakes.  

      That said, I am getting really tired of people dismissing polling data and entries by the good people like Steve S, Jed, David J,  (or Poblano back in 2008) etc who provide such excellent polling information and analysis.  For me, it is one of the primary reasons I keep coming back to Daily Kos.  

      Look, polling information has become far more sophisticated in recent times ,  with information available about the accuracy of certain pollsters.  While one poll in April 2012 is just a snapshot of this  moment in time, examined in concert with other polls,  it can offer  a sense of the trends and of the overall political climate.  Moreover, it can help target states or seats.   You can be sure that the Obama administration and the DNC are not blithely dismissing polling data months ahead of election day.  No, they're using such information for their analysis to inform their planning.  They need to know where to put their funds (states  to get to 270 EVs and specific races at the congressional level) so as to ensure that we have the best possible outcome on the night of Nov. 6, 2012.  

      I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

      by Delilah on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:30:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and I'm getting tired of people (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ddn, mmacdDE, dufffbeer

        freaking out over every poll more than five months out from the election. Polls change, and unless they are unshakably consistent (Obama's lead in Colorado for instance) they don't mean much until soon before the election. Better to pay attention to fundamentals.

        22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

        by sapelcovits on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:40:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well I am not one who is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          madmojo

          freaking out.  The electoral college looks good for the president with multiple pathways to victory, which will assist in down ballot races.  The overall climate is improving as regards the economy, and  the Obama campaign knows how to win elections.  Even if things tighten (as they may be), I still see the advantage being with the president at this time.  None of that takes away from the validity of polling data and the people who come here should try to be adults about how they deal with that data.  Freaking out is unproductive while dismissing valuable polling and survey information wholesale is just ludicrous.  

          I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

          by Delilah on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:50:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My point is not actually to dismiss polling as (0+ / 0-)

            part of a well engineered campaign; rather more philosophical.  It seems that in this climate, which is different from what it was 20 to 30 years ago, it's not so much who people vote for as who votes.  Focus on what gets our people out, and curiously, in competing with the Koch Bros. money, it may come down increasingly for Democrats, to old fashioned retail politics.  Cheers.

    •  We must defy all voting suppression. √ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc

      With lawsuits, outreach/education programs, and procedural changes to accommodate and/or circumvent new and stringent regulations devised to exclude targeted voting blocs. It is the hidden enemy, stealthier than fraud itself.

      Voting Republican is a luxury that very few Americans can afford.

      by Says Who on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:38:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rasmussen should be given no more credibility (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Dave in Northridge

    than a dartboard with only Republican positive-percentages on it.

    Why do people (Kos among them) give Rasmussen such credibility?  Stop reporting his nonsense as if it were news.

    Here's a way out of the poison Rasmussen spreads around.  If there are polls in the news, then make the focus of your story the polls that are left after the high GOP and high Democratic poll results are thrown out.  Then talk about what remains, which should be a reasonably accurate sampling.

    Time to stop changing the diapers on the Scott Rasmussen baby...

    "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity." --W. B. Yeats

    by Pragmatus on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:11:00 PM PDT

  •  I live in Texas. (8+ / 0-)

    The best thing I can do (and have) is give money to the campaign and phone bank when the time comes.

    Romney is an asshole but he's not a complete idiot (like Bush), and can come across as reasonable.

    I'm not even sure trying to paint him as a severe conservative is that great a tack.

    He's a an unprincipled serial flip flopper and doesn't seem to give a hoot about the common man (or dog for that matter).  That's where you hit him.

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc

      It only helps get out the GOP base to paint him as too conservative.

      Rather, he should be painted as an unprincipled man of straw who stands for and believes in nothing but himself. A serial flip-flopper.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:31:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not an either-or (0+ / 0-)

        tell voters who are getting sick of conservative crazies that he's extreme. tell "character" and conservative voters he's a flip-flopper. this is child's play.

        basically the game plan bush ran against kerry in 2004, but with a less charismatic and competent opponent. don;t worry that it's congnitively dissonant, just hammer romney with everything you've got.

  •  Are there any polls that account for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    middleagedhousewife

    the new Republican voter suppression laws? Doesn't Obama need a good 5-point lead among voters in order to have a slim lead in actual votes counted?

  •  Perhaps Gallup is reflecting on the effects of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    middleagedhousewife

    the Republican war on voting.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:20:55 PM PDT

  •  What's the point of a national presidential poll? (0+ / 0-)

    Given the electoral college. Aren't the only polls that matter state ones?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:29:21 PM PDT

  •  How hilarious would it be if... (7+ / 0-)

    Democrats held the Senate because of Indiana?

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:30:03 PM PDT

  •  The real matchup (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    is not President Obama vs. Mitt Romney. It's Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Fill-in-the-blank.

    The Veep is not a small thing. I'm sure the President won over many voters with his selection of Joe Biden, just as John McCain lost some stalwart Republicans with his selection of Sarah Palin.

    So until Mitt picks a veep, these polls du jour are just interesting noise.

    “The only thing that happens in an instant is destruction... but everything else requires time." - First Lady Michelle Obama

    by FiredUpInCA on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:32:06 PM PDT

    •  so will Romney pick a moron for his VP candidate? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      Presumably even the current Republican party, monstrous as they are, isn't so stupid as to pick another caribou Barbie, or her male equivalent.  Either Romney will try to find someone who compensates for his weaknesses, or go for someone who might appeal to the teabagger bigots who, like it or not, are passionate and motivated, if for all the wrong reasons.

      "It's only in books that the officers of the detective force are superior to the weakness of making a mistake." (Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone)

      by chingchongchinaman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:07:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Was wondering about that - Gallup is led by ass (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, GOPGO2H3LL, Lawrence, dufffbeer

    I was wondering about the disparity in the polls when I was falling asleep last night and race came to mind. I realized it would be really easy to fudge the numbers on that. And then bam, there it is.

    Figures.

    Romney needed some good news to start his general election campaign, so someone "found a reason" to use numbers that skew white, even if it wasn't professional. Isn't it funny how that happens...

    I wonder what the racial makeup at the top of Gallup's food chain is. Probably less than 25% I'd imagine. For example, here's a quote from Jim Clifton the CEO of Gallup:

    To create authentic, organic, real job growth — not pretend jobs made by government — city and country leaders need to focus on customers.
    Sounds like Romney's brand of asshole.
  •  We need to create a new polling group (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    that skews things liberal as far as they skew things conservative.

    PPP is great, because it's accurate.

    But in order to bring public perception back to what is accurate, we need at least 2 other polling agencies putting the non-white numbers at 32% or more, even if we know it's too high - just to balance out the conservative pro-white polls like Gallup in the public's mind.

    These polls are used to create memes. They know that and are using it. We need to do the same or we'll always end up somewhere to the right of center in terms of public perception.

  •  It's a fucking testament to propaganda (0+ / 0-)

    that the vile, America-wrecking GOP is even a viable party.

    Teddy and Abe spin like turbines in their graves.

    Fuck this shit.  If the Party of Nugent takes over America, all bets are off.

    Obama is at war with radical anti-American terrorists. The radical GOP is at war with American women. Take that and run with it DNC, you inept fucking pikers.

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:40:43 PM PDT

  •  We need to work our trump card this Nov (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, LordMike

    and that is our grass roots power.

    Romney has developed no ground game during the primary and it doesn't seem like he's working a hell of a lot on building one now.

    Romney's game plan for Nov is to do as many controlled and staged press events and interviews as he can and look like a Ronald Regan lite while his billionaire buddies plaster the airwaves and media with their vile trash.

    He's going to hope that he has enough money to depress dems and that there are enough Obama haters to drag him over the line in Nov.

    money cannot buy you a ground game that truly gets people to show up to vote in Nov.

    •  fortunately for us (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deha, LordMike, itskevin

      obama's opening tons of campaign offices, and getting the ground game up and running, even without a long contested primary this time around.

      i just wish the democratic party could bring itself to do this in off-year elections as well as presidential ones.

      •  Part of the Repub strategy may be out-left-the- (0+ / 0-)

        Dems groups, like the Greens, and attempts to subvert Occupy into an anti-Dem group based on selective hyper-criticality and out-group vilification of Dems at all levels of the party (elites and their suckers). There have been documented cases of these groups getting Repug money. I'd expect more of it, along with paid ground work supporting them. I'm not clear whether CUnited will facilitate the pouring of money into such groups, particularly such that it's hard to trace where it came from.

        You don't need grassroots as much when you have a lot of money, and thus staff and conversation and viewpoint tracking systems, which are particularly useful on-line. TPers will have a role, but I think paid operatives will be more important.

        I think you're right that door-to-door will be better on the Dem side. The perceived context in the corporate media (obviously) will be strongly influenced by the Republicans. But I suspect that they will be more influential in more places online than previously. I get the sense they've been setting that up for a while.

        •  the greens who took GOP money lost legitimacy (0+ / 0-)

          pretty quickly after it happened, there was a lot of this in 2008 and it foundered pretty quickly. occupy groups would be as likely as not to use that extra money to attack the donors, since their focus is on issues and not partisan politics, and that's not even getting into the structural obstacles to big donor subversion in occupy's anarchist assembly format.

          the big money that uses the GOP does not necessarily have the same interests as the GOP, and i'd look for them them simply buy off targeted democrats sooner than try to play too much in the way of cat's paw games with minor parties.

          the GOP absolutely needs grassroots, that's the whole reason why the religious right is such a key part of their coalition, because it has a well organized grassroots with a strong ideological motivation for volunteer labor. when their grassroots base is depressed, republicans founder. that's why mccain was willing to choose such a repugnant vice president as palin, even though it cost him a ton of moderate republican voters, because the party needs the religious right to be fired up and volunteering in order to win downballot races. romney will probably have to choose someone equally repugnant to make peace with the people who backed santorum.

          money is not everything. it's important in this system, but it doesn't work without also having organization and grassroots.

  •  A logical explanation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, chingchongchinaman

    People's attitudes are not widely swinging to think Romney is great one day, and then would never support the money laundering elite snob the next.

    If you define the voter pool differently, then by changing the population of your survey, you can get any result you want.

    Message clear get everyone to vote; re-elect Obama, change Congress to make it functional. Electing GOP/Tea'ers same as driving stakes into America's economy.

    The past, present, and future are equally compelling; none of the three are easily understood.

    by Grey Panther on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 09:26:34 PM PDT

    •  which means vote Democratic no matter what (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Grey Panther

      As my old school Democratic friend (and fellow symphony goer) likes to say, "the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican".

      "It's only in books that the officers of the detective force are superior to the weakness of making a mistake." (Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone)

      by chingchongchinaman on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 11:08:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Q national poll: Obama by 4 (0+ / 0-)

    46-42.  2500 registered voters.

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

    "We calmly accept our uncertain position." Joey Rathburn.

    by Paleo on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 03:06:20 AM PDT

    •  Romney's -40 with Hispanics (0+ / 0-)

      even worse than McCain. This should help Obama a lot especially in NV, AZ and CO. In NM, CA and TX too, but I'm assuming the result won't be close enough in any of those three for O's margins to matter too much.

  •  The Gallup Does Not Seem Consistent (0+ / 0-)

    with Romney's own observation that he is screwed without Hispanics.

  •  It's a sad day indeed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dufffbeer

    when Orrin Hatch looks like the sane, sensible one in any field of candidates.

    Utah, ladies and gentlemen!

  •  Zimmerman, obviously. (0+ / 0-)
    Almost every non-white group (save for the rather small, and perplexing, movement to Romney among native Americans) goes heavily for Obama.

    Scott Walker is a victim and deserves special treatment. Ditto Jamie Dimon and the rest of the 1%.

    by monkeybox on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 04:10:27 AM PDT

  •  Gallup has the percentage of minority voters (0+ / 0-)

    far lower than in 2008 and even a point lower than in 2010?!

    No wonder their poll is so skewed.

    Tipped and recced.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 04:14:38 AM PDT

  •  On the native vote, I suspect (0+ / 0-)

    my extended family on the reservation still thinks Obama is a terrorist. Just saying. Could be they just have trouble with blacks. Mormons and Indians have a long history. Bad in the 1800's, mutual tolerance now. I don't think these views are unusual. Look at urban areas with indian vs black gangs.

    •  or it could be (0+ / 0-)

      a small sample size with a large margin of error. Even if Native Americans hated blacks (hard to believe, given Obama's dominance in areas like Menominee County WI) it wouldn't explain movement.

      22, male, RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), moving to Japan in July, hopeless Swingnut

      by sapelcovits on Thu Apr 19, 2012 at 06:04:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is native movement casino$ related? Do we have (0+ / 0-)

        Any analysis of that trending?

        •  I just tried to find #s on casino $$s (0+ / 0-)

          Quick research suggests I should have done research before asking the question. I was thinking about casino owners like Newt's bankroller who want to maximize profits without knowing native amer casino $$s get re-invested in their own communities. Pls excuse my ignorance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site