Skip to main content

Normally, the Wrap takes Saturday and Sunday off, but with the Republican National Convention in the rearview mirror, we have a rare weekend edition of the Wrap to see what, if any, improvement we can see in the fortunes of the GOP ticket post-Tampa.

And, as has been the case for most of the past week, the answer is: little, if any.

Now, a caveat applies. Since the speeches come so late in the evening, there really has only one wholly post-convention day in the sampling, and that was last night. And with that outsized tracking sample that Gallup employs (seven days), we are still at a point where the slight majority of respondents were queried about their preferences before Ann Romney and Chris Christie took the stage.

That said, there is quite a bit of evidence that the convention did not yield an outsized bounce for the Republicans, and will come well short of the 11-point bounce Romney's own campaign was flogging a while back.

On to the numbers:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Obama d. Romney (47-46)

NATIONAL (Ipsos/Reuters Tracking): Obama d. Romney (44-43)

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Romney d. Obama (47-44)

Thus, with three tracking polls, the current average is a Romney lead of 0.3 percentage points. On Tuesday, before the RNC began in earnest, these three tracking polls yielded an average which gave the president a lead of 1.0 percentage points.

Therefore, in the only apples-to-apples "bounce" comparison we can make, the bounce stands at 1.3 percentage points. That is, historically, a very weak bounce.

Also, given the trajectory of the data, it is somewhat hard to see how it will grow substantially. The momentum has been with Obama in the Ipsos/Reuters tracker over both of the last two days, as Romney has lost three points since Thursday's release. Gallup has been steady for three days, which hints that if there is any positive movement towards Romney in the last few days of polling, it has been quite muted. Only Rasmussen (perhaps predictably) is seeing real movement for Mitt Romney.

And if anyone needed any further reason to be skeptical of the House of Ras, look at what they released today:

After falling for two straight months, the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August.

During August, 37.6% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.9% in July  and 35.4% in June. It’s also the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen Report since monthly tracking began in November 2002. The previous peak for the GOP was 37.3% in September 2004. See History of Party Trends.

(...)

The GOP now holds a partisan identification advantage of 4.3 percentage points. That’s the largest advantage ever held by Republicans and the largest for either party since April 2010.

So, in summary, the House of Ras sees a likely electorate, in a presidential election year, of GOP +4. The only problem? Exit polls show that a presidential electorate with more Republicans than Democrats has not occurred in the past 35 years. Add that to a pretty formidable pile of reasons why it is pretty easy to accuse Rasmussen of having their thumbs (and forefinger, and middle finger) on the scale when they assess the state of American politics.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 05:00 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

    •  Button It, Liberal Bed-Wetters (19+ / 0-)

      There seems to be regiments of libtards accusing Gov. Romney of being unprincipled; of being a man of no convictions; a man who merely says whatever he feels is expedient in furthering his advance on what he rightly feels he's entitled to: The White House.

      You people...what will it take to convince you that Gov. Romney is the right man to lead this great company of ours in these perilous times?

      Enough is enough, I say. Let Gov. Romney speak for himself: unedited; straight-from-the-shoulder and straight from the heart (an organ that few doctors dispute Gov. Romney possesses).

      Now read on, libtards:

      "I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
      "Roe v. Wade has gone too far."  

      "I don't line up with the NRA."  
      "I'm a member of the [NRA]."  

      "I like mandates. The mandates work."  
      "I think it's unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front."  

      "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose."  
      "I never really called myself pro-choice."

      "I saw my father march with Martin Luther King."  
      "I did not see it with my own eyes."  

      "I supported the assault weapon ban."  
      "I don't support any gun control legislation."  

      "I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation."  
      "There's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs."  

      "I will work and fight for stem cell research."  
      "In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise."  

      "I would like to have campaign spending limits."  
      "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."  

      "I'm a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering."  
      "I changed my position."  

      "Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."  
      "I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."  

      "I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts."  
      "Social Security's the easiest and that's because you can give people a personal account."  

      "I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."  
      "Ronald Reagan is... my hero."  

      "I've been a hunter pretty much all my life."  
      "Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability."  

      "If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation."  
      "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."  

      "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam."  
      "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there."  

      "It's a tax cut for fat cats."  
      "I believe the tax on capital gains should be zero."  

      "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."  
      "He's going to pay, and he will die."  

      "The TARP program... was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures."  
      "When government is... bailing out banks... we have every good reason to be alarmed."  

      "These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress."  
      "Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore."  

      "Those... paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship."  
      "Amnesty only led to more people coming into the country."  

      "When I first heard of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly."  
      "Don't Ask, Don't Tell has worked well."

      Let's hear no  more loose talk about Gov. Romney's lack of principle, libtards. Vote King of Bain For More of The Same!
      •  If nothing else, Romney is consistant.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, SusanInTXunfortunately

        .... according to nobody.

      •  When will the flip-flop ads come from the (5+ / 0-)

        Obama side? They could be really devastating. Romney is an utter fraud.

        •  There's been some, I'm sure there's more to come. (0+ / 0-)

          I expect also that Obama will hold Romney to the fire in the debates on his multiple choice statements.

          One of the ads they had running for awhile, perhaps still, was called Romney will say anything.

        •  DNC web ad (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dutch Doctor, nimh

          that needs to become a couple of 30 second teevee ads.

          672,096 views.

          6,569 likes, 344 dislikes.

          If by some miracle this thing is tight heading into election day, Romney's shameless flip-flopping (and lies) have to become a disqualifier in the minds of undecideds.

          •  The trick is (0+ / 0-)

            to portray Romney as both an unreliable flip-flopper who will say or do anything people want him to do, and a dangerous right-winger with a radical anti-middle class economic agenda who poses a threat to women's rights etc.

            That's a tricky combo to pull off - the messages can easily conflict. Rove c.s pulled it off with Kerry, who was portrayed as simultaneously a flip-flopper without a core and a radical liberal. But if we're not seeing more attack ads focusing on Romney's flip-flops, I'm guessing (though this is really just a random guess) that it might be because the Democratic campaign thinks it might mix messages when it's trying to portray him as a dangerous hostage to the right.

            •  "Romney will say and do anything... (0+ / 0-)

                 ...and that's what makes him a dangerous person to have as president." And then show who's calling the shots and ask the public "Do you think he'll do the right thing?"

                 That's how you combine the two messages, and they're entirely consistent. The best part about it is that it's true- Romney doesn't care about consequences of his positions and policies, he'll just follow along with anything to get elected and stay in power.

                 And that should be a terrifying message to everyone.

              •  Yeah I mean obviously I consider the prospect of a (0+ / 0-)

                ... President Romney pretty damn scary.

                What I was getting at is more along the lines of how some liberals, back in '08, were willing to discount Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage because the assumption was sort of that he didn't really mean it anyway, and was just saying that because he wouldn't be elected otherwise. They assumed - rightly, it turned out - that as soon as it became politically feasible, Obama would come around.

                This is the risk with portraying Romney as a flip-flopper who doesn't really mean what he says anyway. That's obviously a repulsive characteristic, by itself - but it can end up undermining your other message, that he's a dangerous right-winger with a radical anti-middle class economic agenda. Romney himself is doing what he can to bolster the latter impression by embracing Ryan and his ideas, but still I think many voters remember he was once the boss in Massachusetts and think, eh, he doesn't really mean this stuff, he won't actually go that far once he is safely elected. And weirdly, that may make it easier for some people to vote for him, so that's not an impression you want to strengthen. That's kind of the tricky part I meant.

                Not saying it's impossible - again, Rove seemed to square the circle with Kerry, and it was pretty damn maddening (how was he supposed to be both a rabid liberal and an opportunistic flip-flopper?). Just that it's tricky, and I'm speculating that might be a reason why we haven't seen the Obama campaign really hammering the flip flop theme lately anymore.

              •  Grover Norquist's famous line (0+ / 0-)

                He said:

                "All we need for a president is someone with five digits who can work a pen."

                Pretty much makes Romney the perfect candidate as far as Norquist sees it.  How about for the rest of the GOP shadow government rulers do ya think?

        •  They'll start coming out soon (0+ / 0-)

          Theres plenty of video to choose from.

          I see an ad that's nothing but Romney saying one thing, then saying the exact opposite, then saying something else again, all with dates and locations, and all within the last 5 yrs or so.

          And ending with a picture of a weathervane spinning in the wind.

          Mitt Romney. Says anything, believes nothing.

      •  The list of Romney's alleged statements.... (0+ / 0-)

        are contradictory at best.  He waffles in the first statement, and seemingly states just the opposite in his next statement on the very same subject.

        To wit:  

        "I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."  
        "Ronald Reagan is... my hero."  

        Where then, does he stand?  Is it behind statement one, or behind statement two? (In this example as well as the others.)

        I'm sorry, but a man who has devoted his career to earning the most money possible from a personal perspective, for a personal prerogative and sometimes at the expense of others' livelihoods does not a president make in my book.

        Further, how can a guy with a national budget plan that won't even balance the national budget (let alone get it above a baseline balanced position and into the black) for at minimum another 27 years to come isn't anything close to a financial wizard in my view.

        Simple math:  If your household budget is seriously in the red, do you dole out spending allowances to your children? I mean your favored children?

        And jobs.  Whose to say he'll take that kind of financial genius to create jobs here?  He's expert at creating companies of workers in China in plants he personally owns there.  How patriotic is that?

        No, sorry.  Can't trust the man to do anything but fatten his own coffers and those of whom have helped him to help them in their off shore tax evading.

      •  I do have to laugh... (0+ / 0-)

        You wrote:

        "You people...what will it take to convince you that Gov. Romney is the right man to lead this great company of ours in these perilous times?"

        "lead this great COMPANY of ours in these perilous times?"

        To further illustrate

        "this great COMPANY?"

        Read with your mind what your fingers penned here.  America is not a COMPANY and I will not be treated like one of its employees.

        I will make my own way and not under some USA - CEO thank you very much.

        Freudian slips are so telling.

    •  But how does it help them in the long run? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pollbuster

      That's what puzzles me. If they become known as a BS outfit, why would even Republicans use their "data"?

      The universe may have a meaning and a purpose, but it may just specifically not include you.

      by Anne Elk on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:13:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because (5+ / 0-)

        Rasmussen switches to actual polling closer to the election, so that when you say they're full of it, the Republican you're talking to will say "But they were very accurate in the last election's results!"

        •  Except (4+ / 0-)

          they weren't accurate at all in 2010. So they exist only to influence the narrative. They are as full of shit as the likes of William Kristol, and he still gets invited to bloviate on TV.

          •  As they did here. Just before the convention, (0+ / 0-)

            they had Obama with his biggest lead of recent.  Now, all of a sudden, Rmoney is 3 points up.   Trying to say that Rmoney got a 6 point bump in order to stoke momentum.  They really are too obvious.

            Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

            by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 03:08:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but Rasmussen is biased (0+ / 0-)

          Check this with the guru on polls, Nate Silver of 538.com.  He's fair minded and will tell you that many polling entities are dubious in scope (and not in a partisan way).

          His position with Rasmussen is that their polling technique is to place query calls week nights between 6 PM and 10 PM only.

          That technique is not going to get you a reliably broad and fair sample as the people most likely near a telephone between those hours are going to be older as a population segment.

          Thus, they are polling a fairly narrow group of possible voters and voters who are available in the majority during those hours only are going to be older.  Younger individuals may be out running around (young adults), young parents with kids at events, people attending church or club functions.  The list can go on and on but Rasmussen makes no allowances for this and does not waiver in its times to gather polling data.

          Of necessity, this skews the data they collect.

          As Mark Twain said: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

          Take what you read with a bit of an open mind and check out Nate's page if I'm not insulting your intelligence by mentioning him. He is to me the most unbiased and provides a condensation of all the plethora of polls taken on the subject of voter preferences.

    •  Hey, Baghdad Bob had Ras beat. (0+ / 0-)

      I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

      by Wildthumb on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:55:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Real Clear Politics has Obama w/ less electoral (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM

      votes, but Romney also at 191 like most of the maps. They have Obama at 221, and put a few Obama leaner states into tossups.

      Wingers have been saying Romney will win based on that map. I think that's drivel, but was wondering what Mr. Sinisger, or Kos, or anyone with good polling knowledge thinks of the Real Clear Politics electoral map. I know it's a con website.

      •  Why does it matter? (0+ / 0-)

        Let them have false hope.  If they want to place a bunch of states that are clearly lean Obama into tossup category, let them.  That will make their defeat all the more sweet on election day.  Those fuckers actually believed they were going to win in 2008, the actual polls and electoral map notwithstanding.   Nothing was more satisfying than watching the Fox propaganda crew deflating on screen.  I am all for a repeat.

        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 Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:06:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Try Nate Silver at 538.com (0+ / 0-)
  •  And doesn't Ras use Party ID to weight? (11+ / 0-)

    Wouldn't surprise me that he changed the weights yesterday, to give Romney those 3 points, by just making R's +3% too.

  •  Thanks so much for this Steve (12+ / 0-)

    .... polling wrap on the weekend.  It's like chocolate  with my chardonnay.  

    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 Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 05:19:55 PM PDT

  •  One note about Ras party ID (0+ / 0-)

    it varies quite a bit from month to month.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

    So next month, it could easily be back at R+1 or even.

    To their credit though, they have been close to the correct party split in most past elections.

  •  So I wasn't engaging in wishful thinking? (8+ / 0-)

    Ha! Seriously, what was so great about that convention? What did it offer that could have convinced anyone who's not part of the "tea party" to rally behind Mitt Romney?

    •  well... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep, nimh

      I did talk to someone who was talking about the auto plant that closed under Obama. So for people who just watched the convention and didn't read any newspapers, they believed all of the lies.

      Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

      by mattinjersey on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:33:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its funny when you think about it. (0+ / 0-)

        I just realized that the "I'm rubber, youre glue - bounces off me and sticks to you." thing really relates to Ryan vs Obama on this "fact" as well.

        Like his accusation about the downgrading of the US credit rating,  When he was one of those front and center in the brinksmanship, no negotiation, no revenue increase tea party views which precipitated the crisis....  His accusation of "not creating jobs" towards Obama, is really more Ryan's own problem.

        I did some reading about how Ryan is doing on really protecting those jobs at home it looks like in Janesville people realize that Ryan is the one who is ruining the economy.

        Ryan even locked the doorsof his congressional office, so that he did not have to talk to unemployed constituents.

        And its funny -- Here's the problem with confusing business with government  For a business, having a fee to cover the costs of meeting with consituents, would be ok... But for an elected representative not so much.

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics" - F.D.R.

        by biscobosco on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:55:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  i don't think they rallied behind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Notreadytobenice

      mitt romney,

      What did it offer that could have convinced anyone who's not part of the "tea party" to rally behind Mitt Romney?
      i think, if they rallied behind anyone, it was paul "zombie-eyed granny starver" ryan. ryan is romney, with a perceptible (though barely) personality. the GOP, in all it's factions, has no love for romney, and there's nothing he can do, short of slitting his own throat, to change that.
    •  NPR had a small group of indies' reactions (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nebraskablue, askew, PorridgeGun, Inkpen

      to the convention. One woman who was spouting repub talking points claimed she leaned further to romney. All the others were unconvinced, still undecided. It was maybe about 5 or so people. If it only convinced one, who was already going to lean republican, and none of the others, that's pretty devastating.

  •  Thank you for doing this (17+ / 0-)

    This Rasmussen bounce for Romney was predicted after he inexplicably had Obama ahead in the last poll.  

    Check out my new blog: http://socalliberal.wordpress.com/

    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 05:37:29 PM PDT

  •  Let cowards cringe and traitors sneer... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, annieli, nimh

    ...we'll keep the red flag flying here!  --Mitt Romney

    Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 05:45:04 PM PDT

  •  Nate's Model Gives Obama A New Record High (17+ / 0-)

    305.5 electoral vote forecast today.  A figure that has increased on 9 of the last 10 days......

    •  Nate's blog is the one that blows my mind. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doinaheckuvanutjob, Inkpen

      I kept thinking Obama's numbers would fall any day now.
      On the other blogs Barack is still ahead of Romney, but in some cases he's below 270. I see Romney consistently as 191.

      If Nate were some wild-eyed pollster I'd say, Hmmmmm.
      But he ain't. He's a consistently rational, prudent and
      unusually astute pollster.

      I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

      by Wildthumb on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:59:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nate has removed PA from "competitive" category (0+ / 0-)

      Just noticed that Nate has removed Pennsylvania from the list of "competitive states" he highlights on his blog.  One has to scroll to "all states" and select PA to see his analysis of PA.  Will be sweet if the networks can "call" Pennsylvania very early after 8pm EST for team blue Obama-Biden.  They were able to do so in 2008.  Hopefully will be the same for PA in 2012.

  •  Ras Continues To Go Downhill (4+ / 0-)

    I would bet that Ras is getting paid really big bucks for their poll manipulation.  It is sad when a pollster has no integrity.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 06:10:23 PM PDT

  •  I didn't watch a second of the R's convention, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, llywrch, Nebraskablue

    but my impression is that it was beside the point for many other people, too.

    Most people, really, will be voting against one candidate or the other.

    With such rigid divisions among us, significant "bounces" in the polls seem not only unlikely, but even unhealthy; unless momentum can be maintained they amount to little more than another bubble.

    In fact after our convention I hope we can "surge" 4-5%, enough to feel good but not so much that we relax. It would be better to keep working as if the polls were against us even if they seem favorable.

    This may sound gloomy or negative. I think we have to be realistic, though. As wrong as the right-wing policies are, those committed to that ideology will clearly use any tactics to prevail. While we can't (and shouldn't) match their "anything goes" attitude, we do need to be willing to "win ugly." If that means scratching out a .5% election victory so be it. If it means President Obama has to be ready to sign legislation on a regular basis without any support from the other side of the aisle, well we'll have to go that way, too.

    I suppose most of us (especially in a post on polls!), care about the horse race aspect of the contest. While I'm no great fan of the late Al Davis he was on to something when he said, "Just win, baby!"

    It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

    by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 06:11:43 PM PDT

    •  Any party or any candidate (3+ / 0-)

      that would give their workers any advice other than "campaign like you're down 10 points" is just asking to get Rocky Balboa'd.

      You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children's children what it was once like in America when 25% of the population was batshit insane.

      by Omir the Storyteller on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:19:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Part of my reaction is due to working around (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Omir the Storyteller

        a group which is very unlike most of us on Daily Kos; some are convinced that their side will win the election big and easy, others are probably just whistling past the graveyard. It's a little disorienting back here because some sound almost as certain that President Obama will have little trouble defeating his opponent. Some of the greatest activists in our Party are on this site so I've been a little alarmed (that like a top 10 college football team they are overlooking a team they "should" beat).

        Mostly it's been a perception thing on my part, but the worry is real.

        It matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. Henry David Thoreau, in Civil Disobedience

        by Had Enough Right Wing BS on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:59:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Again with the "10 points down" thing (6+ / 0-)

        any campaign that is actually 10 points down won't get the most out of their workers, volunteers and supporters.

        People like to work hard for winners, not losers.

        How hard did you work in 2010, when we were genuinely 10 points down?

        •  All right, three points. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nimh

          The idea is never to take a lead for granted, because that's the surest way I can think of to lose. Happier?

          You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children's children what it was once like in America when 25% of the population was batshit insane.

          by Omir the Storyteller on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 03:04:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

          It is time for trash talking and crushing those fuckers.  One problem Dems have is the perpetually defeat-ridden mentality, even when we're ahead.... even when we're supposedly conjuring up fighting words.   Eliminate the negative lexicon.  Stop with the "I love the president but..."  You can pick that up again in 2013 when he's re-elected and SCOTUS is safe.  Reset the mindset for victory.  

          Everyone all together:  We're going to CRUSH them.

          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 Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:12:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

            told my Obama-supporting family members to buck up, that the electoral college made me cautiously optimistic, and that I'd happily take the $ of anyone who wanted to bet against him. I won a case of wine that way in '08 ;-)

            And I said this, confidently, in front of an Obama-hating nephew. He knows I know my stuff, so it deflated him a bit. Which is fine by me. Foolish child is blue-collar Dem and I think racism is directing is Obama Derangement Syndrome.

  •  Soros should buy Rasmussen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MRA NY

    And install real pollsters and statisticians.  (He could probably get Bain and Goldman to go in on the deal.)

    Rasmussen gives the right hope.  Reality would crush their spirits.

    Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

    by Minerva on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 06:20:56 PM PDT

  •  I expect little Obama bounce (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep, fou, IM, tk421

    For reasons that apply to Romney, but also because the convention is the week after the Repubs, it's the latest ever (post-Labor Day for the first time).
    The ratings are going to be down from 2008 Dem as well.

    •  The "product launch" is happening in Sept., (5+ / 0-)

      which is pretty awesome.

      Ok, so I read the polls.

      by andgarden on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 07:11:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll be a little bold and say Obama outbounces (16+ / 0-)

      Romney. I don't think either bounce will be especially big, and maybe not lasting although Obama's could be, but regardless I think 10 days out it's clear Obama got a better bounce. It's against CW and historic precedent, but I think it happens.

      •  It would be hard not to outbounce zero (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        llywrch, Voodoo king, Inkpen
      •  If OFA/DNC don't spring a couple of surprises (0+ / 0-)

        for example, Mark Kelly introducing Gabby Giffords, and a  couple more notable Republican endorsers/speakers (Lincoln Chaffee doesn't really count, IMO) like a Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell, then it's really gonna come down to how appealing the First Lady is on the opening night, how persuasive Bill Clinton is the following night, and finally how great the President's acceptance speech is.

        it was more or less the same story at the last Dem convention. Take out the Obamas and Clintons, and there's not a whole lot of star power, hence the need for additional surprise and drama. Giffords and Colin Powell would provide that.

        •  I want bigger surprises (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PassionateJus, kbroers

          I want a Obama bio narrated by Tom hanks and George clooney, directed by Ron Howard. I want Neil Patrick Harris and ellen degeneres as mcs. I want the NASA team that designed the curiosity given a role. And a shout out to the navy seals.

          I want music by Stevie wonder, and yo yo ma and the cast of glee. I want bob Newhart to do a phone skit (or an empty chair one).

          I want a contingent of auto workers to be introduced and rave about how the auto bailout saved their jobs and their towns.

          I want a show that puts the GOP to shame, and shows them what a convention should be like. And shows the country how lucky we are to have Obama as president.

    •  Not sure I get this (14+ / 0-)

      Later is better, no? More people paying attention? No one on vacation anymore?

    •  Agreed For Sure on Ratings... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doinaheckuvanutjob, mmacdDE, Delilah

      Doesn't help that this schedule pushes the DNC onto NFL opening night (ratings for day #2 will suck, and that's the night they put Bill Clinton?! WTF?!).

      I'm of two minds on the bounce. On one level, I could see a muted bounce, for the same reason I suspect Romney didn't apparently get much of one--fewer persuadable voters. On another level, I also suspect that a pretty decent swath of Romney voters are not sold on him, and that he did not close the deal with them with this convention. If Obama, Clinton et al can do what they do, the Democratic ticket could snag some of those folks back.

      Plus, a lot of these LV screens seem to be assuming a gaping difference between RV turnout (which would favor Dems) and the makeup of the 2012 electorate. If the DNC can get the base a little more "fired up and ready to go", we could see closure in that LV/RV gap. If that happens, that could look like a "bounce", to the benefit of Obama/Biden.

      "Every one is king when there's no one left to pawn" (BRMC)
      Contributing Editor, Daily Kos/Daily Kos Elections

      by Steve Singiser on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:48:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you on Clinton being on NFL (0+ / 0-)

        opening night.  But the upside is that there will be on sub-set of tv viewers who will not be watching football: WOMEN.    Yes yes, lots of women do watch sports with seriousness of purpose (I am among them), but there are a hell of a lot of women who will be looking for something else to see on Wed night when only re-runs are available on network tv as the alternative to football.  And take it from me... the Big Dog will draw the ladies. ;)

        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 Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 01:23:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I expect more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bridav58, mmacdDE

      I expect the power of incumbency to set in, for  folks that may have voted for him in 2008, but haven't been paying attention to come home.  Just my opinion, but I think there are a lot more Obama floaters that can come back home than voters that have to be convinced to someone they don't know really know or never voted for in the past.  I really just think that Obama has a bigger pool of potential undecideds between incumbency/electoral history and likeability.

      You know, I'd be really worried if Romney was more likeable and a better politician, but I've been cautiously optimistic for a long time, now.  Romney's running this thing almost as if he's not even trying to win more times than not.

    •  Romney's convention sucked; Obama will get a big (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PorridgeGun, abgin

      bounce from his convention, no question.

      The entire RNC was one fiasco after another. The Dem convention will be smooth, with great speeches, and new policy proposals.

  •  I think we've got the winning ticket (4+ / 0-)

    but with the extreme right-wing dominance of the R's, we need to think beyond that outcome.  The Senate is top priority my view, because we need the judiciary committee above everything else.  The President needs to get his judicial appointments confirmed and he needs more of them.  We need to think Supreme Court.  The 5 that dominate are bad and will do great harm, probably inevitably at this point.  However, if we can retake the court over the next 8 years (4 won't do it I believe), those 5 - 4 votes will have little lasting impact.  This is a 19th century court and the legal community knows it.  Notice this requires that we think about the next nominee that can win the 3rd and 4th straight elections.  With the R's committing suicide before us, this can be done.  OK, there; play the long game.

    •  I shouldn't get this far out on a limb ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nimh

      but I have a very hard time seeing a Democratic win in 2016, unless some real teahadist freak wins the GOPer nomination. Obama might just skate by with winning the Senate, but Congressional Republicans will keep him from doing absolutely anything in his second term---the last four years will look like a cakewalk compared to where we're headed. Since Obama isn't going to change his spots and really call them out on it---nor are Democrats suddenly likely to figure out how to stick them with the blame---the country will be sick to death of the paralysis by 2015. Any reasonable-looking Republican has the better odds, IMHO. History is showing a very divided country, and we're going to keep swinging back and forth between parties for another generation at least.

      •  Hiliary freakin Clinton -- the next POTUS in 2016! (9+ / 0-)
      •  Rubio or Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrississippi

        If the nitwit from Wasilla runs, it could get ugly. The GOP establishment will probably freak out and try to take her down. Apart from those three, I honestly can't anyone else getting the nomination.

        As for the Dems, there's only two candidates who have a realistic shot of keeping the White House, IMO. Hillary) of course) and Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, who isn't giving a speech at the convention, but is instead addressing the Iowa delegation, along with Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Gillibrand. Which is interesting looking to 2016.

        Personally, I think a Schweitzer/O'Malley ticket would be formidable.

        •  Dems mentioned for 2016 speaking to Iowa delegates (1+ / 0-)
          Monday, September 3 — Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa;

          Tuesday, September 4 — Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley;

          Wednesday, September 5 — Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia;

          Thursday, September 6 — Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and the Honorable Tom Vilsack.

          http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...
          Iowa’s national convention delegates often get a preview of the next cycle’s caucus campaign in the form of national party leaders who drop by for a visit.  Because of that, the Iowa Democratic Party’s list of expected speakers for the upcoming convention in Charlotte is bound to be of interest.
      •  "unless some real teahadist freeks wins (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chrississippi, MarcKyle64, Inkpen

        the GOPer nomination".  Here is how that happens:  Obama wins and we retake the House and hold the Senate.  The RW/teabaggers blame Rmoney and the moderates "This wouldn;t have happened if we had a true believer at the top of the itcket"  So, they get their true believer in 2016.

        Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 03:12:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Our bench... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill

      Who do you see as our best bet?

  •  New numbers from Rasmussen (15+ / 0-)

    say that Paul Ryan will finish his next marathon in 2:30:00.

  •  TV numbers down 30% from 2008 convention (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, IM, nimh

    for the Republicans. This undoubtedly plays a part of the soft bounce for them. Since it is his second time on this type of stage, Obama and the Dems will likely have lower numbers from 2008 too.

    •  If The DNC ratings Are Not Down... (0+ / 0-)

      By a similar proportion, I will be absolutely shocked. No drama, plus competing with the NFL opener, coming off a three-day weekend.

      "Every one is king when there's no one left to pawn" (BRMC)
      Contributing Editor, Daily Kos/Daily Kos Elections

      by Steve Singiser on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:50:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  with the conventions back-to-back there should be (0+ / 0-)

    less GOP bounce, regardless, especially with little DNC rancor over the usual issues and with renewed enthusiasm over the clown show at the RNC

    Don't roof rack me bro', Now the brown's comin' down; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:15:55 PM PDT

  •  Thumbs.... on the scale??? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    Not, frankly, I think the House of Ras has their thumbs stashed somewhere else entirely.

    Advice:  never use a House of Ras scale anywhere near your kitchen.  Your health could depend upon that.

    Mitt Romney is a T-1000 sent back from the Future as a harbinger of the upcoming Robot Apocolypse.

    by mbayrob on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:17:15 PM PDT

  •  "Team Obama Believes This Race Is in the Bag" (17+ / 0-)

    According to National Journal:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/...

    Internal polls...consistently show Obama ahead nationally and state by state
    And...
    For at least two months, the campaign has detected a ripple in the data caused by a spike in voters identifying themselves as Democrats. The numbers that come back on self-identified Democrats don’t match, statistically, voter-registration rolls or historical patterns. This anomaly cropped up in public polls in August. Romney aides have taken careful note and don’t know what to make of it.
  •  Ras is a SHAM; when they showed O ahead +3 (4+ / 0-)

    late last week, EVERYONE here predicted that Ras was showing that lead so they could move it to a Romney lead after the convention to provide the Romney folks a "data point" to show their convention "bounce".  And look what happened.  Exactly as we all said would happen.  Ras does not really poll -- oh im sure they will call some people, but lets be honest most of their polls they will pull the numbers out of their a**.  No other pollseter is showing a +4 Rep advantage in the likely electorate -- NO ONE!  If you remove the cooked up numbers from Ras what do you find a dead cat "bounce" for Romeny.  Thats right, nothing, zlech, nada.  That is the real story (aside from the empty chair, which is aprapo for a party empty of ideas or a reason to be a party other than the desparate need to have power to wield power).

    •  That figure is the adult population (0+ / 0-)

      Rasmussen says himself that the likely voter model he uses for the ballot test is typically even more Republican.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 04:09:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think 2 days AFTER Obama convincingly wins... (10+ / 0-)

    ...a second term, Rasmussen will STILL have Romney ahead by 2. Those bastards are shameless.

  •  Don't be surprised if... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, ukit, Steve Singiser, askew, IM

    you see right-wingers claiming Gallup showed a bounce for Romney.

    Drudge is misreporting/misrepresenting their numbers, claiming Romney leads 47-46 in the latest release.

  •  The Plutocracy is simply laying down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill

    a justification for a stolen election.

    •  Plut's gonna withhold $ soon,Bad-Bet-Romney (0+ / 0-)

      that's what they're gonna call him.  Even if you're a billionaire why throw $$ away on a lamo?

      80 % of success is showing up

      Corporate is not the solution to our problem

      Corporate is the problem

      by Churchill on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:02:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i disagree just a tad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keetz4, itskevin

    ras has their thumbs and forefinger on the scale but their middle finger pointed directly at the voters.

  •  And we all know how the Hunt for Red October went? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:05:40 PM PDT

  •  Ok Steve (0+ / 0-)

    All that is well and good but the real question is: Is there anyway your team or mine will be able to beat Denver?

    At this point I see KC, San Diego and Oakland as competing for 2nd in our division. I really don't think it's going to be a fun season.

  •  Was Ras polling Romney v. Obama...or (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itskevin

    Romney v. Invisible Obama? I suspect results might be different.

  •  You People (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, ukit

    are better at this kind of thing off the tops of your heads than I am - Romney has flirted with being ahead in NC (consistently close), but has there been an Obama '08 state (other than Indiana), where he's been consistently ahead (even within MoE)? The closest I can think of offhand is perhaps Florida?

    My point is that he needs to start showing consistent leads soon in more than just perhaps Ryan's Wisconsin, say, but some combination of FL, NV, CO, IA, etc.

    •  Only North Carolina (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newdem1960, IM

      lately Romney has tended to be ahead more often than not, but it has been essentially a 1 or 2 point game in most credible polls.

      Obama has been doing better than Romney lately in Florida.  Ryan will only make that worse for Romney.

      Romney. Ryan. Wrong.

      by James Allen on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:02:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who really owns Rasmussen? Roger Ailes? (0+ / 0-)

    I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

    by Wildthumb on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:00:25 PM PDT

  •  Not nearly enough data (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nimh, okiedem

    To give us a definitive picture as yet. Bear in mind all we have so far is an internet poll and two notoriously unreliable trackers.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 04:33:34 AM PDT

  •  35 years? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, LordMike

    Never in the history of polling has there been more Republicans than Democrats.  Probably 1928 was the last time.  Before polling began.

    “The country tried everything Romney says, and it brought the economy to the brink of collapse”

    by Paleo on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 06:58:23 AM PDT

    •  Especially interesting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Delilah, MBishop1

      is that the Obama campaign, other public polls in August, and even perhaps the Romney campaign are picking up a greater-than-expected number of self-identified Democrats!

      For at least two months, the campaign has detected a ripple in the data caused by a spike in voters identifying themselves as Democrats. The numbers that come back on self-identified Democrats don’t match, statistically, voter-registration rolls or historical patterns. This anomaly cropped up in public polls in August. Romney aides have taken careful note and don’t know what to make of it. They take comfort that Democratic voter registration from 2008 is down 800,000 while GOP registration is down less than a tenth of that. Independent registration in the same period is up 207,000. But what if independents are choosing to call themselves Democrats? What if Republicans are? What if people are lying? Obama’s analysts have decided to subtract at least 2 points from Obama’s support in every internal poll.
      http://www.nationaljournal.com/...
  •  Scotty says; Mittywit wanna bouncy wouncy pt? (0+ / 0-)

    Mitty want!

    here ya go sweety;

    Rasmussen Reports    Obama "44", Romney 48    Romney +4

    "Never trust a man who, when left alone with a tea cosy, doesn't try it on!!"

    by EcosseNJ on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 07:58:06 AM PDT

  •  The thing with the Rasmussen Polls (0+ / 0-)

    Is that they are notoriously skewed.  I've checked this with Nate Silver's reporting on 538.com and Rasmussen's methodology does not use unbiased samples.  They seem to make calls to gather polling data between 6 PM and 10 PM only.  If they can't reach anyone during those hours, they don't keep trying at other times.  In doing this, they set themselves up to reach a specific segment of the public only -- the people, generally older -- are the ones most likely to be home to answer the calls during those hours. That really injects a bias into the data they collect making their samples anything but random.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site