Skip to main content

Generally speaking, the RAND poll seems to have settled down into a relatively stable 49/45 Obama lead, now that we have passed the post-debate volatility. Very little movement the past four days.  But as those who follow the poll know, they also show various breakouts of their sample, and today's break out was on three "battleground" states.  EDIT - Note the state level results are Predictions on how residents of the states see the race, NOT HOW THEY WILL VOTE.  Now keeping in mind that their state populations must be awfully small, there finding are interesting. First, PA, which most no longer think is battleground state has a twenty point plus Obama advantage.  Second, Ohio voters, predict O win.  But Florida is the surprise - with the least fluctuation, consistently keepin a 10+ point Obama prediction margin. Several thought below.

1. First, if you go to the Link you will note rather wide error band/confidence margins, befitting small samples, but FL and PA are both outside the band, suggesting that at least from a statistical view, they measure a real separation in prediction of outcome

2.  FL's stability suggests that issues other than debate performance are important to those voters.

3.  The OH margin moved from comfortably outside the MOE to clearly within the MOE, so with perceptions changing so much, upcoming OH polls should be quite instructive

4.  Also note that the rate of switching from Obama to Romney and vice versa has just about equalled out, after BIG Obama tilts prior to debate and smaller and shorter lived tilt to Romey after the debates. This again suggests returning stability to the race.

5. Finally, the current 4 point forecast margin is consistent with Gallup - although today (Tuesday) we get their shift to likely voter model. Note that RAND deals with the issue of likely voter by their methodology of asking two questions 1- how likely are you to vote for O/R, and 2- How likely are you to vote.  So somebody that says they are 75% lely to vote for Obsma and 75% likely to vote is counted as .56 of a vote for Obama and a .19 vote for Romney. I don't think this methodology has really been tested out, but on the face of it should balance out in the end I suppose

Poll

RAND Poll - what do you think?

23%9 votes
41%16 votes
35%14 votes

| 39 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  But... but... but... DOOM! (8+ / 0-)

    DOOM!  We are DOOOOOOMED!  Doom doom doomey-doom doom doom duh-doom-doom!

    DOOM

    •  Turn on CNN for two minutes and you'd think... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delilah, blueoasis, Denver11, Hatrax, bear83

      it's all over but the cryin'. (for the president, that is)

      Geez, they must be wetting their pants over at Fox.

      If you ask me, I think there's a classic case of premature ejaculation going on here.

      (but that's just me)

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

      by markthshark on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:06:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The proper term is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012, markthshark

        "Premature e-jerk-ulation".  These are conservatives we're talking about here...

        •  Produced by mental masturbation. (0+ / 0-)

          "We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !! We're # 1 !!"

          (We're not.)

      •  Since CNN's Candy Cowly is moderating the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012, bear83

        upcoming debate, they need to boost their ratings. And yes I absolutely deny misspelling her name on purpose ;-)

        Those who dwell among the beauty and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. ~Rachel Carson

        by Norwegian Chef on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:57:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Mean W's Squeeze? (5+ / 0-)

          She has never gotten over George W.  Before her major crush on him, she was a fairly unbiased reporter.  W made a concerted effort to win her over (I guess it didn't take much) and since then she has been a Neo-Con all the way.

          Bush had a special little name for her (Mi Dulcita) (My little sweet) and had special candies made for her when she flew in the press section of Air Force One.  

          So, she's selected to be an unbiased moderator for the debate?  

          I guess Rush Limbagh had plans with a Dominican boy that night.

          Demand Accountability.

          by stlawrence on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:08:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now you've gone and done it!! I have this horrid (0+ / 0-)

            image etched in my mind of Bush and Crowley together.  If all that's true, it is downright creepy!!

            Those who dwell among the beauty and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. ~Rachel Carson

            by Norwegian Chef on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:25:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not that far (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think anyone suspects of Bush and "Mi Dulcita" being, well, "together."  Jeez.  All kind of reasons why not.  If Bush is straight, he had Condi Rice gushing all over him.  If he is not straight, he had Jeff Gannon (the male prostitute who spent numerous nights over in the White House) to keep him warm.

              No.  Bush just manipulated Candy.  A not very attractive woman who suddenly becomes the object of a flirtatious President?  Hmmm.  You don't think her reporting became something less than objective, do you?

              And, for those who think I'm just making all this stuff up,
              just Google "Dulce and Bush," or "Dolce and Bush," and "Jeff Gannon and White House."

              But, of course, lest I be accused of irrationality, IOKIYAR!!!

              Demand Accountability.

              by stlawrence on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:13:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  howdy partner (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Denver11

    Great minds browse alike...

    (I happened to post a related RAND diary just now.)

  •  I think you're misreading poll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delilah

    The polls you link to refer to the subjects' predictions of who will win, not their own stated intentions.

    •  I don't read it the same way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012

      'Predicted winner' appears to me to be Rand's term for who  will win based on the polling.  

    •  Check out the first tab on the left (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JMcDonald, pico3
      The Election Forecast provides our best forecast of the popular vote based on the responses that panelists provided in the past week. The gray band indicates if the difference between the estimates for the two candidates is statistically significant. If the lines for Obama and Romney lie outside the gray band, then with at least 95-percent confidence we can say that one candidate would win the election if on election day the citizens vote as they now anticipate.
      Obama has fallen back juuuuust inside the gray band, but looks like he's heading back out of it again.
    •  Oops - that's what I get for reading at 2am MDT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JMcDonald

      .... And that makes the margins much more understandable - but still begs the question as to why such a great disparity between OH and FL perceptions.

      •  I'm guessing each sees the world locally (0+ / 0-)

        The more of your neighbors and co-workers who have Obama stickers, etc., the more likely you will think he's winning.

        My take is that those polls really reflect the likelihood of Obama winning those particular states, and don't generalize well beyond that.   But that's just my opinion.

  •  again, you need to edit diary or remove it (0+ / 0-)

    The polls you link to do NOT show voter preferences.

    They show what the panelists think will happen, regardless of their personal preferences.

    Granted the descriptions RAND uses are confusing, but please don't compound the confusion.

  •  RAND's Election Forecast has Obama up 3.8% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JMcDonald

    running from 7/11/2012 to 11/08/2012.

    That's getting undecideds plus the net snag for Republicans crossing over.

    Meanwhile Romney has only moved up about 1.5% for the same time period.

    Obama's campaign is winning new voters by a ratio of 3.8% to 1.5% for Romney for July into October.

    And that's with that particular day in July, the 11th, showing Obama unusually far ahead. He was up by about 1.5% where the most of the early part of July had him up by 1% or less.

    Overall, Obama looks to be attracting new voters at more than twice the rate of the Romney campaign.

    Can't hurt a bit !! Might help for two or three of the Senate races -- Connecticut, Arizona !!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site