Skip to main content

The Rand model is weird so I don't know what to make of it, but there was movement in the first day of post debate information there.  Yesterday, the race was 49.07 - 45.16 Obama, today it's moved to 50.03 - 44.34.  Here's hoping this is the start of a trend that other trackers find.   Obama doesn't need much to retake control of the race.  A 1-2 point drift in his direction will give him the two point lead that Nate keeps feeling seems right (and also kind of feels right to me).  Between this and the leads in NV and OH (and the fact that Romney hasn't yet shown a lead in WI), it's obvious who has the stronger position even before the debate.  It should only get better from here.

https://mmicdata.rand.org/...

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

  •  I'm Thinking Romney May Lose It In Debate #3..... (12+ / 0-)

    He may come unglued on stage.  If so, that will be all she wrote.  

    Here's hoping!

  •  So RAND is almost the mirror image of Gallup now (5+ / 0-)

    I can understand when one or two day polls get results that are 5 or even 10 points apart. But I don't get how tracking polls can produce such divergent results.

    •  Yeah it's completely bizarre. (5+ / 0-)

      I'm not sure what to make of anything right now.  I'm not sure I trust Rand but I'm equally dubious of Gallup's LW screening.

      But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

      by thezzyzx on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 02:13:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  RAND issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        They weight BOTH likelihood to vote for O/R as well as likelihood to vote at all.  So today's swing is in the likelihood of an Obama supporter to go to the polls. The concerning trend that hasn't changed yet is the switch difference.  R continues to get fractionally higher percentage of O to R as compared to R to O.  R has never enjoyed the giant gap at O had in that Pre debate 1, but if/when we see that gap switch again we will know that debate one has finally worn off in terms of movement down for O and he is really regaining momentum

      •  So is Intrade. Obama at 66%. (4+ / 0-)

        If Gallup hadn't been punked, there's no way you'd see that with 20,000+ contract volume.

        The GOPers were still throwing away money on McCain in 2008 up till the last two weeks. This is a cheap bet.

      •  Rand should be good at trends... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but I don't get how they deal with people just not doing their survey. I mean, some sorts of people are going to get tired of doing that thing day after day, and the sorts of people that get tired of doing it might be more Republican or more Democratic than usual.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:42:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think it all looks weird (0+ / 0-)

        because until a couple of weeks ago this race was unusually stable.  Big differences between polls happen quite a lot in most elections.

        E.g., around this time in 2004, CNN had Bush +8, AP had Kerry +3.  It happens.

        The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present

        by Inkin on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 06:52:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Selection Biases (14+ / 0-)

      RAND's experimental tracking poll is an experiment to avoid selection bias by interviewing the same people over and over. But like in quantum mechanics, the act of observation may change the system under observation. Answering a poll regularly every week may prompt RAND interviewees to think more about the election than your average swing voter.

      Gallup's poll, on the other hand, may be strongly affected by who picks up the phone to answer the phone, especially since they don't see to do much demographic weighting. So the morale on each side may strongly affect the result, even if the number of voters remains the same.

      •  Every four years, I stopped answering my phone (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior

        Actually it's every two. I suppose I'm not alone. I just generally don't spend much time on the phone and I'm usually working in the hours that campaign workers or pollster might want to call me and I'll only answer important calls around that time.

        Is in Gallup also one of those pollsters that still wasn't polling cell phones? I definitely agree that polling this year is really really screwy, perhaps because all the societal changes in the way we communicate maybe finally reaching a tipping point. I'm less inclined to believe that Obama had an honest-to-goodness freefall in the past few weeks so much as I am to believe that the polling this year all along has been over reacting to trends, giving Obama too much convention bounce and then a huge correction back to the mean.

        Who knows. Donate or volunteer and settle this on the ground.

      •  Gallup is set up to encourage tactical (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike

        self-identifications. Their qualifying questions drive the self-identification fakers.

        •  The vast majority of people... (0+ / 0-)

          ...don't care or don't know enough to care about tactically misrepresenting themselves to create a .001% disparity in some poll's crosstab. Gallup is just wrong with their model/process somehow (or the only one that's right).

          it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

          by Addison on Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 04:44:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are underestimating the block voters. (0+ / 0-)

            They have been at this for years. And it is much more prevalent than your ".001%" figure.

            Gallup pre-selects for willing consumers. They pay $2 for a 15 minute participation. That does not produce competent political stratification, which they lie about on their web pages.

      •  which means it totally misses changes in enthusias (0+ / 0-)

        m which impact who will and won't vote.  I think you nailed both the strength and weakness of the RAND model (as I understand it from a totally amateur perspective)

    •  These result represent a seven day (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, ybruti

      period which includes Wednesday polling.  The same period for Gallup will not be released until 1 PM EDT today.  Also, note that the previous day in RAND showed a 1.25 movement to Romney, in line with Gallup's movement for Romney in yesterday's polling.

      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 Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:02:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rand is weird cause the sample changes (0+ / 0-)

        Each respondent gets one poll email a week, one seventh on each day, then has a week to respond. All responses in a seven day period are used to create a weighted average which is reported. It is apparent that some panel members who are polled in the days immediate prior to the debates are waiting to submit their responses, so the drop out in the day before and re-enter the day after the debate. This makes it a bit harder to interpret these one day swings.

  •  RAND's not vulnerable to self-identification scams (0+ / 0-)

    where Tea Party loons say they are Democrats or Indies.

    We've seen two enormous mailers go out that request exactly this tactic from The Faithful. They target groups that indulge block voting as a routine approach to school boards and other municipal elections.

    Sampling from households that hang on to the mailers indicates that the senders are working off faith-based organizations' member lists. That information is not supposed to go to political parties, but of course they do it. Here's an alternative:

    That has nothing to do with the comment. Thought you might like it.

    Gallup has been getting spoofed for a month. That's the tactic. Enough to move the poll numbers a point or two easy -- Lord knows how much now.

    Heard of "Lying for the Lord!" ??? This is an example.

    Meanwhile the polling systems that guard against misidentification are where they were before the debates started.

    Our main sample group hasn't moved a half point. The big inroads there were made during the latter parts of the primaries, when attack ad materials were pumped up and rebroadcast for maximum destruction. A lot of those people are not voting for Obama and wouldn't vote for Romney if the alternative was a tentacled green Martian.

    Btw: one rumor running around the Bible Belt centers on Ann Romney winning a national championship riding horses, plus finishing second the year before.

    That's with MS ????? O.K., fine. If they want to say so.

    People have seen multiple sclerosis. Conjecture's that something's not right there. That the truth about her health is crazier than the Lance Armstrong scandal.

  •  EVEN A MARGINAL UPTICK IN WHITE SUPPORT... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Micheline, LordMike, pademocrat

    .....in the East and Great Lakes should fire-proof OH, WI & NH. Clark county's Latino and Union turnout machine will carry NV to cross 270. Any uptick in white support will also bulk up Northern VA and IA and provide a second line of defence.

  •  The topline on this poll is less interesting to (0+ / 0-)

    me than momentum.  It seems to me that the real value of this methodology is in its capacity to capture trends early.  Let's see if that is confirmed tomorrow.

    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 Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 03:57:59 AM PDT

  •  Sidenote - SUSA poll Ohio (6+ / 0-)

    SUSA just released a poll of Ohio taken before the 2nd debate. Obama up by 3. That's a 2 point bump for the President since their last survey. Also up by 19% among them who've already voted.

  •  I don't care what any single poll says... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hyperstation, LordMike, zed, pademocrat

    ...this thing is going to be tight because the Civil War in America rages on between learners/readers and absolute know-nothings.

    And it's a country filled with absolute know-nothings, 58% of which in a recent poll who say that Romney has a "clearer plan to save the economy".

    Clearer? Really? Could those same morons explain it to me beyond the headline that it's a 5-point-plan?

    There are a lot of morons in America, and they like to vote every single chance they get while perfectly good people who rely on the services this President has fought to afford them are picking their noses and watching Dancing with the Has-Beens.

    This will be a 50-49 election, maybe a 51-48 election, which constitutes a landslide.

  •  Obama is where he always has been--clearly winning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TLS66

    I beg to disagree with my fellow progressives.  I do not believe that the first debate this year or any presidential debate ever, for that matter, can constitute a game-changer.  That is media spin--the white noise of campaigns for punditocracy and the MSM seeking relevance, ratings, and revenue.

    Judging from every second debate highlight, and the unanimous consensus that Obama came off clearly better, and the fact that it was as widely viewed as the first, then if the first resulted in a very sharp tilt toward Romney, it must follow that the second will result in a very sharp tilt toward Obama.

    As to the third debate, specializing in foreign policy, wherein Romney has ever been little more than a clown, how can anyone, even if Obama were literally sleeping during the whole of it, believe that Romney can appear otherwise than an ass?  My Lord, this is a man who when he speaks on any matters of foreign policy, even with no one to challenge him, loses masses of people anywhere within ear-shot.  To wit: his very own pronouncements, stated with his absolute conviction, on the London Olympics and Libya bombing fiascos.

    However, the above is simply playing into the media's need to have us all believe in the white noise of its own making.

    Issues of self-interest, even for the most ill-informed within the electorate, always drive their choices.  To presume that there was a shift toward Romney would mean that great masses of senior citizens really don't care if their beloved Social Security and Medicare are scrapped in order to save them--they just liked Romney during that first debate.

    Or that America's pregnancy-age women don't really care if they no longer have access to contraception--really ever--just so long as smiling and tailor-made suit Romney, so reassuring in that first debate, is elected.

    Or that every blue-collar worker is perfectly fine with his or her jobs getting further out-sourced and their collective bargaining rights gone entirely--they just liked that Romney forcefulness in the first debate.

    Indeed, so just prove to the rest of us that the moon really is not made of green cheese.  After all, few among us have ever been there to concretely state otherwise.

    No, folks--Obama and Biden were always in a clear lead this election cycle.  The clear majority of electorals were always with them as well.

    But there is another dynamic.  The Romney/Ryan team and their corporate backers in media (CNN and its affiliated Gallup so-called polling are the worst--they were long ago bought and paid for) needed to change the narrative on, as Bill Clinton so aptly noted, "that campaign sinking faster than the Titanic."  

    They cannot win it so they must now steal it--and that means massive voter suppression and scores of misplaced pro-Obama vote tabulations on Election Day.  To steal a race in which the polls show for Obama a clear electoral  lead, is, however, even with all their bought and paid for media and skewered polling outfits, far easier to achieve if those polls remain tight, or show a Romney tilt.

    The real results of this election--with millions in key battleground states already having voted, and in fact having been oblivious to any of the white noise of so-called presidential debates--was long ago set.  Obama/Biden in fact has won--but Romney/Ryan need to steal it, thus the "tight race" narrative the punditocracy perpetuates.  

    The only real question now is: will Obama and Biden be as passive as was Al Gore in 2000, the victim of an obvious election theft to much of the world, or John Kerry in 2004, concerning whose 100,000 fewer vote difference in Ohio was truly curious indeed--if that Romney/Ryan team steals it on Election Night?

    Really, folks, when it comes to Presidential Elections, the last legitimate win for the GOP was in 1988.  Ever since, they have become an increasingly marginalized party of crazy fringe elements.  And you would now have us believe that this is a tight race?  That seniors and women and workers care nothing about their own self-interests?

    At this point, anything that follows is in fact all about the stealing, and whether it will be accepted, or that second American Civil War follows.  For if the Romney/Ryan team comes to power, it means that the revolution that they have already declared upon seniors, women, and workers, comes to power as well.  The provocation for the rest of us to fight back against these neo-fascists is more than justified.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site