Skip to main content

I was guessing we'd see some leveling off in this poll after moving up 4 points in the past 5 days but was pleasantly suprised to see another gain for Obama of another 0.4 of a point.  His lead of 6.3% is the largest since before the debates on Sep. 30.  Ah, those were the days.  I doubt we have anything close to a 6 point national lead but the trend is your friend and since this is a 7-day sample now 4 days of it are post-debate.  I wish we saw this kind of movement in the MSM polls.

Rand Poll Oct. 27

Note the graph is not yet updated so click the 'data' link on their page.

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

  •  The National Polls Are For The Narrative..... (10+ / 0-)

    The swing state polls are what get you in the White House.

    What Gallup says is only going to matter for another 10 days....then Gallup is irrelevant.  

  •  This thing is moving in Obama's direction. (19+ / 0-)

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:35:37 AM PDT

  •  Trust (10+ / 0-)

    I have heard that this is a new unproven methodology.  I trust it.  However, it doesn't measure Ohio.  I won't sleep well until Ohio is 100% in our column beyond anyone stealing this election.  Thanks go to this poster for getting the nuts and bolts 30 minutes early.  Tomorrow, or later today, I will be volunteering on GOTV.

    •  Ohio is stubbornly blue. (10+ / 0-)

      The polling has been remarkably consistent all year.  It began with Romney operatives voicing surprise with how tough it has been, confessing internal polling showing high single digit losses.  These came out in public polls during September and then even after the media driven shift following the first debate, Obama still had a 2-3.5 point advantage at the campaign's nadir.  Small amount of percentage points, but keep in mind there are over 11,000,000 people living in the state.  With the state of the race settling on a 3-5 point win for Obama, we're talking hundreds of thousands of votes separating the two.  

      Nevada, Iowa, and Wisconsin seem to be in the bag.  Colorado was +2 more Democratic than the rest of the nation last time around (and even withstood the 2010 GOP wave Senate-wise) and its trajectory is to become even more Democratic relative to the nation at large.  Obama shouldn't lose Colorado unless he's losing the national popular vote by 2.5-3.5 points, which seems unlikely.  

      The unspoken story this election is how the "battlefield" is taking place almost entirely on states that George Bush won handily in 2000 and/or 2004.  Karl Rove would have seized up seeing a map where the Solid Republican foundation didn't include Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Colorado.  And then to consider Republicans not even competing in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and New Mexico... ouch.  

    •  I like their methodology too (0+ / 0-)

      Would be awesome if they did this next time for the top 5 or so swing states.

  •  Would be nice to see this in the other trackers... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jplanner, Fury

    Maybe it's coming, I dunno.. PPP certainly doesn't seem to be seeing it as they have EXACTLY the same number of Obama and Romney supporters in tonight's release. Gallup obviously moved in the wrong direction again today and Ras is obviously still stuck on R+3. I really don't know. There's an enormous spread now between this poll and Gallup's which frankly doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know this is sort of an odd poll and it could suffer from a bad sample, but it was basically still following the same trends as the others before and now isn't really showing that... no idea what to make of that.

    •  Read the 538 blog (0+ / 0-)

      Gallup and Ras get the most MSM coverage. However there are about 8 national polls and about 4 have Obama ahead. It is not clear exactly where the popular vote race stands, but it is clear that Obama leads in the swing states he needs to get to 270. While movement in national polls toward Obama is good, be sure to look at the average of all  8 and not just Gallup, Ras, and RAND.

  •  So, according to Wolf Blitzer... (9+ / 0-)

    RAND's poll is showing a tie, right?

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:42:08 AM PDT

  •  Look at the "Intention to Vote" chart on the site (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico3, FORUS50, elwior, Scandalous One

    It seems the movement is at least partly due to a spike in Obama supporters' intention to vote, and a drop-off in Romney supporters'. Hopefully this is a result of the Obama ground game in action, and firming up the support of wavering Obama supporters who are just now being hit with the reality of a potential President Romney.

    "Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis." -Ralph Waldo Emerson "YEAAAAAAARGH!" -Howard Dean

    by AtomikNY on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:48:19 AM PDT

    •  perhaps the Obama lead in early voters is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scandalous One

      reflected here as well.

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

      Intention to vote for Obama Jumped 2 pts overnight. That should translate into a big bump in the top line, but it barely changed. Spikes like this in Rand come from compositional effects. It is not a traditional panel at least in its reports. Members get their surveys once a week always the same day, and then have seven days to respond. The reported forecast is based on all responses in the most recent seven days. If a respondent answers right away one week but delays a day or two the next they drop out for those days, then are double counted if they answer promptly the next week.

      This is mostly highly weighted Obama supporters who say they won't vote dropping out cause they waited til the weekend to respond. These spikes almost always revert the next day.

  •  WHo knows? BUT I think... (0+ / 0-)

    that pre debate, there were a lot of soft people, and after all three debates many of them found the excuse they were looking for to choose an alternative to the president. I expect that is "baked in" now. For the most part any one who COULD swallow "Romney" has already done so, and of the remaining "undecided" they will split nearly evenly, or maybe 6-4 Romney which adds about .2 to his total. So as a billion people have already said -- it comes down to turnout.

    Outside of diehards, I imagine those who are uncomfortable with Romney will decide in the end (in large enough numbers) they have to vote for the guy they know.

    I can't believe our election is being decided by people who can't tell the difference between republicans and democrats...that's like letting a dog choose what color to paint your house.

    by PBJ Diddy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:25:52 AM PDT

  •  I think that we now will see (0+ / 0-)

    more of a hardening of positions rather than swings one way or the other.

    And that's just fine.

  •  The Rand graph is so pretty !!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scandalous One

    I sometimes just stare at it, watching the blue line soar up and the red line fall.

  •  The truth is that the quality of national (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bridav58

    polling is far worse than in 2004.  There are a lot more robo polls, tracking polls and internet polls as compared to traditional live phone polls.  Trackers, notably Gallup, have often suffered from wild swings and lags, and now as our society has become more mobile and less tethered, a lot of polls aren't truly capturing the electorate.

    There are also more partisan polls out there, with the likes of Gravis and Ras etc.

    I would look at all of the national surveys, no matter the type and methodology, in the aggregate, because they all have some flaws.

    The most important thing is the state polls and it has been that way for as long as I've followed politics.  In 1992, we knew Bill Clinton had a chance to win not because he got ahead of Bush I in a national poll, but because he got ahead of Bush in California and Illinois outside the MOE.  

    In 1996, we knew that Clinton would win reelection because he was ahead in each of the midwest states and most of the states that he had won in 1992.

    In 2000, if we had listened to the national polls, Bush would've won by 3-6 points.  It was only by looking at state polls that we could tell that Gore was really in a position to win on election day.

    In 2004, national polls generally had Bush with a slight lead, but only the state polls told us that Bush had no margin for error in that he had to win Florida and Ohio to win the election.  It wasn't a given that he was going to win until both of those states came through and he did not have clear leads outside the MOE in either.

    In 2008, national polls were slow to catch up with Obama's strength.  We knew he could win because of polls in states like Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, not because of a Gallup survey.

    This year, the reason Nate Silver has had Obama a favorite for this election cycle is because of his state polling in the battlegrounds, not because of national surveys. Romney has been ahead in the composites just as much as Obama over the course of the election cycle.  Also, no composite includes internet polls, which are no better or worse than Gallup, Ras, Gravis and their ilk.  If you added those in, we'd probably have a fairly consistent slight Obama lead even among LVs.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:48:32 AM PDT

  •  people say RAND is unproven (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wildthumb

    true... but Gallup is proven to suck ( http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/... ) so which is better?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site