2012 Election

[brewcrew1000]

I have a hard time believing any poll. How do you get polled in the first place? Do you have to have a physical landline or can they now call on a cellphone.

[chingon]

I'd like to know what polls you are smoking.

From @tobincommmentary

Jonathan Tobin? Nuff said.

[KCMax]

I have a hard time believing any poll. How do you get polled in the first place? Do you have to have a physical landline or can they now call on a cellphone.

Depends on the poll. But some do call cell phones now.

In college I used to work at a political polling station. The computer has a huge database of eligible numbers and selects them randomly for you to call. About a quarter are dead lines. Another 50% are people you can't get ahold of, or don't want to participate. The ones that are left have to go through a poll that takes about 10 minutes or so. This was also in the age before cell phones so I don't know how hard/easy it is to get ahold of people now.

I have been called for a poll once, but I strongly suspect it was a push poll as it was very much slanted for a certain political candidate.

[KCMax]

That’s something that gets us to the heart of this conundrum about turnout. As Josh Jordan explains in National Review, both Gallup and Rasmussen agree that the partisan split between Republicans and Democrats has changed markedly since 2008. Whereas four years ago the Democrats had a seven-point advantage, this fall that has become a 1 or 2 point Republican edge.

This may all be true nationally, but the GOTV operations in the key states has been put in place for over a year by the Obama campaign, whereas the Romney campaign doesn't have any operations in many key states. While Republicans may be more enthusiastic, the Dems have always had a better ground game, and incumbents have a huge advantage in already having a ground game set up.

FWIW, Nate Silver takes into account a 2-3 point edge for Republicans in "enthusiasm" and still has Obama winning.

On the MO Senate race, the CW seems to be that last-minute undecideds will break McCaskill. But I think just the opposite. If you're on the fence, you're probably debating whether Akin's controversies are enough to disqualify him or not. But if you haven't already made that call, then you probably don't think they disqualify him. Also, I think the polls are underreporting his support because I think some people don't want to publicly admit they're going to vote for him. So I think Claire, unfortunately, is toast.

[phxcat]

I'd like to know what polls you are smoking.

From @tobincommmentary

That’s something that gets us to the heart of this conundrum about turnout. As Josh Jordan explains in National Review, both Gallup and Rasmussen agree that the partisan split between Republicans and Democrats has changed markedly since 2008. Whereas four years ago the Democrats had a seven-point advantage, this fall that has become a 1 or 2 point Republican edge.

Under those circumstances, it’s difficult to take seriously those polls like the Investors Business Daily/TIPP tracking poll that shows Obama up by one point, since its sample has seven percent more Democrats than Republicans. But even there, there is little to encourage the president’s supporters since his numbers have been declining in that poll over the past week. You have to believe along with Obama staffer Jim Messina that their ground game that will produce an electorate that is disproportionately Democratic with more minority and young voters than even in 2008 to think such a result is even possible.

This makes the operative question this week not so much whether which polls are accurate as it is how even with a field office advantage can the Democrats possibly manufacture the sort of partisan turnout advantage that could re-elect Obama? In a year when independents are flocking to Romney, there simply may not be enough Democrats, youth or minority voters to offset the fact the GOP base will turn out in numbers that will far eclipse their totals in 2008. Discussion about a ground game may be simply an attempt to distract us from the fact that the president’s campaign is betting everything on an organizational plan that can’t overcome the way the electorate has changed over the course of the Obama presidency.

Two issues- one is that I read that Gallup is using a demographic weighting that is identical to 2000, assuming that the electorate is 80% white. That is not going to happen. Also, when ever in recent history has there been more Republicans than Democrats? It was even for a short time after 9-11, but other than that the answer is, never. It is possible that that has changed this election, but to take it seriously we need to see the results. I also question whether the turnout is going to be so much less than 2008. Gallup is making assumptions that it is, and that is causing the large shift between their LV and RV screens. When all is said and done, I think that the reality will split the difference, but fall much closer to the RV screen than many people expect.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Jonathan Tobin? Nuff said.

Have no idea who he is. His article was linked to the Real Clear Politics site.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Of course there is speculation about how Sandy will affect the election. Those opinions are all over the map.

[KCMax]

Jonathan Tobin? Nuff said.

Have no idea who he is. His article was linked to the Real Clear Politics site.

The only good Tobin is Toby Tobin.

[bobbyhawks]

Of course there is speculation about how Sandy will affect the election. Those opinions are all over the map.

Tought to predict. Everyone (myself included) is more likely to think of the things that will help "their side" win or steal electoral votes.

There are a few things that I think most can agree on. Overall voter turnout will decrease in affected areas. By how much is anyone's guess. It may not be a significant difference. There is still an entire week for snow to melt and for power to be fixed, so few people will truly have a barrier to being able to vote other than being busy getting things in order.

Anything to decrease rural turnout would seem to favor Obama in NC, VA, and PA. The response to the storm may leave a favorable taste in people's mouths about government intervention and Obama's "handling" of the disaster. Also, I think we can all agree that Chris Christie is not in danger of being appointed to anything in a Romney administration.

[NDTeve]

Its pretty clear that both sides will continue to bash polls that are not favorable to their candidate.

[knucklehead]

Romney is pretty sleazy.

Romney is telling bald faced lies in Ohio. Romney stated at a campaign event that Chrysler is "thinking of" pulling all Jeep production out of the United States. That statement was a total bald faced lie. He is also running a TV ad in Ohio that is a little more nuaunced to provide a weak level of plausible deniability but strongly infers the same lie.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-3 ... point.html

[chaglang]

Of course there is speculation about how Sandy will affect the election. Those opinions are all over the map.

Tought to predict. Everyone (myself included) is more likely to think of the things that will help "their side" win or steal electoral votes.

There are a few things that I think most can agree on. Overall voter turnout will decrease in affected areas. By how much is anyone's guess. It may not be a significant difference. There is still an entire week for snow to melt and for power to be fixed, so few people will truly have a barrier to being able to vote other than being busy getting things in order.

Anything to decrease rural turnout would seem to favor Obama in NC, VA, and PA. The response to the storm may leave a favorable taste in people's mouths about government intervention and Obama's "handling" of the disaster. Also, I think we can all agree that Chris Christie is not in danger of being appointed to anything in a Romney administration.

The only place I can see it having a measurable effect is in VA, where the race is much closer than any of the other states hit by the storm. In terms of the EC, a decrease in rural voter turnout would only exaggerate the totals that were likely going to deliver the Northeast to Obama anyway. The hiccup would be if mass transit was not fully operational by next Tuesday.

[NDTeve]

Romney is pretty sleazy.

Romney is telling bald faced lies in Ohio. Romney stated at a campaign event that Chrysler is "thinking of" pulling all Jeep production out of the United States. That statement was a total bald faced lie. He is also running a TV ad in Ohio that is a little more nuaunced to provide a weak level of plausible deniability but strongly infers the same lie.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-3 ... point.html

NEWSFLASH: both campaigns do this.

[phxcat]

Of course there is speculation about how Sandy will affect the election. Those opinions are all over the map.

Was Christie genuine in his praise for Obama? Or was he clearing the way for a 2016 run? He sounded genuine to me. At this point, we are really too close to the election for polls to adequately measure what the response will be, but depending on how local media cover things such as Obama's response (which appears to be non-politically motivated and to display a level of competence in relation to Katrina) and Romney's photo-op campaign response (Romney is stuck here- like Benghazi, I think the best thing he can do is get behind the President and let it play out- but there is not much he can contribute to the situation).

[shinatoo]

The only poll that matters is in http://magazines.scholastic.com/Election-2012/Vote

Scholastic Magazine Student Vote has correctly predicted the presidential election outcome of every election except 1948 Dewey/Truman and 1960 Nixon/Kennedy.

[bobbyhawks]

Of course there is speculation about how Sandy will affect the election. Those opinions are all over the map.

Was Christie genuine in his praise for Obama? Or was he clearing the way for a 2016 run? He sounded genuine to me.

It could be both. Sometimes, a politician is allowed to be genuine because the situations is advantageous to him or her. However, they are also often phony when it isn't. Christie could totally believe everything he is saying, all the while realizing it is the best possible political move he could make. In four more years of Obama, he would stand in front of America and recount this situation to show leadership and cross-party cooperation. In eight years of Romney, most people won't remember this.

[KCMax]

I think Christie is genuine. I think that's why he's so popular. He hasn't been afraid to buck the party line in the past.

[aknowledgeableperson]

With Christie it is hard to say if what you see is really him or a pol selling a personality. For me, though, I think what you see is the real him.

[FangKC]

When your house is on fire, you don't care if the firefighter driving the tire truck is a Democrat or a Republican.

[zlohban]

The Obama America needed said,

"You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington. To end the political strategy that's been all about division, and instead make it about addition. To build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states. …Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again."

The Obama America got said,

“No, no, no — don’t boo, vote. Vote. Voting is the best revenge.”

Revenge......really?