October 17, 2012

Obama up by 3 in the Rasmussen swing state tracking poll.

He was up by 2 yesterday, they were even on Monday, and Romney was up by 1 or 2 in the preceding 6 days.

In the regular tracking poll, it's 49% Romney, 48% Obama.

54 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

Poll watching, thou art a cruel mistress.

campy said...

It's all over for Willard.

Renee said...

All these polls tell is that it is a toss up, if you go to the link, it goes back and forth back and forth.

I have a lot of Democrat friends, who claim to be independent. They'll state many positive points about Romney, but just vote for Obama anyways. They'll find a way to vote for Obama, because voting Republican is just 'icky'.

Darrell said...

It's over for Obama.
Except for the crying.

Jon said...



For the love of God Althouse, stop paying attention to the worthless, stupid "swing state" poll. All the aggregate "swing state" polls, including Rasmussen's, are tilted towards Obama because they include so-called "swing states" like MI, PA, and WI which Obama won by double digits last time, and will only lose this time in a Romney landslide. The only polls worth paying attention to are national polls and polls of individual states.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama is toast - he knows it and he showed it last night with the high pitched squealing pleas for four more years.

Also, if someone is still undecided at this point, they are witless or gutless liars.

chrisnavin.com said...

Obama really is as far ideologically Left as I've seen (60's progressive, anti-wealth, community organizing...Lily Ledbetter, DREAM act, pandering to feminists and race politics). Divide and conquer.

It's interesting to see who's really defending that record on the Left and why. They've got to keep the fog machine going that he's "likable" and "moderate" and well...competent.

Free markets are like training wheels for the eventual flowering of his vision. I don't think I'm exaggerating, either.

chrisnavin.com said...

Flowers and bikes. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.

AprilApple said...

Want 4 more years of economic destruction? vote Obama.

_Jim said...


On these polls, I have given up answering the 'land line', the 'twisted pair', the 'telephone' for the duration here leading up to the election ... call after call after call - back a month or so I refused to participate in a 'poll' and so have boycotted the answering of the wired phone since!

Friends and family have the cell, so that one is answered ...

Who are they polling? Not me FOR SURE!

_Jim

Renee said...

"Obama really is as far ideologically Left as I've seen (60's progressive, anti-wealth, community organizing...Lily Ledbetter, DREAM act, pandering to feminists and race politics). Divide and conquer.
"


I think you mean the 2010's progressive, anti-wealth, community organizing....

Yes, it is real. I think a good number of people agree with Obama, and are perfectly OK to go in that direction.

Darrell said...

Lily Ledbetter! Lily Ledbetter!

It's the Dingle-Norwood Bill for the 21st Century!

The law does not give fair pay for equal work, but rather extends the period of time that women are able to file a claim of wage discrimination. Which is good for Obama since he chooses to pay the women working for him so much less.


Lynn Meadows said...

I just saw Karl Rove proclaiming that it will be a landslide for Romney if this keeps up. Same last night with that fella on Hannity - Dick Morris.

I'm very stoked up.

edutcher said...

It doesn't reflect the debate and there was no real good news for Zero.

Maybe Hillary.

Sloanasaurus said...

The problem with Rasmussen's swing state poll is that he includes Pennsylvania and Michigan in the poll.

I don't think those are really swing states. Democrats have won those states consistently since 1988.

Obama won MIchigan by 17 points in and Pennsylvania by 10 points in 2008. In think they are included because both states went Red in the 2010 elections. In any poll in those two states there is going to be a big turn out assumption favorable to democrats. Thus those polls will show Obama much farther ahead than he may be.

In contrast the other states have flipped back and forth in the last 24 years (except Wisconsin, which has been close a few times). However, Wisconsin should also be included because not only did it go Red, but it has had many subsequent recall electiosn won by Republicans.

Anyway, if you take out Michigan and Pennsylvania, Romney would likely be leading in the swing state polls.

In fact, I would not be surprise if as the election gets closer, Rasmussen starts to strip out states that he no longer sees as swing states.

Lynn Meadows said...

Jon said...


For the love of God Althouse, stop paying attention to the worthless, stupid "swing state" poll."

But it was Rasmussen Jon. Ann has been humping Rasmussen for weeks and you have loved it. Now you hate it. Wonder why Jon. I wonder why.

AprilApple said...

The GOP should cut an ad showing Jay Carney and Susan Rice and others within the Obama admin. endlessly repeating the "It was the video" lie.

It was terror and had nothing to do with the video. Why lie?

AprilApple said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
carrie said...

More poll manipulation to create the illusion that Obama is gaining momentum.

AprilApple said...

Ras has been swinging back at forth for weeks with the candidates spread apart 1-3%. The margin of error.

Darrell said...

The margin of error

That was Barack's nickname growing up, right?

AprilApple said...

Darrell - I think so.

I wish Obama well, but I am sick that he has so much power to ruin so many lives.

edutcher said...

Sloanasaurus said...

The problem with Rasmussen's swing state poll is that he includes Pennsylvania and Michigan in the poll.

I don't think those are really swing states. Democrats have won those states consistently since 1988.


I think you can make that case for MI more than PA.

It's been 1 - 2 points there for a while IIRC.

Darrell said...

I wish Obama well, but I am sick that he has so much power to ruin so many lives.

Amen.


Bob Ellison said...

Romney by 7 on 11/6.

Renee said...

On the correct and ethical side, if MI and PA are indeed now swing states, they must be included and if this is how the numbers come out. It is an honest reflection of the swing state electorate?

Would any of you want then not to include MI or PA, and get a false impression that Romney was doing better then reality?

Obama supporters are energized again. It got ugly, but seeing what is between Warren/Brown here in Massachusetts that's normal, not ugly.

Renee said...

Even though people think Romney may be a better President, but for any potentially good reason will want to vote for Obama. Yeah, people will vote for Romney, but not enthusiastically. Not because he would be a bad president, but just because they feel it against against their gut NOT to vote for Obama.

pauldar said...

Interestingly was the focus groups of independents last night on MSNBC and Luntz on Fox. Those independent voters, who vast majority voted for Obama in 2008m now say they will vote for Romney. Including the ladies.

Go Figure

Bob Ellison said...

Renee, I can't improve upon your argument in favor of Romney.

Dr Weevil said...

Renee:
I think you need to rethink your argument. If we continually redefine the set of 'swing states' to include all those states, and only those states, that are close this week, then the swing-state average will be 'very close' by definition. It will be the average of states in which the election is close. A list of those states has some use, and a list of states that were close and are no longer close, or vice versa, would be even more useful.

However, a 'rolling' swing-state average will miss even the largest swings of preference. If a bunch of states (e.g. NC, FL) that were 'too close to call' are now solid Romney, and a bunch of other states (e.g. MI, PA) that were solid Obama are now too close to call, then there's a massive swing towards Romney. (The same is of course true, mutatis mutandis, for swings the other way.) If you subtract the first set of states from the swing-state average and add the second group of states, you get a completely meaningless number. Who needs to be told that the average of states where Obama and Romney are very close is (duh!) very close?

hombre said...

April wrote: It was terror and had nothing to do with the video. Why lie?

Because they screwed up the security and don't want us to notice. Because they claimed that al Qaeda was diminished and didn't want us to notice that al Qaeda is thriving. Because they have no tangible understanding of what is going on in the Middle East and don't want us to notice.

Choose one or all, but it is clear that there is no evidence to support the video lie.

AF said...

Professor Althouse, if you're going to cherry-pick polls and overreact to statistical noise, you might as well do it in favor of your guy (as you've been doing up to now). Cherry-picking bad polls is pure masochism. I thought only Democrats did that.

There are only three salient facts to draw from the polls at this point:

(1) Romney made significant gains after the first debate.
(2) The race is extremely close, essentially tied.
(3) It's too early to know how last night's debate will affect things.

Sloanasaurus said...

I think you can make that case for MI more than PA.

It's been 1 - 2 points there for a while IIRC


Yes, but the polls in those states will assume a much larger Dem turnout, mostly because the Dems have a much larger partisan Registration.

Right now Rasmussen shows polls in that state showing Michigan +7 and PA +5.

SteveR said...

"Hi Carrie" (soft voice directed at obviously swooning young female)

"Hello Mr. President" (deep gruff voice from Kerry)

Seeing Red said...

Merkel wants tax cuts? LOLOLOL

Chuck66 said...

One of the problems with debates......a liberal questionaire brought of the issue of women getting paid 74% of what men are paid (sic). How in a 2 minute or less response do you explain how that statistic is false, and more importantly, talk about how most Democrats want to pass a law that will have a fascist bureaucrat look at the gender and pay of all of your employees.

Not look at resumes. Not look at performance reviews. Not interview co-workers to find out what those employees really contribute, but just gender and pay, and then sue your business if said bureaucrat isn't happy.

Paul said...

There is a poll coming up in November. Watch it! Millions will be taking this poll and it WILL MATTER.

Joe Schmoe said...

The New York Times should be nicknamed the Undertaker for the way it's burying stories lately.

Hmmm, is it a coincidence that the story of another alt-energy loser company picked by Obama and the DOE happened to come out the day after the debate?

Hmmm?

Sloanasaurus said...

The point about the Swing states, is that Romney only needs to win VA, FL, NC, OH, CO to win. These are all Bush states, and in current (post 1st debate polls) Romney is leading in these states but OH and VA. Moreover, I don't think FL and NC are toss-up states any more, whle VA/OH/CO remain toss-ups.

So, even if Romney loses Ohio, he only needs to make up 12 EV. You could get the 12 with Wisconsin and NH or NV and IA or Wisconsin and IA.

Wisconsin is the key state here, because that is where Romney has the best chance to make up for the loss in Ohio. Moreover, I think Romney will win Wisconsin. Most of the state polls are using the 2008 turn-out models - the pre-Scott Walker recall elections. A lot of the Walker stuff really reved up the republican base and moved a lot of independents to the R column. THus, those polls do not take into account this shift in ideology. Based on the turnout for Walker last Spring and Ryan on the ticket, Wisconsin will go Romney.

Tim said...

The polls only confirm what any reasonably intelligent person knows: stupid people have a hard time learning from their mistakes and then correcting them.

That's one of the reasons they are stupid.

Sloanasaurus said...

The CBS News/Quinnipac poll that came out showing Obama +3 (50-47) in Wisconsin has a D+4 sample. But it also shows Obama with only a 47% approval rating.

Thus, Wisconsin is clearly a toss-up, considering that the turnout could be much more favorable to republicans this year following the 2010 and recall elections.

In 2004, exit polls showed a R+3 electorate, but Kerry won independents. In 2008, the electorate was D+6 and Obama won independents by 19 In 2010, the electorate was D+1, but republicans carried independents by a big margin.

Who knows where wisconsin is going. However, if the turnout is D+3, I doubt Obama can win.

hombre said...

To paraphrase Hugh Hewitt: If it's close, Dems will steal it!

furious_a said...

RCP has it currently at 201-191 Obama, w/Obama down about 40 EVs from two weeks ago.

Assume Romney wins FL/NC/VA (all three trending Romney), he'd need minimum two more states (OH a must), or if OH goes Obama he'd need a minimum three states (WI a must, plus CO+IA or CO+NV).

Obama is heading to IA (6EV) and NH (4EV) this week. Interesting, that.

Seeing Red said...

--WELL, YEAH, BUT WHO LISTENS TO JAY CARNEY? Jay Carney on 9/20: The White House “hadn’t” called Benghazi a “terrorist attack.”-


Via Insty.

Joe Schmoe said...

Darrell said
Lily Ledbetter! Lily Ledbetter!

It's the Dingle-Norwood Bill for the 21st Century!

The law does not give fair pay for equal work, but rather extends the period of time that women are able to file a claim of wage discrimination. Which is good for Obama since he chooses to pay the women working for him so much less.


But Darrell, just like when it comes to taxes, Democrats would love to pay woman more. They just need a law to tell them to do it!

Alex said...

They'll find a way to vote for Obama, because voting Republican is just 'icky'.

This.

Joe Schmoe said...

If you are an undecided voter, just read Obama's response last night about why gas prices have more than doubled on his watch. If that doesn't change your mind, nothing will.

Darrell said...

They'll find a way to vote for Obama, because voting Republican is just 'icky'

Recent interviews are suggesting they may choose to stay home. Which is good news for Romney.

eddie willers said...

They'll find a way to vote for Obama, because voting Republican is just 'icky'

After watching Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy doing their best to destroy Clarence Thomas, this lifelong Democrat vowed never to vote Democrat again. But it took another nine years to shake the "ickiness" and actually vote Republican.

Curious George said...

Jeremy: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?"

Obama (Reality): This decision could the best one of your life, or the worst one. You ever play Russian Roulette? Time to spin the chamber Jeremy and give me four more years.

Renee said...

eddie,

I voted 'blank' and third party as well for the longest time. The Republicans in Massachusetts are more socially liberal, then Democrats so I rarely will vote for one. I might as well vote for the Democrat for the social programs at that point. If I get a pro-life Democrat or one at least respectful of those who happen to be pro-life and not insult my view point I will vote them.

Joe Schmoe said...

If I interpret Barry and his wife correctly, apparently gas prices have doubled due to this raging recovery we are experiencing.

It's a good thing Obama believes his own bullshit. Nobody else does.

Sloanasaurus said...

Marquette came out with a new poll showing Obama leading by 1 with a 48% approval rating. The sample was D+3; D+1 with leaners. It's hard to see Obama winning with an approval at only 48%

The problem with this poll is that it under samples white voters. by 5%. In prior exit polls, whites have been 90%.

Eustace Chilke said...

Who are these people who can't decide? I've got no feel for them. I've been decided for four years. I'm not a republican. I spit on republicans.

When I hear BO's voice I feel slightly sick and like I need a bath afterward. I'll be giving the TV the finger as soon as Romney's face shows up with the presidential seal behind it but I've got to vote against the bastard with his boot on my neck now and worry about the next bastard later.

If you're not pushed to one side or the other by the most divisive president since Lincoln are you even paying attention? I have to think that this thing has been decided already and the pollsters just can't get a focus on it.