National Tracking Poll Thread

[後援会]

Ok, so if Rasmussen and Gallup are both crap (which would also screw up the average) what polls am I supposed to follow the race with?!?

As far as I can tell, around here, the only polls that are "crap" are the ones you disagree with.

Basically. I've never seen an actual criticism based on methodology. I've only seen "oh, that poll sucks because it has to be wrong".

[後援会]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not a very helpful poll.

[後援会]

Ok, so if Rasmussen and Gallup are both crap (which would also screw up the average) what polls am I supposed to follow the race with?!?

As far as I can tell, around here, the only polls that are "crap" are the ones you disagree with.

Basically. I've never seen an actual criticism based on methodology. I've only seen "oh, that poll sucks because it has to be wrong".

The post above yours is criticism based on methodology.

Not really. The argument is "There's absolutely no way the electorate is R+4. So the poll is wrong. So I can ignore it."

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't actually think the electorate is R+4. But you don't toss out a polls that you think are wrong. That's not how statistics work.

My attempt to explain why this poll may seem to not match what you would expect is that I suspect the same "convention bounce" phenomenon that causes more people to say they're voting for a candidate may also cause more people to identify with that's candidate.

I think there's this assumption that "oh, Rasmussen will have their bounce bring Romney up to +4, and then they'll adjust it to +8 with their R+4". I find that a very unlikely outcome.

[後援会]

Also a lot of a convention bounce comes for increased base enthusiasm, which doesn't show up if you weigh by party ID like Rasmussen does (not even taking into account how ridiculous his current party ID weightings are...).

While Rasmussen's local polling has been funky (during the midterm elections), his party ID has actually been correct in 2008 and 2010. In 2008, he had Dems up 41-33 when they won 39-32. In 2010, he had them died at 35, which was what happened.

[後援会]

The Gallup polls actually surprise me. That's one hell of a convention bounce. It's quite ominous.

Though not ominous enough to hit the panic button.

[後援会]

But it's RV. It would nice to know what the numbers are for those who are actually planning on voting.

Probably just three points more Republican? Which is around the historical norm, I think.

[後援会]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't that Gallup bounce just basically be off only Michelle Obama and opening night. Maybe somewhat Clinton on Wednesday, but that still wouldn't show up for a few days, considering its a 7-day rolling average?

The approval is daily. The Romney-Obama horserace is a rolling average. BTW, I don't think the "bounces" were unexpected.



Seems pretty accurate.

[後援会]

An eight to ten point bounce is absolutely astounding. For one, I don't think an incumbent president has ever managed that. Ever. Which is why I think almost none of us predicted it, except the hackiest of hacks.

That being said, it is what the polls seem to be showing. A nine-point bounce. Something that literally everything we know about elections tells us shouldn't happen.

The idea that unmotivated Dems simply became motivated can't be true. After all, Gallup (RV) showed a similar bounce. And from the brief crosstabs they've released, they've depicted Obama mostly maxing out his Democratic support.

So this really doesn't make sense. At the same time, I don't think I can deny what the polls are saying. So regardless of whether Obama cruises to victory or loses narrowly, this election has already been freaky as hell. I am however, starting to suspect there is something seriously wrong with America. If this is a structural/demographic issue - that portends very poorly for the nation's future.

[後援会]

There's a scenario people aren't considering. What if Romney generally wins independent and swing voters by a hefty margin and still loses the election, a scenario quite possible if Democratic turnout is reasonably high. If so, such an election might portend a structural Democratic majority. Which regardless of your personal political views, tend to produce governance that is not very good - as we can see from VRA districts.

[後援会]

If there is corruption they would be voted out. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of a Republican wave in California soon....but the CA GOP might be too incompetent.

That is tremendously unlikely. If there was any time for a Republican wave, it was 2010, where Democrats enhanced their legislative majorities and won every single statewide office. The CA GOP is actually a lot more effective than people give it credit for. They're actually not bad at recruitment, fundraising, and messaging. They're simply perhaps one of the most challenging position for almost any major political party in the West. Definitely giving Welsh Tories and Alberta Grits a run for their money.

California today is perhaps the best example of a structural Democratic majority. Even an extremely moderate, popular Republican (Cooley) could not defeat a relatively unpopular, far-left (more leftist than most of her party members) Democrat in a Republican landslide year for a not-so-politicized office (AG).

I don't think it's also a universal partisan trait. For example, Alberta is not a poorly run state at all. Japan, 1949-1993 wasn't fantastic, but it was decent enough. On the other hand, modern California...

[後援会]

Appears the Gallup Tracking Poll has stabilized.  Obama 49 Romney 44, the same 5-point margin as yesterday.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it's updated yet...

[後援会]

Trailing by 2 is still a serious improvement, I would think.

[後援会]

IIRC, Romney was trailing by 6 in the last Ipsos poll. There is a big difference between trailing by 6 and trailing by 2.

[後援会]

IIRC, Romney was trailing by 6 in the last Ipsos poll. There is a big difference between trailing by 6 and trailing by 2.

Agreed, but every day that this bounce looks more like 2004 than 1980 is good news for Obama.

I like how the definition of good news for Obama here is not as bad as a disaster for Obama. Which is quite telling in of itself.

[後援会]

I don't really understand your point here - it's fairly well accepted at this point that the debate was very good for Romney, and bad for Obama

Not necessarily. There have certainly been people here and elsewhere claiming the opposite.