National Tracking Poll Thread

[Brittain33]

Seriously, people think that the number "90,000 jobs gained" is going to make any sizable impact in voters' intentions?

Really?

[Likely Voter]

Seriously, people think that the number "90,000 jobs gained" is going to make any sizable impact in voters' intentions?

Really?

Yes you know all those working class white suburban "Walmart moms" in Ohio are now saying "analysts were expecting 125,000 jobs! I'm Voting Romney!"

[J. J.]

Seriously, people think that the number "90,000 jobs gained" is going to make any sizable impact in voters' intentions?

Really?

Yes you know all those working class white suburban "Walmart moms" in Ohio are now saying "analysts were expecting 125,000 jobs! I'm Voting Romney!"

It depends how it was reported.  In this case, it was almost uniformly reported as the economy losing jobs, in other words, "Things just got worse."  It wasn't just Fox, but CNN, MSNBC, and the networks and local news.  That was the reporting in print as well, with the Phila Inquirer calling it "Grim Job News."  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20120907_ap_obamagetsgrimjobnewsromneypouncesonit.html

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It depends how it was reported.  In this case, it was almost uniformly reported as the economy losing jobs, in other words, "Things just got worse."  It wasn't just Fox, but CNN, MSNBC, and the networks and local news.  That was the reporting in print as well, with the Phila Inquirer calling it "Grim Job News."  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20120907_ap_obamagetsgrimjobnewsromneypouncesonit.html

Just more proof of how The Media's bias stinks to high hell. They NEVER talked like this in 2004.

[Devils30]

Some will like that the unemployment rate went down. Just like last months report didnt move Obama up, this wont drop him. If Obama is up 2-4 in Rasmussen, with that R+4 sample it means FiveThirtyEight is dead on with Obama getting a 7-9 point bounce.

[J. J.]

It depends how it was reported.  In this case, it was almost uniformly reported as the economy losing jobs, in other words, "Things just got worse."  It wasn't just Fox, but CNN, MSNBC, and the networks and local news.  That was the reporting in print as well, with the Phila Inquirer calling it "Grim Job News."  http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20120907_ap_obamagetsgrimjobnewsromneypouncesonit.html

Just more proof of how The Media's bias stinks to high hell. They NEVER talked like this in 2004.

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

Except that it wasn't.

[J. J.]

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

Except that it wasn't.

Except that it was.  Unemployment was lower.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR 

Job creation actually broke even by the Fall of 2004.  http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

[You kip if you want to...]

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

Except that it wasn't.

Except that it was.  Unemployment was lower.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR 

Job creation actually broke even by the Fall of 2004.  http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

More net jobs were created in August 2012 alone than were created January 2001-January 2009. Period.

[Minnesota Mike]

Another tracker to keep track of.

https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/index.php?page=election

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama 47.97
Romney 45.33

[J. J.]

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

Except that it wasn't.

Except that it was.  Unemployment was lower.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR 

Job creation actually broke even by the Fall of 2004.  http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

More net jobs were created in August 2012 alone than were created January 2001-January 2009. Period.

Well, Obama hasn't had 8 years, has he?

[You kip if you want to...]

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

Except that it wasn't.

Except that it was.  Unemployment was lower.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR 

Job creation actually broke even by the Fall of 2004.  http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

More net jobs were created in August 2012 alone than were created January 2001-January 2009. Period.

Well, Obama hasn't had 8 years, has he?

Um, exactly. More net jobs were created in 1 month than in 8 years, so er...

[J. J.]

Well, because in 2004, the numbers were improving and unemployment was rather dramatically lower.  

Except that it wasn't.

Except that it was.  Unemployment was lower.  http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.aspx?type=UR 

Job creation actually broke even by the Fall of 2004.  http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

More net jobs were created in August 2012 alone than were created January 2001-January 2009. Period.

Well, Obama hasn't had 8 years, has he?

Um, exactly. More net jobs were created in 1 month than in 8 years, so er...

So we have still have a net job loss after 3 1/2 years of Obamanomics.

Obama took office in 1/2009, we had been in recession for a year, and the US had 142,187,000 people employed.

Today, we have 142, 101,000.  So, if Obama created any jobs, he must have lost a number equal to those, plus an additional 86,000.

Interestingly, Bush started his 8 year presidency with, 137,778,000 employed people.  He ended it with 142,187,000.  If he had any job loss, he must have created as many as he lost, plus 4,409,000.

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm

[Lief 🗽]

oh neat, Nate Silver did the math:

[Tender Branson]

WTF is RAND ?

Is Rand Paul now having his own tracking poll ?

[memphis]

oh neat, Nate Silver did the math:

Viva la deluge!

[Tender Branson]

Rasmussen (Sunday)

49-45 Obama (+3, +1)

52-47 Approve (+3, -3)

A 4-point Rasmussen lead is about equivalent to a 10-point lead in other polls ...

[Earthling]

Will Obama be at 50% tomorrow?

And when will the other pollsters like CNN and PPP come out with their numbers?

[Tender Branson]

So, this represents already a 7-point bounce @ Rasmussen from -3 to +4 in the last 5 or so days.

It seems the people who predicted a 5-10% Obama bounce here were correct.

[Tender Branson]

More from the Rasmussen release:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

So what's going on? You can't tell me people just watched both conventions, found the R's more underwhelming, and therefore switched their support.
Dem base taking the Convention as its cue to tune in / decide they will, in fact, go and vote is my guess... in which case the Presidential Election is over and the House and Senate Elections have just seriously begun. Alas, we won't know for quite a while and I can end up looking stupid.

[Sbane]

I think you may be right, Lewis. That is what the purpose of the convention was.

[MorningInAmerica]

With leaners, Obama's lead is 3 points today on Rasmussen, but he hits the crucial 50% mark.

Obama: 50%
Romney: 47%

In the swing state poll, Obama takes the lead, 45-46%. But with leaners, it's a tie.
Obama: 47%
Romney: 47%

I think it will be very interesting to see where this race stands about 7 days from now. That will give Reuters, Ras, and Gallup time to work the DNC bounce out of their rolling averages, and we'll know whether or not Obama has created a lasting lead, or whether or not we're back to where we were pre-conventions.

[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.

[Sbane]

Right...because voting for the guy who promises to cut taxes on the rich, raise military spending and balance the budget is the rational thing to do?

I think this could be a combination of the Dem base starting to get interested as well as swing voters being influenced by Clinton's speech. So we have to see whether the numbers really improve after Clinton's speech or do they start declining. I think Obama missed a trick by not reaching out to swing voters a bit more in his speech. Swing voters basically support Democratic policies like raising taxes on the rich and following a balanced approach to debt reduction.