Des Moines Register -- Obama +5 in Iowa

[ElectionAtlas]

New Poll: Iowa President by Selzer & Co on 2012-11-03

Summary: D: 47%, R: 42%, I: 4%, U: 7%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[ajb]

What part of the polls are wrong don't you guys understand.  You are deluding yourselves in believing that you will match us in turnout and enthusiasm.  30,000 people for a Romney Ryan rally and Obama is getting McCain size (sub 4000) crowds in some states.  At this point, that does not point to an Obama victory regardless of JJs rule about crowds.  We will win independents by high single to double digits and undecideds 80-20.  Your early voting is down considerably, no matter how hard you try to spin it.  

Didn't the Secret Service say they screened 15 000 at that Romney/Ryan rally? So either the campaign overstated their numbers, or there was a major security breach.

[nhmagic]

What part of the polls are wrong don't you guys understand.  You are deluding yourselves in believing that you will match us in turnout and enthusiasm.  30,000 people for a Romney Ryan rally and Obama is getting McCain size (sub 4000) crowds in some states.  At this point, that does not point to an Obama victory regardless of JJs rule about crowds.  We will win independents by high single to double digits and undecideds 80-20.  Your early voting is down considerably, no matter how hard you try to spin it.  

Didn't the Secret Service say they screened 15 000 at that Romney/Ryan rally? So either the campaign overstated their numbers, or there was a major security breach.

Well, I didn't hear that and most have been reporting 20-30k.  But you also have to remember, Secret Service isn't doing all of the screening, local and state cops do it too.

[pbrower2a]

Excellent pollster. This late, Iowa is in the bag along with Wisconsin and Nevada.

With six other states not quite certain (CO, FL, NH, NC, OH, and VA)... NH only because polling is wild...

New Hampshire doesn't matter, but President Obama gets re-elected with the combination of Colorado and New Hampshire or any one of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia. 

[Eraserhead]

These threads make me want to bang my head against the wall.

The truth shall set us free on Tuesday.

[politicallefty]

This is Ann Selzer's Iowa poll, so I'm inclined to give this one a lot of weight. This is like the Field Poll in California. I do wish undecideds had been pushed a bit more, though there are only 7% with a 5% margin.

[J. J.]

Excellent pollster. This late, Iowa is in the bag along with Wisconsin and Nevada.

With six other states not quite certain (CO, FL, NH, NC, OH, and VA)... NH only because polling is wild...

New Hampshire doesn't matter, but President Obama gets re-elected with the combination of Colorado and New Hampshire or any one of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia. 

Off 8 points last time.

[Umengus]

Excellent pollster. This late, Iowa is in the bag along with Wisconsin and Nevada.

With six other states not quite certain (CO, FL, NH, NC, OH, and VA)... NH only because polling is wild...

New Hampshire doesn't matter, but President Obama gets re-elected with the combination of Colorado and New Hampshire or any one of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, or Virginia. 

Off 8 points last time.

so very bad pollster...

[Warren Griffin]

This is Ann Selzer's Iowa poll, so I'm inclined to give this one a lot of weight. This is like the Field Poll in California.

Yep!

[politicallefty]

It does seem like Republicans will attack any poll that doesn't fit their narrative. While this poll was off several points in the 2008 presidential race, it has pin-pointed many races. In any event, the Selzer poll should be considered the gold standard for Iowa.

[Brittain33]

What part of the polls are wrong don't you guys understand.  You are deluding yourselves in believing that you will match us in turnout and enthusiasm.  30,000 people for a Romney Ryan rally and Obama is getting McCain size (sub 4000) crowds in some states.  At this point, that does not point to an Obama victory regardless of JJs rule about crowds.  We will win independents by high single to double digits and undecideds 80-20.  Your early voting is down considerably, no matter how hard you try to spin it.  

Didn't the Secret Service say they screened 15 000 at that Romney/Ryan rally? So either the campaign overstated their numbers, or there was a major security breach.

George W. Bush drew 60,000+ supporters at a rally in the same location in September 2004. Even if R/R did get 30,000, that's a 50% drop off from a campaign that only narrowly won Ohio.

[J. J.]

It does seem like Republicans will attack any poll that doesn't fit their narrative. While this poll was off several points in the 2008 presidential race, it has pin-pointed many races. In any event, the Selzer poll should be considered the gold standard for Iowa.

They were off, a lot, in 2008.  So were most other polls in IA.  Also, their internal numbers make no sense. 

[politicallefty]

In that one particular election, that is true. However, this poll has been very accurate in almost every other poll in the state. If anything, the only possible problem with this poll has been the overestimation of the "Other" vote.

[J. J.]

In that one particular election, that is true. However, this poll has been very accurate in almost every other poll in the state. If anything, the only possible problem with this poll has been the overestimation of the "Other" vote.

But it was well off with Obama.  There is also the problem with its internal numbers and early voters.

[politicallefty]

In that one particular election, that is true. However, this poll has been very accurate in almost every other poll in the state. If anything, the only possible problem with this poll has been the overestimation of the "Other" vote.

But it was well off with Obama.  There is also the problem with its internal numbers and early voters.

In one election, yes, that was the case. However, it did predict Obama as the decisive winner of the Iowa Caucuses. And that is not including the other races it has basically nailed down. I really don't think one overestimation discredits the poll. I'm not saying this will necessarily be the result, but I do give this poll somewhat more weight (although as one data point among several others). The only problem I see with this poll overall is that it tends to overestimate the "Other" vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What part of the polls are wrong don't you guys understand.  You are deluding yourselves in believing that you will match us in turnout and enthusiasm.  30,000 people for a Romney Ryan rally and Obama is getting McCain size (sub 4000) crowds in some states.  At this point, that does not point to an Obama victory regardless of JJs rule about crowds.  We will win independents by high single to double digits and undecideds 80-20.  Your early voting is down considerably, no matter how hard you try to spin it.  

Lmao!

Stop grasping for straws. You know you're losing when you just flat out claim "the polls are wrong".
No, Mitt is not getting larger crowds than Obama, he's not getting McCain size crowds. The latest PPP Poll shows Obama pulling ahead among indies. Rasmussen has it tied. Wash/Post ABC says Obama is closing the gap.

I will happily proclaim it each day until election day.  We aren't losing.  You think we are losing because you happen to be wrong and will be amazed at the size of Romney's victory on Tuesday.  

Hahahahahahahahaha.  Okay.  Okay.  You know what?

I'm going to PM you with this quote of yours if Obama wins on Tuesday.

And... what the heck, I guess I'll put it in my signature, too.

[GMantis]

All this talk about crowd sizes predicting election results has reminded me of an example from my own country.



The above is the final pre-election rally of UDF in the election of 1990, the first free election in Bulgaria in 66 years. The picture doesn't really give justice to the size of the crowd - it stretched considerably further, in the direction of the upper left corner. The attendance was estimated to be up to a million - in a country that had then a population of about 9 million! Of course, under the circumstances it was easy for the UDF leadership to dismiss the polls, which showed clearly that they were losing.
Three days later UDF lost the election by 11 points.
So I'm always a bit skeptical, to put it mildly, when someone uses this argument

[nhmagic]

What part of the polls are wrong don't you guys understand.  You are deluding yourselves in believing that you will match us in turnout and enthusiasm.  30,000 people for a Romney Ryan rally and Obama is getting McCain size (sub 4000) crowds in some states.  At this point, that does not point to an Obama victory regardless of JJs rule about crowds.  We will win independents by high single to double digits and undecideds 80-20.  Your early voting is down considerably, no matter how hard you try to spin it.  

Lmao!

Stop grasping for straws. You know you're losing when you just flat out claim "the polls are wrong".
No, Mitt is not getting larger crowds than Obama, he's not getting McCain size crowds. The latest PPP Poll shows Obama pulling ahead among indies. Rasmussen has it tied. Wash/Post ABC says Obama is closing the gap.

I will happily proclaim it each day until election day.  We aren't losing.  You think we are losing because you happen to be wrong and will be amazed at the size of Romney's victory on Tuesday.  

Hahahahahahahahaha.  Okay.  Okay.  You know what?

I'm going to PM you with this quote of yours if Obama wins on Tuesday.

And... what the heck, I guess I'll put it in my signature, too.

Hey, be my guest man.