Monday, September 24, 2012

Under 50% in Minnesota

That's what the Star Tribune says about Barack Obama:
President Obama has established a substantial lead against Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Minnesota but remains under the critical 50 percent mark and trails Romney among independent voters, according to a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.
It's always best to take any Star Tribune polling with more than a grain of salt, but this is actually quite surprising. If this president can't even get 50% of Minnesotans to support him, you have to wonder how well he's doing elsewhere. Especially when the poll has a D +13 split, which is especially amusing given that Obama only beat McCain by 10 points last time.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd be very surprised if Mitt Romney won Minnesota. The larger point is this -- the national polling continues to show essentially an even race and Barack Obama is not coming close to 50% right now. You can assume the president is a shoo-in if you want, but I wouldn't.


Night Writer said...

You can't use a grain of salt with the Strib Min Poll. You need one of those big ol' salt bricks that farmers put out for cattle, only this one you put on the D side of the scale. Serves about the same purpose, though.

Bike Bubba said...

OK, Obama is polling below 50% in a poll that oversamples Democrats by about 5-10%. This is NOT good news for the Blagojevich campaign!

Brian said...

Nationally, it's close. But when you look at aggregate data and break it out into probable EC votes, it really isn't.

Some polls are certainly overestimating Obama's advantage, but it is pretty unlikely that they all are. Romney has to turn it around in about 8-9 states in order to win at this point.

Mr. D said...

Some polls are certainly overestimating Obama's advantage, but it is pretty unlikely that they all are. Romney has to turn it around in about 8-9 states in order to win at this point.

Let's see how it looks on October 24. This is going to be an eventful month.

Anonymous said...

"Some polls are certainly overestimating Obama's advantage, but it is pretty unlikely that they all are."

And conversely, some polls are certainly overstating Romney's numbers as well. (Like Rasmussen). That's why polls of polls are the most accurate way to gauge voter intent. And these polls do not paint a pretty picture for Mitt.

Romney is battling some serious history here, too. The myth of October surprise runs deep for every losing campaign, but it is a myth. Every candidate with a solid lead in the last week of September has won the popular vote since 1948. The game changing debate is also way over-exaggerated. With the exception of Reagan/Carter (which really was an anomaly...a single debate one week before the election). Also, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Romney hasn't led in the polls of polls. Not at any time. Add to that the fact that this has been one of the most stable campaigns in history, and you've got yourself one steep hill to climb. Especially when your candidate is the first major-party candidate in the 24 year history of Gallup's favorability poll to hold a net unfavorable rating. A rating that is over fifty percent in Ohio...a state he desperately needs.

So let's see how it looks on October 24. Historically, it tightens right around the last two weeks, and maybe Romney will jump ahead. And maybe the Cubs will win it all in 2013.


Mr. D said...

Polls of polls don't work so well if they have D+13 spreads baked in, good sir. And a lot of the polls I'm seeing are D+8, D+10, D+7, etc. That would mean Obama is performing above the level he did in 2008. You don't believe that, do you?

K-Rod said...

There is a lot of billboard space available on I-35...
For every person that finds a job there are almost 4 people that give up looking for work...

$16000000000000 in DEBT!

Violence and anti-American sentiment the worst we've seen...

Chatting it up on The View as
The Obama Great Recession continues.

Brian said...

Rich: haven't you heard? The act of asking someone for whom they intend to vote has a liberal bias. Or something.

Anonymous said...

Yes, all posters work for Obama.

That's why Romney’s favorability ratings in Ohio suggests that Romney’s chances of a comeback in the state are worse than appears. Liberal polls. In post-DNC polling, Romney’s unfavorable ratings exceeded 49 percent in every poll of likely voters. On average, his favorability rating is underwater by an average of 7 points, 43-50, and that’s with the benefit of an outlying Rasmussen poll showing Romney’s favorables at 50 percent.

Good luck. You'll need it.


Mr. D said...

Yes, all posters work for Obama.

Not what I said. But you know that. And you still haven't answered my question -- do you honestly think that Obama is performing at a level above where he was in 2008? Because if a poll is at +13 D, that's what it means.

Also, is Gallup an outlier too?

K-Rod said...

Yellowstone, yep that one. ;-). Nice Mr D

Anonymous said...

On the whole, I am not really sure whether Obama is performing at a level above where he was in 2008. My best, educated guess is that he is doing better in some states, and not as well in others. He seems to be doing very poorly in the deep South and Western Plains states; perhaps worse than in 2008. But none of those states were ever going to swing his way, so I doubt that matters. In the deep blue states (IL, MI, MN, the entire West Coast, HI, and the Eastern Seaboard north of Virginia), he may have slipped a little in the polls. A lot of lefties aren't all that happy with his centrist ways, so some will vote Green or Lib because they can. But they won't impact anything, so that's a push. But in states that matter...that's another story.

He certainly does appear to be performing better in Ohio, Penn, NC, Virginia and Florida than he was 4 years ago. And, while I doubt he will win in either, AZ and TN are looking bluer with each election, and are now only Romney leaners. Wisconsin, Colorado, and Iowa: I doubt he will match his numbers from 2008 in those states, but I still expect him to win in each of those contests.

He probably won't win Missouri or Indiana, but those were shockers 4 years ago, and I don't know that he is doing any worse in the polls in those states than 4 years ago. But I don't have the data points on those, so I am not really sure.

But on the whole, I would guess Obama is doing a little bit better than he was doing 4 years ago at this time. As for Gallup, I suspect that their cell phone avoidance (they don't poll any cell phones, thus excluding about 25% of the population from their sample group...a group that demographically skews heavily toward the left) is affecting their outcomes. But even with that skewed group, Gallup has Obama +3 right now. Another not so good sign for Romney.

As for the Weighting on folks who self-ID as Dems, Reps and Inds, I have read some articles and observed on my own that a lot of people have switched party affiliation over the last 4 years, especially form GOP to IND. My understanding is that many Tea Partiers ID as Indies, and then vote Conservatively. So we are seeing more Independents, and also, more Independents are supporting GOP candidates. And polls do indicate that more people ID'ing as Independents are supporting Conservative candidates. I could be wrong...and so could almost all the pollsters except for Scott Rasmussen (who also has a cell phone problem, and who had McCain/Palin winning by 4 points right up to Nov. 6th last cycle). I just don't think so. If I am, you'll have every right to rub my nose in it.

Bonus round trivia question: When was the last time a Major Party ticket lost the home states of both their VP and Presidential nominees? Cuz it's looking like that's gonna happen. Particularly brutal if you consider that Romney has 2 to 4 home states (if you count MI, MA, CA and NH). I don't know the answer...I am just wondering.

BTW, I found a great web site for you:
They re-weight every single national poll to reflect their beliefs that Republicans are undersampled. This should help you feel better up till election day.


Mr. D said...

Here's where I see it --

1) I looked at unskewedpolls and I don't accept their methodology, either.

2) It's close, a lot closer than you (and Brian) seem to think it is.

3) October is going to matter a lot more, especially in the "unfavorable" ratings that you are placing so much faith in right now. I'm not seeing the ads here in Minnesota, but my understanding is that Obama and his surrogates have been carpet-bombing states like Ohio with negative advertising about Romney. It's a variation on the same thing Clinton did to Dole in '96. Romney will have to convince people during the debates. That won't be easy, but he'll finally get a chance to have his own words heard. And his ads are running more now.

4) The reason I keep harping on weighting is this -- if you poll +10 on self-identified Democrats, it's pretty much axiomatic that Romney's favorability numbers are going to be bad. I continue to see information saying that independents are skewing to Romney this cycle. That's going to have some Tea Party, but not all.

5) The polling I've seen shows that Obama remains under 50% favorability, both nationally and in the battleground states. Historically that's been very bad news. And I still think that, in the end, this election is a referendum on Obama's performance. And the arrows are all pointing downward on his performance right now.

Anonymous said...

any idea what is going on in your home state? Wisconsin has always been idiosyncratic, but over the last 4 years it has been absolutely bi-polar.

Look at RCP these Senate numbers since June:
RCP Average 9/11 - 9/23 -- 49.2 44.2 Baldwin +5.0
WeAskAmerica 9/20 - 9/23 1238 LV 52 40 Baldwin +12
PPP (D) 9/18 - 9/19 842 LV 49 45 Baldwin +4
NBC/WSJ/Marist 9/16 - 9/18 968 LV 48 46 Baldwin +2
Rasmussen Reports 9/17 - 9/17 500 LV 49 46 Baldwin +3
Marquette University 9/13 - 9/16 601 LV 50 41 Baldwin +9
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac 9/11 - 9/17 1485 LV 47 47 Tie
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac 8/15 - 8/21 1190 LV 44 50 Thompson +6
Marquette University 8/16 - 8/19 576 LV 41 50 Thompson +9
PPP (D) 8/16 - 8/19 1308 LV 44 49 Thompson +5
Rasmussen Reports 8/15 - 8/15 500 LV 43 54 Thompson +11
Marquette University 8/2 - 8/5 1188 LV 43 48 Thompson +5
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac 7/31 - 8/6 1428 LV 47 47 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 7/25 - 7/25 500 LV 48 41 Baldwin +7
Marquette University 7/5 - 7/8 810 LV 41 45 Thompson +4
PPP (D) 7/5 - 7/8 1057 RV 45 45 Tie

Any ideas?


Mr. D said...

My only guess is this -- Tommy is old and not especially interesting. I've heard that he thought he could just put his name out there and win, especially since Baldwin is in Bernie Sanders territory politically. He's fighting back now and the numbers will shift back, but it's not going to be a romp. Baldwin has been running a lot of negative ads on Tommy as well.

I thought Hovde was the best candidate, but he split the younger conservative vote three ways with Fitzgerald and Mark Neumann, who isn't actually that young. I still think Tommy will win, though -- Baldwin's record won't work well outside of Dane County, Milwaukee and LaCrosse.

K-Rod said...

The important question to ask is:
Why should I vote for Obama?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an honest answer.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

Oh, I do think it is over. Not just because of the polls showing Romney falling behind, but simply because Romney is not a likable guy. No matter how many times he tries to reinvent himself, he cannot make people like him. Kerry and Gore should have both won their elections easily, but they were not liked and there is nothing they could do to change their personality.

I don't think Romney will do well in the debates either as his personality will shine through and Obama's charisma will shine through. I am not for either candidate, but Obama is just more at ease in speaking off the cuff and Romney is not.

Plus, his 47% chance has hurt him - with a new WA Post poll showing a majority view Romney’s comments at the fundraiser negatively, 54-32. And even worse, 61 percent of Americans, and 64 percent of independents, now view his whole campaign unfavorably.

Re: MN, Obama has been ahead of Romney anywhere from 5 to 15 points in all of the MN polls since December of last year. PPP, KSTP/SurveyUSA, St. Cloud State and the StarTrib - it does not make as difference.

It may not be quite time for the fat lady to start singing, but it is getting darn close.

Bike Bubba said...

I think that the answer to K-Rod's question is that a large portion of the population is still convinced that Obama is going to pay their mortgage and utility bills. My gas and electric bills are coming these days with a disclaimer "No, President Obama is NOT going to pay your utility bills."

It would be interesting to see a poll of how many people have fallen for this, and it's even more interesting that it hasn't made the news much.

And most interesting of all; what do we know about Barack Obama that is true, beyond name, rank, and serial number?

Mr. D said...

I am not for either candidate, but Obama is just more at ease in speaking off the cuff and Romney is not.

If that were the criteria that matters, Tony Robbins would be president, CB. Things are going to hell on multiple fronts now and I suspect that by November, Americans won't be looking for a pal. If they are, woe betide us.

It's closing in on Obama right now on Libya and the economy. He's playing prevent defense and hoping that things don't come crashing completely before election day.

K-Rod said...

"...more at ease..."

B as in B; S as in S

Obama and the media want people to drink the kool aid and forget how important his teleprompter is and how, umm, aaahhh, eeerrr, ummm, let me be clear, how, umm, errr, ummm, ahhh, how, ummm ahhh, super duper, ummm, ahhh, umm, great, ahhh, errr, umm, speaker, umm, ahhh, he is...

Anonymous said...

And most interesting of all; what do we know about Barack Obama that is true, beyond name, rank, and serial number?

Well, we know he is a Marxist, anti-colonialist, Kenyan whose real father trained and groomed him to infiltrate America at the highest level of government, get elected President, wait out his first 4 years, get re-elected, and then drive America off a cliff in his 2nd term. I still haven't figured out his final act, but I am pretty certain it involves the U.S. being run by either Scientologists or the Muslim Brotherhood. Pork will be banned from school lunch menus, and religion will be driven underground, and we will only be allowed to practice our faith in subways. (Actual subways...not sandwich stores). Be very afraid.


Chuckwagon Boy said...

Mr. D, I totally agree with you that we want someone in office that is not another Tony Robbins, however that is not how the majority of the U.S. voters think. They think about how they are affected right now or if things are good who talks tougher and who is better looking. Typically Obama would lose in this election because of the economy - like Hoover and Carter. However, when you opponent is a moron who nobody likes - such as Dukakis who should have beaten H.W. Bush - then your chances are much greater.

The Libyan thing is not going to bother Obama because Libya is far down on most people's radar. Typical people see it as a mess there and in a revolution, but it does not affect them here.

And then there is Romney LOWERING expectations in his first debate. REALLY?! How much lower do you want people's expectations to be?! This was from his Senior Adviser Beth Myers:

– President Obama is "widely regarded as one of the most talented political communicators in modern history."

– "This will be the eighth one-on-one presidential debate of his political career. For Mitt Romney, it will be his first."

– "Four years ago, Barack Obama faced John McCain on the debate stage. According to Gallup, voters judged him the winner of each debate by double-digit margins, and their polling showed he won one debate by an astounding 33-point margin."

Myers argues that Obama will "use his ample rhetorical gifts and debating experience to one end: attacking Mitt Romney."

Wow - the white flag is already waving before the fight even starts! Now the only theater left is between Biden and Ryan - and that I am actually looking forward to watching.

K-Rod said...

Yes, Dick and the Boy sure are Obama loyalists.

So, Rich, C Boy, why should I vote for Obama?

Mr. D said...


I have a little more faith in the American people than you do, apparently. I don't think we're so far gone that people won't take a hard look at this election in the next month.

Romney isn't a great candidate, but he's not as bad as you think he is. And I think he'll surprise you in the debates. He's lowering expectations on purpose -- it doesn't mean he's surrendering.


I think you're misreading CB; he's actually a conservative, but he's living in Oregon where conservative thought is essentially outlawed.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

No, I am not an Obama loyalist. And I am not voting for Romney. In fact I will probably put in a right-in candidate. I am thinking Marco Rubio at this point as I have been impressed by his ability to articulate and discuss his ideas. And it appears he has actually thought through his views - what a concept!

I am just pointing out what I see are the signs of the way this race is going from a non-partisan look. It's like when the Raiders played the Vikes in the Super Bowl when I was in Junior High. I bet on the Raiders because they were the better team even though I wanted the Vikes to win. I almost got the crap kicked out of me for being a traitor, but I was right and won $30. That was a lot of money for a kid!

Same thing here. The writing is on the wall that Romney will lose because of many reasons, but the main ones being people do not like him and they do not trust him. People could feel that way about Obama, but more people feel that way about The Mitt.

Mr. D said...

Writing in Marco Rubio may make you feel better, CB, but it doesn't do a thing to change things. Of course you're in Oregon so it doesn't matter much how you vote.

Also, I'd commend this article to your attention concerning lowering expectations on the debate.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

Great article - thank you for recommending it! I know both sides like to downplay the debates and I could see that in the Obama Camp's earlier downplay. For Romney it just sounded a little bit more like they were a little worried after the video and the polls.

And you are right that living in Oregon means that unless it is local elections, my vote for President will not make a difference. I am not sure about this, but I think the last time Oregon went for a Repub President was Reagan in '84.

You are definitely more optimistic than you are about Romney and his skills. I plain don't like the guy so it does not make any difference to me how he does. But considering that the Repub debates were against the Scooby Doo gang I don't see how he will outdo Obama. He is just not that coherent when he speaks off the cuff.

Also, I know most of you don't like the polls, but consider these links about the current Real Clear Politics electoral map and people's current preference. The last couple of elections RCP has been pretty accurate. Also, when you see the Rasmussen polls remember they were horrible in accuracy in 2010. So far they have been the only one to show Romney ahead in the major polls and the state polls. Either they are REALLY right or REALLY wrong.

Mr. D said...

The problem with RCP is that it's a poll aggregator and so it's only as good as the polls that feed it. If it's true that we are looking at a +7 or +8 Democratic electorate, then what we're hearing is plausible. But if the electorate is closer to even, which is my guess, then it's not so good. Garbage in, garbage out.

The problem for me is that I see horrible things on the horizon no matter who is in the seat. Romney may be an unappealing candidate and personality, but he's more likely to make the right decisions in office than Obama. We have had four years to see how Obama operates and he's been disastrous and there's absolutely zero reason to believe he'll make the right decisions in the face of what's coming down the pike. I'm genuinely worried about things right now, in a way that I've never been worried before.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

Re: RCP, we will see how the polls turn out in the end to see how close they came on the aggregate.

Re: the future, yep I am right there with you about worrying how the future will turn out in the next 4 years. Every time I see more banking upheaval, austerity protests, unrest due to the Arab Spring, our trade deficit with China, the strength of our dollar to the Canadian Dollar (we are weaker than the Canadians?!) and unemployment in the U.S. and the world it freaks me out. So that is every single day!

On the one hand, if the pundits are right, this recession was the single biggest economic crash we have had besides the Depression - which was also worldwide. And that took 12 years to get out of with the start of WWII. So I think giving B.O. only about three years to fix the mess caused by the immense spending of two wars and a HUGE financial meltdown is unrealistic. And thinking that great thinker of ideas, Mitt would do better does not seem plausible as well.

So who would be better? Do me it comes down to a flip of the coin and I am not feeling lucky either way it goes.

Mr. D said...

So I think giving B.O. only about three years to fix the mess caused by the immense spending of two wars and a HUGE financial meltdown is unrealistic. And thinking that great thinker of ideas, Mitt would do better does not seem plausible as well.

Problem is Obama has made it worse. Obamacare is killing any chance of recovery because businesses have no way on knowing what their hiring costs are going to be. If they could be confident in their forecasts, they'd be more likely to move. Businesses are mostly being quite cautious.

And you've also got a whole mess of tax increases coming in 2013 because of Obama's incalcitrance. And QE3. And states like California and Illinois coming hat in hand the feds looking for a bailout of their profligacy. These are things Obama won't deal with.

You seem to hate Rommey, which is your right. But voting for Obama is a guarantee that things won't get better in the next four years, because he'll double down on what he's already done. It has to stop, good sir. Romney may or may not change things, but I know Obama won't. Play the odds accordingly.

K-Rod said...

'Unrealistic' to hold Obama accountable to HIS OWN expectations?!?!? Wow!!!

No, C-Boy, just because the depression lasted that long didn't mean it HAD to last that long!!!

PS, I can't stand Obama apologists.

Chuckwagon Boy said...

Mr. D, You are correct in that I do not like Romney. It is because I do not trust him with his changing stances, that he has been running for President for years, claims to be moral, but was so out of bounds against McCain 4 years ago with some of his accusations and the list could go on. He is just plain not trustworthy. I voted for Bush and McCain because I believed they at least were honest and had character, but I do not see that in Romney. He has consistently showed that he will say absolutely anything to get elected. Which, and I know you will disagree, I see more honesty and character in Obama though I will not be voting for him either.

Re: getting things done in his second term it is interesting that everyone is piling on Obama for the issues we have when the Republicans have made it their business to assist in our turmoil. Marco Rubio has even said his own party cannot seem to do anything or work with anyone to get things done. I believe that if Obama is re-elected the Republicans will actually be a little more compliant this time as their stated tactic of having B.O. for only one term will have failed. Maybe if both parties decide to do what is best for their country as opposed to their re-election chances we might get some things done. If things get worse, then it is for both parties to share the blame and not just one.

K-Rod: Wow, you have some major anger @ Obama! You might want to take some anger management classes as it might be helpful. Re: the Depression not having to go that long, it would have been nice to see but it didn't happen. So how it could it have been made shorter? And how would you do things different than Obama in this recession?

I am not an apologist, but try to be a realist as to how long things might last so that is why I was comparing the Great Recession to the Great Depression.

Re: the promises that Obama made, yes he was a little out there. I remember in his first State of the Union Address he mentioned all those things he would do and kept saying to the TV in front of my kids, "Don't keep doing that as you will not be able to do it all and you have another party opposing you!" And then he said he would work on finding a cure for cancer and I knew he was in trouble. So, did he make too many promises? Yes. Did he pass everything he wanted to? No. Has he made this country worse? Yes and No. Did he have help messing up the country? Yep. Can you guess who that might be?

K-Rod said...

Listen here Boy, do not confuse disappointment with anger.
And worry about yourself before you try to nannystateist others into paying for PC classes.