A flurry of surveys with wildly contradictory results at the national and state levels has caused the New York Times‘s polling guru, Nate Silver, to throw up his hands. This afternoon, he tweeted: “The. Polls. Have. Stopped. Making. Any. Sense.” This may understate the case. For ten years now, pollsters have acknowledged their jobs are becoming more and more difficult, what with the multiplicity of phones people use, the time they spend on the Internet, and the fact that more and more people screen their calls. The poll madness today suggests that the difficulty may be blossoming into a full-bore crisis—even as the media hang on every number because we need something, anything, that seems like an empirical data point to evaluate the state of the race.
So trying to figure out where the presidential race might be at present is total guesswork, based on data that don’t correlate and are being gathered according to suspect means. So here’s mine: Obama is ahead and Romney is behind. But not by much, and within the margin of error.
Given the steadiness in the findings of the two daily tracking polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, both of which essentially echo each other with a 47-46 result over the past several days, their agreement would seem to be closer to the truth than longer-term polls showing a far wider margin in Obama’s favor. But the existence of those polls, and the lack of existence of a single poll showing a wider margin for Romney, is suggestive of something.
Without a change in the race’s trajectory, there’s little reason to think there will be any change in the dynamic. In other words, Obama would win. By a little, not a lot. And there is no margin of error on election day (unless the chads fail to fall).
Which means Romney needs to act to change the trajectory. One sign of what that might mean comes from the first major poll on foreign policy taken after last week’s horrific events in Cairo and Libya. You’ll recall Romney blasted the administration for a statement out of Cairo that, he said, expressed sympathy for the rioters. This was viewed as a great evil by a great many people, and criticized by people on Romney’s own side as well. Romney’s team appeared battered and bruised by the attacks. And yet in the NBC News poll released yesterday, the president saw a significant drop of 5 percentage points on a question about his handling of foreign policy. This is not to say Romney caused Obama’s drop, but it might mean he was closer to the national wavelength than the incestuous Washington-NY media thought.
Obviously the question over the next few days is whether Romney will suffer from the “47 percent” remarks on the hidden videotape. I explain here why I think what Romney said was wrong and wrong-headed. That kind of trajectory change would, obviously, make Romney’s challenge more significant.
The strange thing about the Romney camp is that, with the exception of that statement, it appears to have no sense of urgency about its condition. Romney, it’s said, never gets mad, and has never had a fight with his wife. That’s wonderful for him, but one virtue of getting angry and heated and squabbly and in a fight is that it will at least register a pulse. You can’t win a race if you don’t get your heart rate up.
Well, with Romney's personality that John describes, he certainly wouldn't fit in here on Commentary's blog. I think John is basically right. In fact, he's echoing what I posted earlier today about understanding the polls by not fighting the trend, as slight as it may be, that they establish(I related it to "don't fight the Fed or tape"). But for those of you who want hope, what John quoted Silver as saying is of some significance: "the polls have stopped making any sense." First of all for you conspiracy folks, Silver writes for the NY Times! Secondly, to many in the polling and political analysis business, he is among the best. So, I guess if he can't make sense of them, we Commentary posters will continue to go at it as we have been. Onward with the next batch!
and now you are backtracing too….I remember you asserting that,absolutely, Obama will win and we are losers…blah.blah.blah..now, you maintain that, well, the polls may be wrong and, well, there is still la chance of winning…At least, I am happy you acknolewdge that this race is far from over and that it will be close….If Romney survives these two weeks of media bias, pseudo gaffes, pessisimism of the republcans…he may yet pull it out..in a close race, of course…
Romney's calm demeanor is a good thing and makes him a likely better president than the firebrand that many in the pundit class seem to want. Obama is somehow "above the fray" but Romney is insulted as pasionless. Whatever. Example number 30,021 of the double standard that even many on the right apply to the two candidaates.
"Obama is somehow "above the fray" but Romney is insulted as passionless. Whatever. Example number 30,021 of the double standard that even many on the right apply to the two candidates." n nAs a gal I used to work with used to say: THANK YOU! n nAnd I read the deadlocked polls completely the opposite of Mr. Podhoretz, I think they indicate that Obama is losing. n nI think an incumbent who is going to be re-elected should be ahead by more than the margin of error, maybe just a tad, a squidge, a scosh more, but more than the margin of error. Obama is not. An incumbent who is going to be re-elected should have approval ratings over 50%, but Obama does not. n nWho knows? Nobody right now. n nNo, Romney has not done well these past few days and he doesn't have a lot of time left in the race, around the turn they come. But ajwpip is correct, too many on our side join in the MSM chorus line because they too are in the "incestuous" bubble. And it is also true that our current President thinks it is OK to go on David Letterman (an appearance that will not win him one single vote that isn't already in the bag) and yuck it up one week to the day after our Ambassador to Libya was murdered by a jihadi mob. n nHere's the thing about Ambassadors, they are very important people. They don't just represent our government, the current administration, the ruling party, they are the actual embodiment of the American country, the American people, in foreign lands. And one of them was brutally killed a week ago. Our President and his allies in the MSM seem to be ready to move on and lay the blame for the crime at the feet of some obscure and shady guy out in LaLa land. n nFor the first time in my adult life I'm ready to go full Pontius Pilate and wash my hands of my fellow Americans if they see fit to return the nincompoop Obama to the WH. n nI intend to keep saying this until November. This election is no longer about Mitt Romney, it is about the lawless and feckless Barack Obama and his corrupt handmaidens in the media.
You know I tried to reply to you before, but they modded me. I think you are right in what you say. n nLet's see if this gets past the nannies. n nIs this something new here? I might have had some buzz words in my post. n nWho knows?
Michael, please show me where I'm backtracking. I threw out something that might support the positions you take. I was trying to be fair to you(I don't mean that in a condescending way). I'm a big believer in the axiom that a day in politics is an eternity. So, yes, could Romney pull this off? Possible, but highly unlikely. Let me offer some other evidence which troubles me more than the ballot numbers. On many of the "attitude" questions in polls, Romney gets swamped. Questions that relate to better for the middle class, who understands people better, taxes, spending, etc. I find it difficult to believe with the atrocious numbers Romney has on these types of questions that he will be able to break through to a victory. Now let me challenge you and other optimists–what are you folks doing for Romney? Did you donate? Are you making calls? Are you going out knocking on doors? I may be negative, a cynic and a pain to some of you, but I'm not giving up as long as I can make an effort to prove myself wrong. I'll go down fighting. But I'm afraid, I'll go down.
well, you succeeded in making me laugh…and I think you'd be a fantastic Hamlet! You say "i'll go down fighting" BUT "I'm afraid I'll go down'. Taking both sides of the eventuality. How do you know Romeny will lose ? I'll put some money on the fact that this race will be very close.I also am much more a believer that voting is a pattern and that ,if you voted for one party once, the likelihood is that you will go on voting for that party.Exceptional events break that pattern and Obama broke that cycle for obvious reasons. The most difficult obstacle for Romney is the incumbency. The sorry state of the economy should have broken the pattern of incumbents being re-elected but, for now, it is a toss up whether Obama was able to break that influence. we shall see.I still predict a narrow victory and Virginia for Romney.. Who'll win?, well, this week I am leaning to Obama.Next week, who knows?
My wife and children have always called me a frustrated thespian, but the role of Hamlet? You're correct in that political affiliation does change slowly. My guess it's been changing slowing toward the Democrats and that's one reason the Democratic percentage of the polling has been consistently higher than the Republican and closer to 2008 than 2010; the latter being an off-year when an incumbent party is likely to slacken off. After my above post, I checked RealClearPolitics and it's not pretty. Trends, trends, and more trends. Look at those. "Taking both sides." Let me be as clear as I can be. OBAMA IS GOING TO WIN. ROMNEY IS GOING TO LOSE. I'm not happy about it. I worry about my country and, selfishly, my children and grandchildren. n
A quick word. I do not agree with you on the trends at all. Why is 2010 the off year. Methinks it was 2008. The country has been trending Republican for three decades now.
That's an interesting observation of the possible over interpretation of an off-year electoral correction. I live in a diverse multi-cultural area here in Northern Virginia and in my bones there is that demographic advantage to the Dems out there–which is why Romney's explanation for the 47% support was so jaw-dropping.
Contentions needs someone like Ed Morrisey, or better yet Jay Cost, to post serious analysis of the polls. So far they have been outrageously constructed, with of course some notable exceptions like Rasmussen (and even Ras polls could use some tweaking). Does anyone here expect, given the enthusiasm gap, that we're going to see a D+5 or greater turnout? Especially since Rasmussen shows party ID to be R+4! This election will be much closer to 2010 than 2008, yet most polls (registered voters, no less) are showing an even race because the samples are so skewed towards the Dems.
Today is September 19 and unless there's a hole in the space-time continuum, the election is, what, 48-days away. That's a long time and much can and will happen between now and then. The fact is that we heard similar comments like John's during the primaries when Mr. Romney was battered here and there and then, lo and behold, he's the nominee. n nRemember his pick for V.P. of Mr. Ryan? I don't recall the so-called pundits being in love with it, yet Mr. Ryan resonated with republicans and can do the same for independents. n nThe fact that Mr. Romney doesn't get angry, or emotional, is a good thing. If he blew a gasket, John would be first in line to tell us how UN-presidential that looked and that his outburst is all people will remember. Come on already! n nFinally, this race a marathon. Yes, one's pulse goes up for the run. But it's not a sprint and Mr. Romney knows that he must pace himself. When we are in mid-October and the needle is still at the same point, then we can worry. Let's not go off before the gun. The finish line is November 6, and not a moment earlier. n n
Yeah,so John is correct,it's a tight race with Obama slightly ahead. nRocket Science?
Assuming polls are unreliable or meaningless, I move on to the fundamentals. Obama's suck. Economy, foreign policy, deficit, stimulus, auto bailout, poor results in the 2010 mid terms, can't break 50% as the incumbent, Stevens/Las Vegas. If Romney wins, we will look back and all have a V-8 moment. Some believe, include me among the some, that this cake was baked a long time ago. No one is voting for the President that didn't in 2008 and Republican enthusiasm is enormous and, I believe, under estimated. The Tea Party was a clear indicator of enthusiasm and revealed itself in the resulting election, but from the moment Obamacare was crammed through without even being read, blood has boiled. I suspect many folks, again me included, have been waiting to cast this vote since that moment and are quietly waiting to finally voice their outrage and disgust.
Not getting angry is a positive — if there's substance to what is being softly said. A message. Reagan could get excited (i.e. "Tear down this wall!"), but mostly he calmly stuck to his message with an anecdote that connected. Much is made of whether or not Romney connects when the question should be how or how not. FDR connected (cigar holder and all). JFK connected (pictures of his sailing and all). Reagan, Clinton, and W Bush connected (W much more so than his father — and not because he spent a night in jail on a DUI). Romney's message can connect. It hasn't yet — however, all the things that drive us all crazy trying to figure out how Obama isn't losing overwhelmingly could actually make Romney's task easy … when he hits on just the right thing. Maybe "opportunity society."
Keith, you make some valid arguments, but one reaches a point in the campaign where, by searching and trying new tacks, you look like you're floundering and will make matters worse. I think the only course for Romney is to make two simple arguments that he's been trying to make, only make them in sharper and clearer ads with a personal appearance in them: that Obama's policies have failed(foreign and domestic) and they will to do so in a second term; and he has a plan that will save the economy and stimulate growth and jobs. He must connect Obama'she failed past to a failed future under Obama. There's a saying about political victory: those who win the arguments about the past, win the future and those who win the future, win the present.
I agree with what you are saying — but I'm looking for him to find the words that will do that. I don't believe Obama is really selling himself to the public. I think the MSM is carrying him as well as it can. Something needs to cut through that — and by something I mean a phrase or idea that people understand and embrace. Maybe Obama's lasting defining moment was saying about how it's not red states or blue states but the United States. Kennedy spoke of a new frontier; Clinton said he felt our pain; Reagan not only spoke about a shining city on a hill, but also said that government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem (and Reagan also said very simply, paraphrasing his anecdote, that a D.A. wanted to charge a robber who shot a pregnant woman and killed her unborn baby with murder, adding as he told it, "You can't have it both ways," which was something he didn't need to explain for "the people" to get it and think about it). n nI'm only saying Romney has a month and a couple of weeks to make the sale, but that he can connect with words, and forget about his life story.
On some deep and personal level Ronmney hasn't thought through how he presents. How his story, narrative, his autobiography connects to his policies. If he has done anything, Obamas has worked through that. The bildungsroman of Obama is well covered. So he projects a consistency through reversals and through outright lies. But when Romney switches from his explanation that Obama has a 47-49% base of deadbeat dependents whom he could never ever ever hope to teach to tie their shoelaces and wash up after using the rest room–to proclaiming that *of course* he cares about the poor, *of course* he cares about the middle class, it comes across as flailing.
Gallup polls registered voters which leans about 4 points to Democrats. Rasmussen polls likely voters and has Romney up between 1 & 2 points in past few days with a +2 Democrat lean. In latest USA Today/Gallup poll of swing states which they include New Mexico and Pennsylvania Obama is up 2 points. We have more swing states now than anyone thought we would. No one thought Wisconsin would be in play for Romney but it is. With the USA Today/Gallup poll including PA & NM and Obama only has a 2 point lead I would think the Romney camp would love that poll. Pennsylvania wasn't supposed to be in play nor was New Mexico. Michigan might be in play too that Romney will make Obama spend money there. Face it this isn't the 1980's anymore where the population is so polarized Obama is guaranteed 47% no matter what he does especially with the media we have who have highlighted every little slip Romney's made and covers up everything Obama screws up.
Romney's campaign themes come and go before disappearing from the radar in a cloud of ad-hoc improvisation when turbulence is encountered. The Democratic push back on his first statements re: Egypt and Libya so discombobulated the candidate (possibly sharpened by his discomfort with getting into foreign policy disputes in depth) that the narrative became that he, and not Obama, was somehow implicated directly in the sacking of the Libyan consulate and the killing of the ambassador. This was HIS bad week and not, amazingly, the Presidents. n nInstead of a sustained critique of the Prez and his own defense he morphed into Hispanic outreach week and then became totally foobared over the 47% –with flustered responses that his own advisor Ed Gillespie called "absurd" on Fox radio. n nNobody is forcing Romney to chase after the shiny objects thrown up by Obama and the media but Romney. At crucial junctures he shies away from pressing his advantage and fumbled the weirdness of this week, culminating in the mixed message that he and Obama *both* "care about the poor and the middle class" but that only he can deliver–a return to his original strategy (enunciated at that fund raiser) of going after the independents on O's failures without getting in the Prez's face or questioning his integrity. n nWill that and a rolling thunder of ad buys work? So far it hasn't.
I think we are all underestimating the influence of the (liberal, left-leaning) mainstream press. The reason why Romeny's (very legitimate) comments on Lybia became the story and not the obvious breach of security is the PRESS ,darn it!! Anytime something comes up to harm Obama ,they run interference. And, of course, Obama never,ever takes responsibility for anything. It is always someone else's fault. I know that I will be accused of sour grapes- blaming the messenger rather than the message- but it is undeniable that the press is propping up Obama. Romney must break thorugh this by constant attack on a few subjects- primarily jobs- and hammer, hammer,hammer, And don't be a wallflower- go bold!
The media knows that sports attract the most attention, and thus sell the most ads. Therefor, they try and frame news using sporting analogies. n nA political campaign not a race, where one participant finishes ahead of the other(s). n nIf you must have an entertainment-based comparison to understand, an election is more of an American Idol style contest, where whichever candidate performs best is awarded the most votes by the judges/electorate.