The latest Pew poll is rather remarkable. Barack Obama led by eight percent among likely voters in this very survey last month. Romney now leads by four percent, a 12-point shift since the debate:
In turn, Romney has drawn even with Obama in the presidential race among registered voters (46% to 46%) after trailing by nine points (42% to 51%) in September. Among likely voters, Romney holds a slight 49% to 45% edge over Obama. He trailed by eight points among likely voters last month.
The shift with women voters is unbelievable. Last month, Obama had an 18-point lead among women in the Pew poll. Now Obama and Romney are tied, at 47 percent. The war-on-women-themed convention, the Sandra Fluke speeches, the HHS mandate that antagonized Catholics — all the gains from those may have been erased by just one debate:
In the presidential horserace, Romney has made sizable gains over the past month among women voters, white non-Hispanics and those younger than 50. Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.
Another interesting stat from Pew: Romney now leads Obama, 47 percent to 40 percent, on the question of which candidate has new ideas. In other words, the Obama campaign’s attempt to portray Romney as Bush redux hasn’t stuck, at least not after his debate performance.
But as Jon Cohen notes at The Fix, the shift is based a lot on changes in voter identification in the polling samples — i.e. there is more enthusiasm from Republicans, and more people are identifying with the party, so the sample is weighted more toward the GOP than it was last month. That’s still good news for the Romney campaign, but not as good as if there had been major movement among independent voters — particularly since voter identification stats in these polls have been very much in flux throughout the campaign. There are also other events that could suddenly change the momentum of the race: a successful drone strike on the terrorists behind the Benghazi attack, a poor performance by Paul Ryan in the next debate, etc. So while this is a stunning comeback for the Romney campaign, maintaining it until the election may not be easy.
Ah, Alana, watch out ending with a bit of pessimism("maintaining it to election day may not be easy"), or else you will catch the beating I usually get for such musings. My gut tells me that the VP debate may be more important than many would have thought. You're right that Ryan's performance can either sustain the bounce from last week, or put this race back to a clear Obama lead. I'm not worried about Ryan's knowledge, but his ability to distill it for a debate against the quintessential gasbag does. I'm also concerned that, physically, Ryan might look, in contrast to Biden, like a "little boy." And, of course, the media will be salivating to proclaim a Biden victory and therefore an Obama comeback. In short, the challenge for Ryan may be much more difficult than many supporters suspect. Objective prediction: a draw which will please me.
Based on what has happened since last Wednesday, I see it a bit differently. This is Ryan's opportunity to introduce himself to the voters. Romney took full advantage of that chance last week, and the results have got to be guiding to some degree Ryan's prep. Biden will be a non-entity. Nobody takes him seriously or cares what he has to say – he is, after all, the "quintessential gasbag". If Ryan can come across as poised, intelligent, competent and sincere he will help the ticket, whatever Biden's up to on the other side of the stage. nBy the same token, I can't imagine Biden doing anything that would hurt his ticket. nI agree that this debate is important, but I don't think people will be viewing it as a debate, really, but a chance to get to know Ryan.
The uptick with women does not surprise. n nObama is the lazy guy who failed to provide, considering being cool more important. n nRomney, the handsome but stiff guy, is an alpha provider, who stuck with his woman through sickness and health, and raised five, count 'em, FIVE sons, all successful and seemingly happy. 16 grandchildren, and they're just getting started. He went out into the world, and provided for them in spades. n nRomney, as someone on National Review said, in another age would have been a tribal chieftain. n nWomen dig that, and admire it. They want him to provide leadership and direction, out of the economic mess that threatens the food they can put on the table. n nIt's very primal. Cool just doesn't cut it right now. n nMy $0.02 worth, anyways.
“The shift with women voters is unbelievable.” n nI would say the original disparity with regards to women was what was unbelievable, and was unsupportable except via hype and distortion. n nI met a woman financial adviser in Denver last week who was almost hysterical with anxiety about the eminent lost of women's rights, going back to abortions with coat hangers in back alleys, etc.. I certainly would not take my financial advice from that woman.
How can people be so stupid? I run into this kind of thing all too often. I think it is one of those factors that make it so difficult for conservatives like us to understand the broader electorate. Sure, the right has its loonies, but they keep pretty much to themselves. The type of looniness you describe here, though, is mainstream liberalism! How in the world do we "reach" a voter like her? You have to go way, way back – it's hardly worth it. I can't tell you how many times I'll start into a political discussion with folks at work before realizing I'm wasting my time – their fundamental political beliefs are based upon layer after layer of misinformation and ignorance – much of it willful, but still.
"Obama is the lazy guy who failed to provide…"? Perhaps a better statement would be: "Obama is the lazy guy who failed to perform". That would be more "primal".
I don't trust these polls, whether they favor my guy or not. I'll stick with Rasmussen and Gallup, but I am certainly not going to get all tingly just because Pew and PPP start manipulating their samples differently. nQuit obsessing with polls and trust your gut. Romney/Ryan is looking good these days.
I feel the nee to respond to myself – must be all the talk of narcissism lately. I don't "believe" these pollsters, but I am glad they are showing a Romney lead. That will stop the asinine "Obama's got it in the bag" meme, and Obama relies much more on the "cool" factor than his opponent. He was able to motivate a lot of typically unmotivated voters in 2008 because he became a pop star – and because it was clear he was winning. A lot of the sheep who voted for him in 2008 wouldn't waste their time on a loser, even if they could text in their vote. So bring on the polls showing Romney winning – they may actually help suppress Democratic turnout.
J Podhoretz , moonlighting as a NY Post columnist, has an excellent piece about polls. As one who has invoked them ad nausea, I have to agree with him that there are too many that are contradictory, or need so much explanation(like last Friday's unemployment report)that their value can be seriously questioned. Yes, I like them when they're for us, but they are losing their credibility. In that wonderful movie, Amadeus, after listening to a Mozart opera, the emperor was asked what he thought. His response: "too many notes." Well, the news of polls is about as far from a Mozart opera as one can get, but that line is appropriate: too many polls.
What amazes me is how the political pros in the days before polling could get it so right. Guys like Lincoln, Van Buren, Clay. They understood the demographics, and in a dizzyingly and increasingly complex society, were able to target their message to those groups. The best of them, like Lincoln, seemed to know the outcome of elections well before the results came in – even in parts of the country he'd never visited. They could study (Barone-like) election returns from year to year to determine how many Democrats or Whigs or Know-Nothings in a particular district or precinct were switching party allegiance. n(Michael Holt's The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party is must-reading for anyone interested in this type of analysis.) nOf course, they had the advantage of NOT being bombarded by stupid polls, which pretend to tell us everything we want to know about every conceivable demographic. (I even saw something about centenarians yesterday. Good grief. I think all lesbian 105 year olds are voting for Obama.) The best part – we don't have to think! We're being dumbed-down in every aspect of our lives, I'm afraid. nAnd here's the deal – some polls seem to get it right. Their last pre-election numbers are close, but that's like predicting what the guy in the Oregon Ducks gear is going to buy at Safeway 30 minutes before kick-off. The die is cast, minds made up. However, we will never know how accurate they were in January, or August, or even early October, because there is no way of knowing. (Of course, the other question is, does it really matter who is leading in September? Or, can anyone really be leading in September? When does the race start, in the minds of most voters? We simply don't understand voter behavior well enough to be getting excited about results that far out.) Convenient, really. Must be tempting, then, to create a narrative based purely on polls, because in the end you can connect all the dots and tell a convincing story.
Mike, you raise an interesting topic: how does one get now or has gotten in the past a feel for a campaign. It certainly is important to know public sentiment; it can be very useful to a candidate. Before so much polling, as you say, people had a "feel." Living in what we think is a much more sophisticated era, we rely upon quantification to inform us, but, again as we are discussing, it's reliability can be questioned. I remember very well when I began pounding the pavement as a ward healer, we always had our bellweathers: Jerry's Pharmacy; Cameron's Pharmacy; Pat's Deli; Dr. C, the vet and Pete's barbershop. There were many problems, though, with these sources. By telling these proprietors how important and useful their "street" information was, they played know-it-all and big shot and, after awhile, were not worth the effort, or, to be more honest and direct, the butt-kissing. I guess polling now has become just another way in a long tradition of democracies to try to gauge public opinion. I'm sure much more accurate and reliable, but still with plenty of problems.
Y9ou sound like a very interesting fellow! I suspect you have some wonderful stories.
Regardless of the outcome of the remaining debates, i believe that the image painted by the Obama team of Romney as an out of touch, radical conservative misogynist has been permanently erased. So now Obama must defend his record and provide a credible reason why the next four years under his rule will not be the disaster that these four years have been. That's a much taller order than just being more negative during the remaining debates.
Pew Pole shows Romney in the lead!
Poor Rob-Me. 2013 will be boring with nothing to run for.
You can fool some people, (liberals), all of the time. nYou can fool some people, (independents) some of the time. nBut you can't fool all the people,(the American Electorate), all the time. nObama and his handlers have been conducting a campaign of lies and deceit for almost 4 years. nAll it took was a 90 minute debate in Denver for the people to realize that Obama has been taking them for fools. In Denver we saw the real Romney and the real Obama, and the contrast could not have been starker.