Democrats are counting on President Obama getting some kind of a bounce in opinion polls as a result of the fact that he did better in the second presidential debate than he did in the first one. But looking at the latest round of polls of the presidential race, he had better hope so. The latest Gallup tracking poll that measures opinion over the period of October 11-17 shows the president trailing Mitt Romney by a shocking seven points at 52-45 percent.
This is the biggest Romney lead in any poll all year. That will cause Democrats to dismiss it as an outlier. But it should be remembered that liberals spent most of the spring, summer and the early fall praising Gallup as the more accurate of the two most well known national tracking polls since it had consistently produced more favorable results for Obama than Rasmussen. But right now they are praying that Rasmussen, rather than the old favorite Gallup, is the more accurate since currently it shows Romney holding only a two-point lead. The assumption is that Obama’s better debate showing will improve these numbers in the coming days. But he’s going to need a sizable bounce and sustain it by besting Romney in next week’s foreign policy debate if he’s going to be re-elected. If the bounce is less than the one that Romney got for his far more one-sided victory in the first debate, then pundits may begin to conclude that the arc of the campaign has already been decided. Nothing less than a major shift by next week will indicate that Romney has seized a lead that he may never relinquish.
The key point about the Gallup poll is not just the size of Romney’s lead but the fact that it puts him over 50 percent for two consecutive days (he led by 51 to 45 percent for the period of Oct. 9-16). That should alarm the Obama campaign since it demonstrates not only a widening gap between the two candidates but Romney’s ability to break through into a solid majority of the national vote. If he manages to stay at this level, it is almost certain that his heretofore-shaky poll numbers in many of the important swing states will begin to show similar improvement.
Those counting on an Obama bounce this week should be worried about the fact that their hopes for an improvement in the president’s standing in the aftermath of the debate last week between Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan were disappointed. It was assumed that Biden would, at the very least, stop the Democratic bleeding since the first Obama-Romney debate and stabilize the race. But the vice president’s supposed victory (at least in the eyes of the Democratic base that cheered his boorish behavior) did no such thing as the Republican lead has grown rather than shrunk. Unless the president has fundamentally altered the arc of the campaign with his performance on Tuesday, it’s going to be a long and depressing slog to November 6 for his followers.
The Romney camp has been doing something very clever. They are running ads featuring Romney talking at the second debate. In other words, the ads are giving the impression that he won the debate. Remember, the snap polls which showed Obama the winner, showed Obama losing decisively on the all-important economic issues. This is a very good sign.
ATT – earlier today I got a couple of uncharacteristically optimistic emails from my brother, and now I read this cheery post from you. Maybe things are really looking up for Romney!
Mike, I'm only cheery because, rather than being optimistic, I'm just less pessimistic.
I'll take it!
Obama has been in office to long to get a "bounce" from anything. Even killing OBL got him a "bounce" of only a week or two. Romney wins in a landslide.
That's the thing, what is Obummer going to run on? Elect me for four more years so I can finish running the country into the ground the rest of the way?
For the first time I'm hearing Romney ads (attack ads) here in Central Wisconsin. That's the first time EVER, and I listen to the radio three hours a day. Romney's people must be sensing a clear opportunity here, and of course the glove that fits that particular hand is that the Democrats must be sensing a State they are counting on slipping away. n nThe question I have is "What has taken Romney so long?" I keep pretty up to date on Wisconsin politics, and in my opinion the State has been the Republicans for the asking since at least the recall election of June 4th.
Glad to hear that from somewhere on the ground. Wish I could say the same about your old stomping ground, Oregon. I think it will be reasonably close, but I see no evidence of a surprise ending. nYet.
I agree with you especially after Walker won two elections in a blue state.
CNN, desperately trying to defend itself after the Candy debacle, has now issued a statement saying that even though Obama spoke for more minutes at the two debates Romney said more words. They had a computer count the words. (The program apparently doesn't count ums and uhs. Or grandma.) nHow pathetic. These guys are getting desperate, desperate, desperate. Fools.
Yes, and will someone PULEEZE explain to me why it is CNN's job during a debate to ensure that each man gets to say an equal number of words???
I saw that live. Romney was REALLY funny. n nI would have loved to see Obama's face. Mr. Thin skin could not have enjoyed that. n n'Brought to you by the letter 'O', and the number 16 trillion.' -Outstanding! Hilarious!
May he stay in that groove into the White House.
He's going on Letterman again. For a bounce I guess. How unseemly (and transparent) is that to invite only one of two Presidential candidates? The media knows no shame. n
Does anyone still watch Letterman? Letterman is not going to sway anyone to change their vote, at this point. n nIn some dark recess of his mind, Obama must be starting to realize this may be the end of the ride.
Well, he also just likes being a celebrity. Being fa-mous. People have said it before, wouldn't the part of being President he really likes be a whole lot easier if he didn't, you know, actually have to be President? But who knew? He's a bitter clinger.
Bully for him. Nothing like associating with an outdated snarky jerk appreciated only by a shrinking pool of embittered lefties. Wait…am I talking about Letterman or Obama? Can't remember and makes no diff.
What about Ohio?
Over one week ago I called this election for Romney.
Let me just make mention of one thing. Obama does not care about getting any bounces. With experience with the deaf community, I have been trained to read body language, quite reliably. It is my belief that Mr. Obama does not really wish to be re-elected. He wants to be an ex president like Clinton and his mentor Carter. He will make more money as an ex-president and have more fun. He does not being sequestered with the secret service in a federal lock down as he probably sees it. The problem was that he could not refuse to run, he has to lose. No, he is happy with the thoughts of the royalties from lectures and books, honoraria etc he has coming to him. Too many problems Obama now knows he has no clue how to solve; who need them let Romny face the problems, Obama cares more about Obama.
BTW Hilary is absolutely finished. Bengazi Gate will consume her, and there is not a darn thing she can do about it.
To Team Romney: “You’re sitting in the catbird seat.”
There certainly have been times where I've noticed that candidates do not seem to want to win. (For example, I still wonder about McCain and Giuliani in the primaries 4 years ago.) I don't get that impression with Obama. Yes he is certainly looking forward to the perks of being an ex-President. But his goal was to transform American politics. He hasn't done that yet. nI think his biggest problem was believing the MSM.
It's probably not proper to say a comedic performance was stunningly brilliant, but as some of you mentioned, Romney's performance last night was, well……….stunningly brilliant. You really felt that you were watching a much superior candidate who has it all; including much better aides to write that stuff.
Obama was small by comparison. Romney looked GOOD.
I was listening to the radio this morning and the host had one John Dickerson from NBC. Dickerson was saying that the Gallup poll was an outlier (just as Jonathan observed above) and that the Romney probably didn't buy it either. Fine. nBut then he mentioned that there were problems with Gallup's model. As you recall Gallup changed its model in middle of the campaign to include a higher percentage of minorities! In other words the question that Dickerson brought up was to Romney's detriment. Dickerson for sure knows that. So not only was he minimizing the importance of the Gallup poll, he did so dishonestly. nIf Romney wins – and especially if he wins decisively (which I think will be the case) – the media will take another hit to their credibility. Going back to 2000, the bias has been really bad. What's astonishing is how awful and obvious it has become.