The flood of opinion polls that are being published this week continues to provide a confusing picture of the presidential election. But there is one thing about them on which most people agree: President Obama does not appear to have gotten a bounce in the wake of the second presidential debate. Even the most optimistic of liberal pundits, such as the New York Times’ Nate Silver, whose “Five Thirty Eight Forecast” is still sticking with the president to win in November, concedes that it’s “hard to make the case that the polls have moved much toward Mr. Obama since Tuesday night’s debate in New York.” While he is hopeful that even a slight nudge toward the president could alter the race this late in the game, there’s little reason to believe this is the case. Nor is there any doubt that the only game-changing event in the last six weeks was Mitt Romney’s performance in the first debate in Denver. It was at that point that the polls started shifting in the Republican’s direction. Though Romney made a number of mistakes in the second debate and Obama put on a better show after a drowsy performance in Denver, the electorate was largely unmoved.
No debate bounce means it is even more unlikely that the third debate to be held on Monday in Boca Raton, Florida will move the needle much no matter what happens. Though each camp hopes for a rout for their man, Obama’s failure to gain ground after the encounter on Long Island means a bounce of any size for the president or Romney after the third debate is not in the cards. That’s bad news for Democrats who are still looking for something that will alter the direction of a campaign that has been steadily looking worse for them this month.
That is especially true since Monday’s debate will focus on foreign policy. Foreign and defense issues are the president’s most important responsibility but given the failing economy, they are not at the top of most voters minds this year.
Romney tends to flounder when talking about anything but the economy, but in contrast to his blunders on Libya that let Obama off the hook at Hofstra, it is probable that he will come prepared with pointed and accurate criticisms of the administration’s Benghazi fiasco as well its failures on Iran. President Obama’s only effective foreign policy argument is that Osama bin Laden is dead, but since Libya shows that Al Qaeda is alive and well that point doesn’t have as much punch as it did a couple of months ago. But even if it did, at this point it is fair to wonder whether anything said tomorrow night would have much electoral significance.
The race is still very tight and neither side has any reason to believe that it is home free or doomed. But the trend in the national polls, especially those that are not skewed by unrepresentative samples of the electorate, is in Romney’s favor. He has done less well in swing state polls, but even in those polls there appears to be a shift in his favor as Ohio tightens up and Florida, Virginia and North Carolina all look to be less hopeful for the president than they were only a few weeks ago. If this trend holds, that makes Obama’s chances for re-election look far less rosy than Silver’s optimistic forecast would have it.
"Rosy Glow"?! If only. Silver does rate Obama a 2-1 favorite as of today, but that's just today and today only, a snapshot of the race if the election was held today. But today isn't Nov. 6, nor anywhere near. Otherwise I agree with your assessment of Obama's chances at this point, they don't look good at all. I expect a Romney win by substantial margins. Even a "landslide" whatever that really means, 5-6% Popular 2-1 in the EC, the same estimate I made 3 weeks ago, and I'm no rocket scientist.
If Monday's debate starts with China, I just hope they are all wearing boxing gloves. nI still have no idea why Romney continues to hammer away on 'China as currency manipulator'. nIt is too much to wish for that Schieffer will start with PM Netanyahu's announcement of 800 new apartments in Gilo – giving Romney a chance to say "if you look at the map, Gilo is in South Jerusalem, east of the 1949 armistice line, which …" n nEven better would be to start with Pakistan – I have been wondering why Obama has been completely silent about Malala Yousefzai.
Currency manipulation takes manufacturing jobs from U.S. to China. That directly affects Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin — the manufacturing heartland. That's why it's a big issue.
aren't both guys hypocritical on China? is either man contemplating a fundamental shift from free-trade exchanges to aggressive protectionism, would either not use available mechanisms to contest Chinese practices where recognized international arbitration is available?
Yeah no matter who wins nothing real is going to be done by China. n nWe are in some weird symbiotic love hate relationship with China where if either of us collapses the other goes down with them. n nRomney will say Obama has been easy on Chinas cheating. Obama will say Romney made millions shipping jobs and factories to China. n nBoth will be correct and it will be a push. n n
If Romney does well, this debate could be devastating for Obama. Libya alone could sink him. Nowhere are Obama's failures and attempts at covering them up so obvious as in the realm of foreign policy. His hypocrisy, arrogance and incompetence are on full display, whether the subject is Iran, the Falklands, Israel, Egypt, Russia, Poland, Canada, the War on Terror. Unfortunately, most voters aren't overly interested in such things, but there is certainly no reason to expect that this debate could help Obama. If I were a Democrat I'd be praying, well, hoping, for a late season Cat 5 hurricane to pop up off the coast of Florida tonight.
Obama has a dismal foreign policy record. I have no idea how anyone, except those like him, who condemn America's super power role in the world or believe that global terror is not an important issue, can believe he is strong in foreign policy. Furthermore, undermining domestic production of oil and gas strengthens our enemies in the middle east and Venezuela. This should not be a hard sell for Romney.
One note on Nate Silver, since Mr. Tobin mentions him. Is it just me, or has he become pitifully partisan? Even a few months ago, I think, Republicans could look at his numbers and respect his objectivity. But now? If he is right, I'm the fool. But if he is wrong, I hope he disappears from respectable conversation in future election cycles.
That Silver is partisan is undeniable. All one needs to know is who employs him. n nThat he is pitifully so. Well, yes.
Silver admits to being a Dem partisan. Always has. I don't doubt that he tries his best to be accurate, but everything he does (and RCP too) is based on polls that might be measuring an unrepresentative sample of real turnout. If the real turnout is just 5 points more Republican than the polls tell us, then everyone's predictions are wrong. We won't know the truth until the election is over.
He doesn't deny he is a partisan but that doesn't change the fact that he is freaky accurate, or at least his computer program that calculates elections is. n nHe just wrote a book so if he shanks this election cycle he is going to be out millions of dollars vs. if he is right on. n nAlso the fact that both Silver and the Vegas betting odds are just about 66% Obama 33% Romney means he is pretty close to correct. n nI mean say what you want about the bias of various pundits, but the book makers in Vegas don't care. They are just trying to make money and be accurate. n nThose bookies make a bad call they lose HUGE sums of money so I doubt they are doing much "wishful thinking".
Silver leans Democrat, but his numbers don't. His numbers have zero human input. They come from a model which was created prior to the election cycle and hasn't changed since. The guy wants to get it right – like he did in 49/50 states and all 35 Senate races in 2008.
Nate Silver is obviously partisan, however, they only prediction that matters is his last one. I think he is floating Obama's number right now to help Obama's campaign, but I bet in the end he predicts a Romney victory to maintain his successful record.
I agree with much of the above, but I suspect you are onto something with your comment. Nobody will care what he was predicting three weeks out.
Doesn't seem to me that they're all that different on foreign policy. Slightly different versions of interventionism and the National Security State is all.
Plus, his approval number ticked down a point. n nPlus plus Rasmussen now has Romney up by two nationally (yesterday it was by one; the day before that they were tied). n nplus plus PLUS, Romney's lead in the battleground-states average is still four points. n nplus plus plus PLUS Rasmussen has Romney down by one in Ohio (yesterday it was by two). n nWhat do C-L-E-A-R T-R-E-N-D spell? n nUnlike Nate Silver even my dogs can tell the DOWN escalator from the UP.
PLUS PLUS PLUS PLUS PLUS Tagg Romney bought up the companies that own the voting machines in Ohio hehehe…
Sure if you cherrypick polls you can come up with a trend, but I can do that too. The IDP/TIPP poll has Obama +6. Fox News has Obama +3 in Ohio. SurveyUSA has Obama +1 in Florida. OMG Romney is dooomed! n nSee how that works? You can cut the smug.
I just finished reading Silver's latest NYT's opus. Just the most amazing compilation of wishful thinking impersonating sound statistical analysis on earth, I'd say. In EVERY survey he discusses, this genius assumes Democratic participation rates at or above 2008 levels. It's as if he's thinking, "Well, I'M still voting for Obama," so that's good enough to settle that question. Plus, as far as I can tell, he STILL hasn't re-normed for party affiliation in October (it's October 21st, einstein) anywhere. He's assuming that the debates—that means all of them—changed NO ONE's willingness to tell a pollster that he's a Republican.
"I just finished reading Silver's latest NYT's opus." nAnadessma, there ought to be an award for that. I'll trust your summary – haven't got the stomach for him anymore. Used to like reading his stuff, but if I want wishful thinking I can talk to myself.
The oversampling thing is a conspiracy theory, and you clearly haven't read Silver's articles, because if you did you would understand why you are fundamentally misunderstanding the idea of 'oversampling'. The pollsters, save Rasmussen, do not weight for party id. And he is not being optimistic or in the tank for Obama or any such thing. He has a vested interest in being right. Dick Morris and all the other 'oversampling' conspiracy theory folks do not, because y'all will watch them no matter what.
I have misunderstood exactly nothing. Silver is NOT a pollster. He is an analyst, and what he analyzes are polls that definitely DO weight for party ID, dozens of them, so who are you trying to kid?
for sure, trends of stated party affiliation changing over time would have to be considered before pulling 2008 out of your … hat and using that as the basis to weight your polls–insisting on skewing results to accommodate a model in which the same percentage of Dems vote as voted in 2008
Early voting is up and the early voters in FL, IA, and NC are all very favorable Obama numbers. Doesn't mean enthusiasm is up. It probably isn't. It might have more to do with Obama's vastly superior GOTV operation. n nDoesn't mean Obama will win FL or NC. But don't be surprised if he wins one of them. And he looks like he'll win Iowa because of early GOTV. n nThat's why it's tough to beat even a weak incumbent. As a challenger you don't have the luxury of setting around for two years building a ground game. n
You are not reading all of Silver's analysis. He is a numbers guy who happens to be a liberal, but he is still a numbers guy. Nate explains that a segment of Republicans from 2008 are now self-identifying themselves to pollsters as independents. This has the mathematical effect of decreasing Republican self-identification and increasing Democratic self-identification.
You are waaay too charitable towards Mr. Silver, in my opinion. Precisely how many Candy Crowley moments, when the mask of objectivity is allowed to slip off because the need to intervene becomes clear, must we gape at in order to know with certainty that we trust ANYONE at the the New York Times or CNN etc. or extend to them the benefit of the doubt ONLY at the risk of sense and sanity? n nSilver is a partisan whore full stop. That he predicted the results of the 2008 election is so far from elevating him out of the muck of the journalistic brothel on W. 40th St. that it amounts to misdirection to bring up this putative expertise as proving anything. How much of acumen or insight did it require to predict victory after victory for Democrats in 2008? n nUnderstand this and depend on it: The liberal press, from the headline writers to the book reviewers and cooking-page contributors, have their instructions by heart. As with Ms. Crowley, an urgent need to intervene ad lib is clear to all of them, and that includes Bob Schieffer most definitely. n nORDER NUMBER ONE, Highest Possible Priority: Stop Democratic Party panic by any means necessary. Right now, today, that means GO AFTER THE POLLS AND THE POLLSTERS. The enemy here is candor. [Axelrod, Plouffe, and Cutter know that. They've been clobbering Gallup with hammer and tongs for a month now. What makes you believe Silver doesn't and wouldn't? He's dismissed Gallup, hasn't he? Hmmm.] n nORDER NUMBER TWO, Highest Possible Priority/Urgency: Make the Libya scandal incomprehensible. Render it as mystifying as the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. The enemy here is clarity. [The Times in particular is all in on that one. Candy anyone?] n nOut-and-out deceptive intent is quite unnecessary for a man on a mission. The boundary dividing delusion from duty can be remarkably indistinct. Once you've decided, as nearly every liberal I have ever known has affirmed, that as a matter of conscience you are committed to politics as the means to "save" the country—or the world, for aught I know—then doing your job to the best of your ability will always COME IN SECOND. Even though, properly considered, doing one's job competently is the absolute best means of furthering the political health of the nation, doing one's job may still go knit when there's a presidential election in the balance.
A strong continental defense, a clampdown on immigration and a protective tariff would work at least as well as interventionism, whether humanitarian à la BHO or democratist à la Bush 43.
that's all fine but Ron Paul's defense of a confederacy of states converts continental defense into an absolute inability to project force, ditto for Obama's projected cut in deployable Naval vessels–you can't retreat to within your own borders without being forced to fight on your own home ground–even the Confederacy's and arguably the United State's greatest general until the modern area felt compelled to fight on the enemy's side of the 50 yard line. Gettysburg was outside the geographical borders of Confederate continental defense but for his defense, Lee felt a sweeping pincer movement through Pennsylvania was indispensable. n nTaking Longstreet's vindication for what it is worth in the decimation of the Army of Virginia at Pickett's Charge, nevertheless, maintaining the ability to project power beyond your continental borders was one important reboot from the Articles of Confederacy, an inward-looking confederation to an outward looking Union. n nThere may be no good answers here–just tradeoffs and and more optimal or less optimal paths. n nProtective tariffs have a sketchy historical success rate, they cause regional tensions within the United States if there are tariff disparities, as in the perceived discrimination against Southern agricultural commodities vis a vis Northern products, one contributing factor to the coming of the Civil War. n nimo the dream of a strong continental defense without the ability to project force beyond your borders to secure the access routes to your continent is a chimera. Sadly, force can also be introduced across America's borders by ICBMs and the lines between offense and defensive deterrent is a continuing problem of crisis management. n nI don't know why even the professional military have bought into counter-insurgency nation building with as much enthusiasm as they implement anti-terrorist operations…but they have as far as we can tell.
I don't want to reprise my role as Commentary's political grim reaper, but please show some perspective on the present state of the race. Sure, Romney's improvement has been encouraging. But this race if FAR, FAR from over, and admittedly as confusing as the poll numbers are, and, more specifically, as bias one can accuse Silver of being, these are not sources that are whistling in the dark. Romney's electoral path, though improved, is still a difficult and narrow one. Again, today that path is more hopeful than two weeks ago. Tomorrow and the next two weeks? Let's wait at least until election night before we break out our favorite celebratory beverage.
tsssk….tsssk…there you go again…… Well, no one is breaking out any champagne yet and I, for one, will have gnawed my nails to their roots before November 6 is over.That said, it is comforting to see the polls move in Romney's direction, rather than Obama's, which is what happened in August and September. It will be a close election but it is a lot more credible today to say that Romeny may win than it was four weeks ago….
Sorry, Michaelmas12, but, as the late, great Flip Wilson used to say, "the devil made me do it." I think, though, we are in agreement.
I have been saying this for a while now. This one is going to be down to the wire, no doubt. The Democrat forte is the low information voter. Get them registered and voted early for the Democrats so they can't change their minds before they have time to think. Our primary question is, are there enough reasonable , thinking people left who have waited to vote who will ultimately overcome that onslaught? Only election night might tell. If there are narrow victories in a hand full of swing states, then look for either side to launch legal battles, potentially delaying a win for some time.
this may all be churn full of statistical noise of the foam on top of what is essentially the deep currents of a 50-50 split when the electorate must vote in our 2-party environment. n nat least the foam is breaking to Romney's side of the wake, but for sure, Obama could pull-out a Bush 2000-style electoral college victory.
Romney is leading in the battleground States and that is what is important.
if you want Romnney, as I do, I think you face a serious strategic question in the debate: do you want to demolish Obama with facts [like in Libya], even though some of the criticisms and highly personal–and take the chance of scaring off those 2008 Obama voters [especially women] who still like Obama and are guilty about abandoning him, or, take it a bit easier and not press your advantage at this point. those of us whose hearts say "pin him to the wall" should perhaps reflect whether this makes sense
I strongly agree with your caution. The last thing Romney should do is to imply that he is blaming Obama for the deaths of Americans. At all costs, Romney must avoid Obama setting a trap for him so he, Obama, can act as the offended, grieved president who had to stand next to the caskets; an imagery he exploited in the second debate. Criticism of Obama and Libya must be done within the context of leadership, security and the necessity of providing proper information to the American public. It's a finesse argument and can be very effective. After watching Romney in two debates(I thought he won the second, in spite of some of the polls), I'm confident that he can pull it off.
Obama had to stand next to the coffins because his ideology and/or a totally dysfunctional national security team put his diplomats inside them, despite their repeated pleadings over and over and over backed by security professionals for protection. If that point can't be made then nothing else sticks. And this only notes his performance on Benghazi. Romney has stated that Obama's entire Middle Eastern foreign policy is in flames/collapse. That's his message. He better back that up with blaming Obama for *some (big) failure he can point to* or the premise collapses and this debate joins the 2nd as a whiff.
Step on his throat!
What Romney can do–without wading into the weeds of the two week timeline of Obama's public shift from terrorist act, to extreme elements hijacking a video protest, back to we-always-said-it-was-terrorism–is to nail down Obama on the reality that it *was* a terrorist attack on an AQ-affiliate, that his promise to "find the facts" can't obscure the facts already known, that his security management failed and an American consulate was overrun. Osama is dead is just a slogan. AQ is not just "remnants" and the President needs to be an adult. n nimo those people who claim to be "undecided" at this point are either Obama voters are too low-information to worry about. n nbut I don't see how you make the case of a security failure without making Obama "responsible" for their deaths. He is. Romney held his fire and most people thought he lost that second debate.
The debate may be about foreign policy, but I don't expect Obama to stay there. Romney has to be prepared for Obama going into domestic policy too, especially in his closing statements.
We have "stress tested" our model (electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu) around Ohio, the lynchpin state for Romney to win the election. Romney can win the White House without Ohio, but the vectors are fraught with significant uncertainty. Obama can protect his position by holding Ohio, even as Florida and Virginia slip away. That is why our web site still shows Obama with such a high probability of winning. Most state probabilities should be close to zero and one (which is why 538.com was right on all but one state in 2008, as were we (election08.cs.illinois.edu)). If Ohio moves to the right, the probabilities will flip significantly. See electionanalytics.cs.illinois.edu for the current snapshot (updated daily).
Someone should be playing Romney's Al Smith Dinner remarks over and over and over and over. n nThe man was and is golden. n n
he KILLED. he reminded me of Johnny Carson. who knew Mitt had such good comedic timing?
who doesn't like dogs?
or escalators? n n
Obama lying about the 4 dead Americans and calling it a bump in the road before heading to Vegas to raise cash says all anyone should need to not vote for him.
Nice to see that Nate Silvers, who is a smart and informative guy, is finally being recognized as biased. He places his thumb on the scale in favor of the democrat until right at the end, when he adjusts the numbers to reality so as to be able to claim he was corrrect.
Romney is toast.
Mr President what is the capital of Israel?
that should be the first question.
Romney has a clear message to deliver that will play to his strengths (the economy) and Oharken back to Reagan's best, while at the same time show Obama's weakness. Romney needs to make the simple case that a strong economy allows the country to be strong in its relations abroad. This also ties into the case for promoting free markets/free peoples. n nOne other side light where Romney could score would be to endorse educational and political freedoms for Muslim women. Obama and his team have been noticeably silent on this, including in the aftermath of the Taliban's shooting of the 14-year-old Pakistani girl because she was advocating for the education of girls in her country. Talk about a war on women.
Romney has no clear message. He has held diametrically opposite positions on all the key issues at one time or another. He has even reversed himself since the GOP debates! His main attraction is that his VP is not an imbecile with a high school education, and that's unfortunately good enough for the racist two-thirds of white voters. That's why Obama will lose.
Gallup has been an outlier, as has IBD/TIPP. It's definitely neither +7 Romney nor +6 Obama.
The race is not close, and this is a great opportunity for Romney to score points.
Romney should bring up the scandals with his security agents as just one more example of his poor leadership. There was little to no discipline in many departments.
For Mike and other critics of Nate Silver. Yes, he s Pro-Obama, but he uses DATA and mathematical modeling in his forecasts. I am sorry it is not showing what you want (Romney ahead). Time will tell if he is off or not, but I believe 538 is the most accurate analysis out there (like it or not)
Romney needs to use imagery: Barry bowing to foreign leaders, Obama whispering a message to Putin's rep that he'll have more flexibility after the election, Barry kowtowing at the UN and cuddling up with Chavez. Romney needs to pound him very hard about Benghazi, and try to provoke him to show his "angry" face. It won't be pretty. Then there's Israel and the fact that Obama hasn't visited. Too busy playing golf…
If anybody thought for a second that Obama would get a bounce out of the 2nd debate today's Gallup and Rasmussen polls ended any hope of that. After drthere wopping 1 point to a 6 point Romney lead on Saturday, today (Sunday) it went back up to a 7 point lead. Rasmussen had dropped from a 2 pont lead to a tie than up by 1, but today Romney was back up by 2, and that is a 3 day tracking poll which means there was no bump. What is happening is that the American people have taken the measure of both men, and found Obama wanting. Obama has given us 4 years of UNEMPLOYMENT, DEBT, Decline, and Misery. What they've seen now is a failed President, with NO PLAN, to make anything better who has decided to try and win by diving into the sewer and running the nastiest, most silly campaign in history. Gov Romney has shown the American people that he has A PLAN for the future. A PLAN to restore GROWTH and JOBS to our country and make us proud again. So the American people are deciding that it is time to reject arrogance and failure and vote for change for a better future!
"Romney tends to flounder when talking about anything but the economy, but in contrast to his blunders on Libya that let Obama off the hook at Hofstra". n nRomney didn't blunder on Libya! So why say it? n nCandy wrongly interjected and almost immediately stated that Romney had got it right. n nIt was all over the media for 2 days and the last thing that the liberal media wanted was to try and explain why it took Team Obama over a week to admit that it was a terror attack.
Reasonably obvious to those who read. But thanks for saying so, we can always read it verbatim to those who don't read.
I am just so thankful to Heavenly Father that Born Agains and Evangelicals have finally accepted us LDS as legitimate members of the Christian Community! It means so much to to be accepted as a mainstream Church. I know that George Washington is somewhere in the Celestial Realm and will be smiling down on Mitt as he takes his oath of office on the Book of Mormon. God Bless America!
I expect over 60% of whites to vote against Obama this year. The figure was 55% in 2008. The reason, political correctness aside, is race. It has nothing to do with Obama's performance or the issues faced by the country. I would guess 5% to 10% of whites voted for Obama in 2008 only because they were scared of a Palin presidency. That issue is moot now. White Americans are not yet ready for a black or a female President — even though I personally am.
Everyone…stop watching the popular vote polls so much. Start following the electoral count. Romney is doing well, but still has his work cut out for him! Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, & Virginia are the states to watch! And now maybe Penn? One can only pray. Look at voting histories for those states as well. I like that Real clear politics takes the latest 3 or so polls by everyone & averages them. They may be including some polls that are skewed toward Obama, but I would rather have that than to be over confident.