by Darryl, 09/23/2012, 4:33 PM
Obama Romney
100.0% probability of winning 0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 331 electoral votes Mean of 207 electoral votes

Electoral College Map

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Lousiana Maine Maryland Massachusettes Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Electoral College Map

Georgia Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Connecticut Florida Mississippi Alabama Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia D.C. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

I’ve finally succumbed to the pressure of “doing something about South Carolina.” The last straw was Goldy harassing me over the phone for the umpteenth time this past week. So, I caved and changed the inclusion criteria for states lacking “current polls.” Note that I did not simply drop the vexing S.C. poll, but the new inclusion criteria means that when there are no current polls, multiple old polls will be pooled.

Here is what I have been doing: If a state does not have a “current poll”, I use the single most recent poll available. Right now, the definition of “current poll” is any poll taken over the past month (this “window” will shrink as the election approaches and the pace of polling increases).

That simple rule worked pretty well in 2008. But a single, large poll in South Carolina has plagued these analyses since late last year. The poll is perfectly valid, and might even be correct in giving Obama an 85% probability of winning the state. But it is quite old, and there are other slightly older polls in the state that contradict it. What’s an analyst to do?

I modified a suggestion from Richard Pope and used an inclusion window for older polls, the length of which depends on how old the most recent poll is. Here his the new rule set:

  1. Use only polls taken in the “current polling window” (one month, right now)
  2. If the most recent poll is outside the current polling window and less than 3 months old, use that poll and any others taken over the prior two weeks
  3. if the most recent poll is 3-6 months old, use that polls and any others from the prior month
  4. if the most recent poll is 6-9 months old, use that poll and any other from the prior three months
  5. if the most recent poll is 9-12 months old, use that poll and any other from the prior six months
  6. if the most recent poll is more than a year old, use that poll and any other from the prior year

There are several disadvantages of this new rule set: First, it is complicated. As you know, I strive to minimize arbitrary assumptions in the methods, but now I’ve gone and added a complex, arbitrary rule. Yuck. Another disadvantage is that the new rules will tend to overestimate the winning certainty for states with multiple old polls included in an analysis. On the other hand, a state that hasn’t been polled in a long time probably hasn’t been polled much, so most of the time the single most recent poll will still be used. South Carolina is an exception. There were a bunch of polls taken late last year. I believe this happened because there was “piggyback” polling of the general election by pollsters covering the contentious G.O.P. primary in that state.

Okay…so let’s get to it. Just three days ago the analysis had President Barack Obama leading Gov. Mitt Romney by 336 to 202 electoral votes. The results suggested that, if an election was held now, Obama would almost certainly win.

In the three days since my previous analysis, there have been some 19 new polls (plus, I am including an old poll, previously overlooked). Here are the polls:

start end sample % % %
st poll date date size MOE O R diff
AZ Purple Poll 15-Sep 19-Sep 600 4.0 45 48 R+3
CA PPIC 09-Sep 16-Sep 995 4.4 53 39 O+14
CO Purple Poll 15-Sep 19-Sep 600 4.0 48 45 O+3
CO Marist 16-Sep 18-Sep 971 3.1 50 45 O+5
FL Mason-Dixon 17-Sep 19-Sep 800 3.5 48 47 O+1
FL Purple Poll 15-Sep 19-Sep 600 4.0 47 48 R+1
GA InsiderAdvangage 18-Sep 18-Sep 483 4.5 35 56 R+21
IA Marist 16-Sep 18-Sep 898 3.3 50 42 O+8
NE Wiese Res 17-Sep 20-Sep 800 3.5 40 51 R+11
NE2 Wiese Res 17-Sep 20-Sep 400 4.9 44 44 tie
NC Purple Poll 15-Sep 19-Sep 600 4.0 48 46 O+2
NC High Point 08-Sep 18-Sep 448 4.7 48 44 O+4
OH Purple Poll 15-Sep 19-Sep 600 4.0 48 44 O+4
OH FOX News 16-Sep 18-Sep 1009 3.0 49 42 O+7
OH Ohio Poll 13-Sep 18-Sep 861 3.3 51 45 O+6
OH Gravis Marketing 07-Sep 08-Sep 1548 2.7 47.3 43.2 O+4.1
PA Rasmussen 19-Sep 19-Sep 500 4.5 51 39 O+12
SD Neilson Brothers 29-Aug 06-Sep 512 4.3 38.7 53.9 R+15.2
VA Purple Poll 15-Sep 19-Sep 600 4.0 46 43 O+3
WI Marist 16-Sep 18-Sep 968 3.2 50 45 O+5

The race seems to tighten in Arizona where Romney just squeaks by with a +3%. Also, this is the first time since early June that Romney has been under 50%.

On the other hand, California tightens as well. Obama gets +14% where he used to pull in the low +20%.

Another pair of Colorado polls go to Obama, who leads in seven of the eight current polls, and seems to have a 91% chance of taking the state (in an election held now).

Florida gives each candidate a poll, by +1%. From twelve polls pooled over the past month, the ~11,000 responses go to Obama 50.8% of the time and to Romney 49.2% of the time. That translates into an 88% probability that Obama would win the state now.

The good news for Romney is that Georgia shows the strongest result for him this year.

Iowa has a strong +8% result for Obama. This poll was taken slightly before the Rasmussen poll I included last analysis that had Romney up by +3%. Even so, with Obama taking two of the three current polls, Obama would seem to have an 89% chance of taking the state right now.

We finally have some polling in Nebraska, where Romney bests Obama by +11%. That the good news for Romney. Recall that Nebraska assigns one elector to the winner of each CD, and the overall state winner gets the other two electors. The bad news for Romney is that Nebraska’s second congressional district polls at a 44% tie. Obama won NE-2 in 2008 and may do it again! (The polling report mentions that Romney has a solid lead in the other two CD’s, but the numbers are not given; instead, an older poll is used for those two CDs. Romney leads in both.)

Two new North Carolina polls go to Obama by small margins. Even so, Romney has led in five of nine current polls (and there was a tie). Overall, the pooled polls favor Romney with an 83% probability of winning an election held now.

With the three new Ohio polls, Obama has a streak of eight consecutive poll leads in the state. Obama won 99% of the simulated elections in the state.

A double-digit lead for Obama in the newest Pennsylvania poll. Obama has won all four of the state’s current polls.

South Dakota gives Romney his first double digit SC lead of the year.

Like Ohio, the new Virginia poll gives Obama a streak of eight consecutive poll leads in the state. But Obama only won 95% of the simulated elections in Virginia.

The new Wisconsin poll means Obama leads in all five current polls, and gives Obama a very high probability of taking the state (in a hypothetical election held now).

After a Monte Carlo analysis with 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 100,000 times and Romney wins 0 times. Obama receives (on average) 331 to Romney’s 207 electoral votes. Obama has a 100.0% probability of winning and Romney has a 0.0% probability of winning. And that is with South Carolina going to Romney 95% of the time.

Using the new “old poll inclusion criteria,” here is the picture of the race over time:
ObamaRomney23Sep11-23Sep12ex

Hmmm…it looks pretty much like the old one that used the simple “single most recent” rule.


Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:

Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:

  • 335 electoral votes with a 8.79% probability
  • 336 electoral votes with a 8.47% probability
  • 332 electoral votes with a 5.94% probability
  • 331 electoral votes with a 5.07% probability
  • 329 electoral votes with a 4.09% probability
  • 330 electoral votes with a 3.81% probability
  • 326 electoral votes with a 2.85% probability
  • 325 electoral votes with a 2.77% probability
  • 334 electoral votes with a 2.64% probability
  • 338 electoral votes with a 2.61% probability

After 100,000 simulations:

  • Obama wins 100.0%, Romney wins 0.0%.
  • Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 331.4 (13.2)
  • Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 206.6 (13.2)
  • Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 333 (299, 354)
  • Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 205 (184, 239)

Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):

Threshold Safe + Strong + Leans + Weak
Safe Obama 187
Strong Obama 102 289
Leans Obama 46 46 335
Weak Obama 1 1 1 336
Weak Romney 0 0 0 202
Leans Romney 19 19 202
Strong Romney 133 183
Safe Romney 50

This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.

0 0 EC # Total % % Obama Romney
8 4 Votes polls Votes Obama Romney % wins % wins
AL 9 1* 558 36.6 63.4 0.0 100.0
AK 3 0* (0) (100)
AZ 11 2 1521 46.5 53.5 2.8 97.2
AR 6 1* 679 36.8 63.2 0.0 100.0
CA 55 3 2219 60.6 39.4 100.0 0.0
CO 9 8 5929 51.2 48.8 91.3 8.7
CT 7 2 1859 55.6 44.4 100.0 0.0
DE 3 0 (100) (0)
DC 3 1* 94 88.3 11.7 100.0 0.0
FL 29 12 10968 50.8 49.2 87.6 12.4
GA 16 1 439 38.5 61.5 0.0 100.0
HI 4 1* 517 64.8 35.2 100.0 0.0
ID 4 0* (0) (100)
IL 20 2 2277 58.8 41.2 100.0 0.0
IN 11 1* 344 40.7 59.3 1.0 99.0
IA 6 3 2426 51.7 48.3 89.0 11.0
KS 6 2* 1143 39.4 60.6 0.0 100.0
KY 8 1 557 42.4 57.6 0.6 99.4
LA 8 1* 542 41.1 58.9 0.2 99.8
ME 2 2 1533 58.7 41.3 100.0 0.0
ME1 1 1 412 63.3 36.7 100.0 0.0
ME2 1 1 364 53.8 46.2 84.9 15.1
MD 10 1* 792 62.4 37.6 100.0 0.0
MA 11 5 2768 62.8 37.2 100.0 0.0
MI 16 8 6619 52.7 47.3 99.9 0.1
MN 10 2 1278 54.2 45.8 98.3 1.7
MS 6 1* 717 40.0 60.0 0.0 100.0
MO 10 2 1049 45.8 54.2 2.5 97.5
MT 3 1 623 47.4 52.6 18.0 82.0
NE 2 1 728 44.0 56.0 1.0 99.0
NE1 1 1* 389 45.5 54.5 10.6 89.4
NE2 1 1 352 50.0 50.0 50.1 49.9
NE3 1 1* 284 35.9 64.1 0.0 100.0
NV 6 3 1971 51.4 48.6 82.7 17.3
NH 4 3 1408 50.6 49.4 63.7 36.3
NJ 14 4 3185 56.0 44.0 100.0 0.0
NM 5 2 1633 54.8 45.2 99.7 0.3
NY 29 1 1426 64.6 35.4 100.0 0.0
NC 15 9 6154 49.1 50.9 16.6 83.4
ND 3 1 918 53.8 46.2 95.4 4.6
OH 18 10 9163 51.7 48.3 99.0 1.0
OK 7 1* 431 33.4 66.6 0.0 100.0
OR 7 1 499 54.9 45.1 93.5 6.5
PA 20 4 2662 54.8 45.2 100.0 0.0
RI 4 1* 495 59.4 40.6 99.9 0.1
SC 9 3* 4199 48.2 51.8 5.4 94.6
SD 3 1 474 41.8 58.2 0.4 99.6
TN 11 1* 654 46.0 54.0 6.6 93.4
TX 38 1 950 42.1 57.9 0.0 100.0
UT 6 1* 1149 27.7 72.3 0.0 100.0
VT 3 1* 415 71.3 28.7 100.0 0.0
VA 13 10 9827 51.2 48.8 95.4 4.6
WA 12 4 1859 58.3 41.7 100.0 0.0
WV 5 1 361 42.1 57.9 1.8 98.2
WI 10 5 4202 53.5 46.5 99.9 0.1
WY 3 0 (0) (100)

* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).

Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.

32 Responses to “Poll Analysis: SC magically turns red!”

1. Serial Conservative spews:

Newly released PA poll has the MOE about twice the gap between the candidates:

Two percentage points separate President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in a state poll conducted for the Tribune-Review, even though the campaigns largely are ignoring Pennsylvania and concentrating on other battlegrounds.

Obama polled 47 percent to Romney’s 45 percent among likely Pennsylvania voters, with 6 percent of voters undecided and 44 days until Election Day, according to the survey by Susquehanna Polling & Research. The survey of 800 voters, conducted Sept. 18-20, has a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points. (Sorry – this should have been in italics as well.)

Read more: http://triblive.com/home/2641005-74/obama-percent-romney-poll-voters-pennsylvania-leads-lee-margin-points#ixzz27LzNm8hZ
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

2. Rujax!..."bob", puddypussy, maxeeeee, and the Cyniklown: "The League of Delusionaty Assholes" spews:

@1..

Yeah.

Raw-money is in great shape..

Yeahhhh buddy.

No way the President gets re-elected.

No way.

No how.

4. Rujax!..."bob", puddypussy, maxeeeee, and the Cyniklown: "The League of Delusionaty Assholes" spews:

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/20120922/conservatives-create-own-reality-claim-romney-landslide/

Conservatives Create Own Reality, Claim Romney Landslide

By National Confidential Staff

Published 22 September 2012 12:50 am EST Updated 23 September 2012 12:28 am EST

Dean Chambers

Conservatives are reacting to Mitt Romney’s failing campaign by creating their own reality.

The website “Unskewed Polls” claims that it is “erasing the bias to show an accurate picture of politics.” While other polling sources show an aggregate lead in national polls of about 2.6% for President Obama, the “unskewed polls” site shows Romney running away with the election by a whopping 7% of the vote.

Here’s a snapshot of “Unskewed Polls” view of the race — not a single poll in their mangling of the facts shows Obama in the lead:

Awww JeSUS fucking Christ!!

We’re SKEEEEE-ROOOOO-ED!

http://www.nationalconfidential.com/images/2012/09/unskewed-polls.jpg

(LO-fucking-L)

5. proud leftist spews:

I just spent a week in Montana. I saw a roughly equal number of signs for Ds and Rs. Coming across eastern Washington today, I didn’t see any signs for Ds. My conclusion, having spent too many formative years in eastern Washington, is that expressing yourself as a D there leads to retribution, economic if not otherwise. Rs retaliate. Ds don’t. Montanans are live and let live and let everyone express themselves.

6. Darryl spews:

Bob @ 1,

“Newly released PA poll has the MOE about twice the gap between the candidates:”

Cool! That poll will, of course, be in my next analysis.

Two things: First, the Rasmussen poll taken at the same time as the Susquehanna poll has Obama up by +12%! Both polls are likely in the tails of the sampling distribution; realistically Obama is probably up by something closer to +7% to +9%.

Second…you realize that, with this new poll, Obama now has a streak in PA of leading in 25 consecutive polls. Mitt hasn’t led in a PA poll since Feb.

You sound “hopeful” in your comment, but at this point, given the evidence offered by numerous PA polls, chances of Romney taking PA are vanishingly small.

7. proud leftist spews:

And, of course, Bob (are you still basking in the glow of your Golden Goat Award?), have you noticed that the Romney campaign is ignoring PA? That speaks volumes about whether PA is in play.

8. Richard Pope spews:

Historical polling statistics to ponder:

Ronald Reagan … trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980 [and then beat Carter by 10 points nine days later in the election] …

In 1968, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey all but erased a 12-point early-October deficit before losing narrowly to Richard M. Nixon. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore wiped out a seven-point deficit in the final 10 days of the election, winning the popular vote but [allegedly] losing the Electoral College to Mr. Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html

9. Tea for everyone spews:

With what this clown has done to this economy, and the 16.1 Trillion dollar deficit now on the backs of our children and grandchildren, not to mention the Welfare state and unemployment he is creating, why anyone would root for 4 more years of this yahoo is beyond me!

10. Benjamin spews:

Darryl: Please don’t give in to adding in more assumptions from now on. Your analyses won’t change, and you will lose sleep. Eventually, your analyses might even be less accurate! But hey, you would join the ranks with another analyst who writes for the TImes! tee hee

11. Puddybud spews:

Notice Romney had such a bad poll week Gallup has them within 2 points today. To Puddy, the 47 percent “gaffe” was another of those ginned up scrambles by the slobbering head up Obummer’s ASS libtard media that fizzled!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

12. Puddybud spews:

Obummer has time to meet the “The View” ladies but has no time to meet other world leaders. How telling of this preznit!

13. Puddybud spews:

This is where the slobbering head up Obummer’s ASS libtard media is in full spin mode to frame the polls! A great article on the Obummer Middle East mess!

Butt when you look at it from the time the European newspapers wrote about it until this sadministration admitted it, there wasn’t any “hesitation.” This lie was deliberate.

Even when Puddy put forth the Libyan President saying in his mind there was “absolutely no doubt” that the attack was premeditated and well organized, Obummer and Clinton used UN sadbassador Susan Rice on every Sunday talk shows last weekend to claim it was over some dumb movie. They foisted this false story even while their counter terrorism people knew otherwise and said so at a House committee. Then Carneybarker sez it was “self-evident” it was a “terrorist attack”! So what happened to the movie narrative… another Obummer sadministration lie.

Does the slobbering head up Obummer’s ASS libtard media tell the truth. No! The WaPo puts the story on page A8, basically hiding it so there is no poll shaping. Very telling of the slobbering head up Obummer’s ASS libtard media! In cover-up mode to help Obummer in the polls!

14. Serial conservative spews:

Darryl @ 6

First, the Rasmussen poll taken at the same time as the Susquehanna poll has Obama up by +12%!

I have zero comeback for that. Zero.

Is it possible that Rasmussen just outlier-polled away from Romney? My suspicion. But it really reinforces the blueness that seems to be PA. Please bring up this poll next time some HA lefty derides Rasmussen for bias.

Ads now running all over the place, the 47% comment seems to hurt Romney the same way the bitter-clingers comment hurt Obama, and Hillary’s got a bullseye on her right now over Libya. Obama just dissed Israel as noise, same as Iran’s president.

My only point insofar as the @ 1 poll data is concerned is to point out that some places are closer than one might think. PA won’t be a 12 point win or anything close to it. CO, NV, IA, NH, WI are all very much in play.

Your point about the long string of poll data in PA favoring Obama duly noted.

I don’t talk about Hope. We’ve had 3 1/2 years of it, and it sucks.

15. Serial conservative spews:

@ 5

I suppose we’re to believe that Montana is a more permissive conservative state because one leftist says he saw equal numbers of D and R signs while there.

Perhaps that’s because MT has a Senate seat in play and much more money is being spent per unit whatever there.

16. Darryl spews:

Bob @ 14,

“Is it possible that Rasmussen just outlier-polled away from Romney? My suspicion.”

Alternatively…the Susquhanna poll is the outlier in favor of Romney. Or, as I suggest above, they both are. The concensus percentage is a +7% to +9% Obama advantage.

“Please bring up this poll next time some HA lefty derides Rasmussen for bias.”

I’ve said it many times here…the Rasmussen state head-to-head polls are just fine (but smallish, which means they will more frequently have strange results).

The Rasmussen tracking polls, on the other hand, seem to have a systematic bias in favor of Rs by a couple percent. This isn’t necessarily bad as long as it is consistent, and it has been since at least 2004.

17. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

This is interesting, registration and census data…

From 1998 to 2011, the number of registered Republicans in Lehigh County fell from 75,099 to 73,857, while Democrats shot up from 78,002 to 107,594.
From 2000 to 2010, Lehigh County went from 83.2 percent non-Hispanic white to 70.7; from 3.6 percent African American to 7.7 percent; and, most significantly, from 10.2 percent Hispanic to 19.5 percent.

And..

Among southern working class whites, Romney leads by 40 points, 62-22, an extraordinary gap…In the Midwest, where Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin are in play, Obama actually leads among working class whites by 8 points (44-36).

From that same Public Religion Research Institute study…

Only 66 percent of white working-class Americans said they are certain to vote, compared to 87 percent of college-educated whites and 74 percent of African Americans.

Cap’n Crunch’s problem, in a nutshell…

The hope harbored by Republican political professionals — that Obama was sufficiently unpopular among non-college whites to make up for Romney’s shortcomings — has failed to take concrete form.

I keep asking for an affirmative argument for Romney, but perhaps there just isn’t one.

Buh-bye, Pennsylvania. Romney still has Georgia and Arkansas. And Texas, for now.

18. Darryl spews:

Bob @ 14

“My only point insofar as the @ 1 poll data is concerned is to point out that some places are closer than one might think.”

You look pretty foolish using a single poll, in a sea of polls, to attempt to make that point. Especially when you have all the rest of the polling in the past month right in front of you.

“PA won’t be a 12 point win or anything close to it.”

And, the evidence suggests it wouldn’t be O+2% or anything close to it, either. O+8% is what we would expect at this point.

“CO, NV, IA, NH, WI are all very much in play.”

CO: Funny you should mention that…last night PPP released a new CO poll that has Obama up by +6. That makes 9 CO polls in the past month and Romney has only led in one Rasmussen (i.e. small and therefore more variable) poll.

NV: Less than 20% chance. Obama has led in all 3 recent polls by small margins.

IA: 11% chance

NH: Yep…that’s 4 EVs in play!

WI: Maybe WI is in play in some parallel universe, but not this one. Have you examined the polling in that state?

19. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 17

Your data regarding turnout, particularly among African Americans, seemed awfully optimistic to me.

Here’s what happened in 2008:

In 2004, according to the census, barely 60 percent of eligible blacks voted. In 2008, nearly 65 percent did (as did 66 percent of white voting-age citizens).

But one of the biggest changes was the gap between black and white participation. In 2004, the rate of black voter registration was 10 percentage points below that of whites. Last year, it narrowed to four percentage points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html?_r=0

I don’t think AA turnout will be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008, do you?

20. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

I don’t think AA turnout will be as high in 2012 as it was in 2008, do you?

That is a cornerstone of Republican strategy, isn’t it? Modern poll tax, indeed.

21. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 20

Ah, yes. When young voters don’t turn out in 2012 the way they did in 2008, will that be because of the poll tax as well?

22. Serial Conservative spews:

Not that things will change, statistically, but fewer than two months before election time, is what people thought before Labor Day relevant?

As long as we’re succumbing to pressures, how about shortening the poll inclusion period now rather than later?

23. greg spews:

@22 Polls are opinions. The betting market is money on the line. Today the line is it takes four hundred bet on President Obama to win one hundred. One hundred bet on Mitt pays three hundred fifty http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

24. Serial Conservative spews:

Your poll-related thought for the day:

In fact, something like 25 percent of voters make their voting decisions after September, and anywhere from 10 percent to 20 percent will make their final choice in the last week.

This is why the polls have often swung wildly in the final weeks of a campaign. It’s how “Dewey defeated Truman” in 1948. It’s how a blowout Richard Nixon victory in 1968 turned into a squeaker. It’s how Gerald Ford closed a 10-point gap and actually had a lead in the final Gallup poll in 1976.

It’s how a toss-up race between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan finished with a GOP blowout in 1980. It’s how Bill Clinton went from being up 9 in mid-September, 1992 to a tie with George H.W. Bush by the end of October.

It’s how George W. Bush went from being 10 points down in September 2000 to the 43rd president in January 2001. And it’s how the very same Bush “blew” the 11-point lead he enjoyed in late September 2004, defeating John Kerry by just 2 points.

In other words, September polls are extremely volatile. And this year’s volatility is compounded by the late date of the Democratic National Convention. It was, in fact, the latest party convention in US history.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/inside_the_poll_ercoaster_KyrxdXSzSgT6knwSlc4m7K

There are a lot of ways to look at the election.

There’s Darryl’s statistically based projection that Romney has zero chance – no wins in 100K MC analyses. (Darryl, thanks again for doing this.)

There’s Intrade, currently around 70/30 Obama.

There’s Gallup’s daily tracking poll, currently 48/46, favoring Obama, although over the weekend and late last week it was a tie. Might be a tie again tomorrow.

What I prefer to look at is the economy. It’s in decline, there are two more sets of monthly numbers to come before the election, and most of America isn’t paying attention to the election yet.

Obama’s spent $200+M so far, to be essentially even with Romney going into the home stretch. $200M used to be a whole campaign.

I’m fine getting hammered on HA for several more weeks. It’s about the economy. Obama’s asking for a four-year mulligan.

I don’t think he’ll get it.

25. Rujax!..."bob", puddypussy, maxeeeee, and the Cyniklown: "The League of Delusionaty Assholes" spews:

9. Tea for everyone spews:

With what this clown has done to this economy, and the 16.1 Trillion dollar deficit now on the backs of our children and grandchildren, not to mention the Welfare state and unemployment he is creating, why anyone would root for 4 more years of this yahoo is beyond me!
09/24/2012 at 12:36 am

This is thanks to George Fucking W Bush and the Mother Fucking Republicans you dumbshit asshole…

…SERIOUSLY! How fucking STUPID ARE YOU!!!!!

26. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@21
Cap’n Crunch, you are either painfully obtuse or just willfully dishonest. I don’t care at this point, I’m just going to enjoy your melt down over the next few weeks.

@22
Why don’t you propose limiting the polls to include only those that show a Rmoney lead?

Oh, yeah – there’d be too few to analyze!

27. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@24

Your poll-related thought for the day:

“Thought”? You give yourself too much credit, though we’ve grown inured to that at this point.

Your quote?

From the New York Post, Murdoch fish wrapper.

Author?

Jay Cost is a staff writer for The Weekly Standard and the author of “Spoiled Rotten,” a critical history of the Democratic Party.

Weekly Standard? *SNORT*

Topic?

“Pollercoaster”, as if there have been wild gyrations in the polls, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Excerpt?

Many a voter is truly undecided, and will in fact change his mind before Election Day — but may still tell a pollster, “I’m for Obama!” simply because he enjoyed Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention. [Ed. Emphasis mine]

and

That leads to the second point: It has been only two weeks since the DNC ended, which means Obama is still enjoying a bounce in the polls.

Translation: Don’t pay attention to those pesky polls!! Mitt’s in it to win it!! Wishful thinking IS a strategy!!!!

Oh the FUD grows more transparent and more desperate by the day. The wingnut mothership where Cap’n Crunch works is going to looke like Lord of the Flies before this is over.

Pass the fuckin’ popcorn!!!

28. Serial Conservative spews:

@ 26

Lib Despair, you made a comment @ 20 you can’t substantiate, I called you on it, and your response is to call names. Pussy.

I pointed out @ 19 that AA turnout in a Perfect Storm year aiding Obama was lower than your @ 17 comment says will happen this year, which both sides agree won’t be as favorable for Obama as 2008 turned out to be, particularly as the AA population has been particularly hard-hit since the last election. You have no response except to call names.

Your children must be so proud. Of course, since they have limited base for comparison they probably find you Obamaesque.

You repeatedly ask yourself, here on HA, why you spend time responding to me. I’m finding myself asking the same thing of myself about you. Go play with Rujax @ 25 – you two bring the same thing to the table today.

29. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

@28
In your dreams, smarmy Republican asshole.

Yes, I do call you names because you are contemptible.

Let’s pick apart your whiny little post @28, shall we?

Lib Despair, you made a comment @ 20 you can’t substantiate

You mean this?

That is a cornerstone of Republican strategy, isn’t it? Modern poll tax, indeed.

Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters, predominantly poor people of color, are manifest and well documented, here, here, here, here, here…should I keep going? (That took about 10 seconds of Googling – here’s one more, from the WSJ!)

Seems substantial to me, and has been discussed extensively here and in the press.

However, to be fair, you were trying to rebut the devastating findings of some research I linked @17 which says:

Only 66 percent of white working-class Americans said they are certain to vote, compared to 87 percent of college-educated whites and 74 percent of African Americans.

You wanted to play apples-to-oranges and demand that we agree that African American turnout is going to be less in 2012 than it was in 2008 – which no one will know until Nov 7, BTW – when I was merely posting data that compared responses from various demographic groups right now – real data, here and now, comparable groups. Now I know Republicans have a hard time with science and reality, what with the liberal bias and the educated elitist thingy, but, please, you have to see how your speculation is trumped by my data, right?

Or rather, your speculation is not an effective, rational response to my data, though it is clearly an attempt to change the terms of the discussion to something you think favors you.

Which is what you did again @21:

Ah, yes. When young voters don’t turn out in 2012 the way they did in 2008, will that be because of the poll tax as well?

Both change the subject to the youth vote, from the topic and data that were introduced initially, and (try to) dismiss the whole notion of race-based Republican voter suppression efforts – efficient!

But not effective.

When I grew tired of your dishonesty and futile spinning, I wrote this:

Cap’n Crunch, you are either painfully obtuse or just willfully dishonest. I don’t care at this point, I’m just going to enjoy your melt down over the next few weeks.

And that seemed to hurt your feelings. Awww, Cap’n has a sad :(

You write…

I called you on it, and your response is to call names. Pussy.

Call you names, pussy? You do see the irony there, don’t you?

You have no response except to call names.

Your divorce from reality is beginning to rival puddl’s – I’d be worried if I were you. Moreover, I pointed out that one or both of the adjectives “dishonest” or “obtuse” applied to you – hardly name calling, but whatever. “Cap’n Crunch” – is that what has your panties in a bunch? My your skin grows thin these days.

Now I tire of you again…you really do need to watch out for the shrill and desperate tone you’re adopting as November draws nearer…you have read Lord of the Flies, haven’t you? I’d make sure the Wingnut Mothership has an escape hatch, just sayin’.

30. Rujax! The President is still Black, GM is still alive, the US is broadcasting from MARS and puddypisspussy is the stupidest moron on this planet. spews:

@29…

The fuck will just come back with more obfuscation despite your total smack down.

The dude is more and more unhinged (like his mentor the puddypussypissypants…fellow member of “The League of Delusionary Assholes”.

31. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

The fuck will just come back with more obfuscation despite your total smack down.

No doubt. He either does right-wing FUD for fun, in which case he a delusional nitwit, or he’s paid to do this, in which case he’s a pathetic nitwit.