Gallup Shows Romney With A Seven Point Lead

Some interesting movement in early post-debate polling.

It’s going to be several days before we get a complete idea of what impact Tuesday’s debate may have had on the Presidential race, but early indications seem to be good news for the Romney campaign. The Gallup Daily Tracking Poll has him up seven points on the President. It’s a result that the Obama campaign is disputing, and it’s likely the case that Romney’s national lead is actually somewhere below seven points, and it’s also worth noting that the post-debate polls from Rasmussen and IBD/TIPP show a much closer race. Aaron Blake also noted something important about the Gallup poll yesterday:

The latest seven-day tracking poll of likely voters shows Romney at 51 percent and Obama at 45 percent, up from 50-46 on Tuesday and 49-47 on Monday.
Romney has steadily gained in the Gallup poll in recent weeks, turning what had been a growing deficit in September into a growing lead since his strong first debate performance. And when Gallup shifted its voter model from registered voters to likely voters last week, Romney’s numbers improved even more (among registered voters, the race is at Romney 48, Obama 46).
The new numbers, of course, don’t include much or any data collected after Tuesday night’s debate. It will take days to determine what effect that might have had.

Today’s numbers actually include two days of “post-debate” polling, last night and the night of the debate itself, the rest of them are five days prior to the debate. What this number would suggest at the very least, though, is that Romney was in a fairly strong position going into Tuesday’s debate and that the Vice-Presidential Debate didn’t have much of an impact on the race, which is consistent with previous history. I’d be interested to see the three Daily Trackers — Gallup, Rasmussen, and IBD/TIPP — release their pre-debate v. post-debate numbers in the coming days to see if Tuesday’s “Town Hall” debate had any impact on the race at all.

Looking at the average, RealClearPolitics has the average at +0.7 in the President’s favor, and take a look at this chart of how the race has proceeded since October 1st:

In other news, for the first time I can remember in this race, the RCP Electoral College Map has Romney leading with 206 projected Electoral Votes, Obama at 201 Electoral Votes, and 131 Electoral Votes in the “Toss-Up” category, although it’s worth noting that 36 of those toss-up votes are states that I expect will end up going for Obama in the end, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Where does the race go from here? I still feel that Obama is in the better position here in the end, but Romney has a better path to victory than he’s ever had before and anything is possibly over the next 19 days.

Update: Public Policy Polling has released the first results from the Daily Tracking Poll it will be running for the rest of the campaign. It shows the race tied. Like Rasmussen, the PPP Daily Tracking Poll is a three-day rolling average whereas Gallup’s is a seven-day rolling average.

FILED UNDER: Barack Obama, Campaign 2012, Politicians, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Geek, Esq. says:

    Gallup likely voter screen is junk, and has been for some time.

    Per their own crosstabs released this week, their likely voter results show Obama leading in the East by the same margin as the Midwest–52-48.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158048/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

    That’s beyond absurd. The Eastern states are Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia, and West Virginia.

    Also, it shows a +6 Republican advantage between registered voters and likely voters. Historically that gap is maybe +2 at its highest.

  2. Anderson says:

    RCP has just been slow to attribute to Romney states he was clearly going to win.

    The “No Toss Ups” map has Obama 294, Romney 244.

    Did a post that my blog ate, so I’m not going to re-gather the links, but the Gallup poll is skewed by, among other things, Obama’s being ahead around the country outside the South but down 22 points in the South. Lots of wasted votes there for the GOP.

  3. Geek, Esq. says:

    To put the above in perspective, per RCP:

    Vermont (Obama +30)
    New York (Obama +25)
    Rhode Island (Obama +25)
    Maryland (Obama +21)
    Massachusetts (Obama +19)
    Maine (Obama +14)
    Connecticut (Obama +12)
    New Jersey (Obama +9)
    Pennsylvania (Obama +5)
    New Hampshire (Obama +1)
    West Virginia (Romney +20)

    Delaware and DC aren’t close enough to poll–figure +25 – 50 for Obama in those two states.

    Outlier city.

  4. Geek, Esq. says:

    @Anderson:

    It goes beyond the South–does anyone think Obama’s lead in the East is only 4 points? Their likely voter screen is broken.

  5. Jr says:

    Gallup’s LV model does indeed suck and has for some time now.

    They were off by 9 points in 2010, and in 2000 they had Bush beating Gore by 9 points around this time period, yet Gore won the popular vote.

    Silver doesn’t even bother with their LV model.(There RV model has been far more accurate.)

  6. Tsar Nicholas says:

    Difficult to believe the final margin will be Romney + 7. For that to happen Romney would have to get well in excess of 60% of the white vote. Whites simply aren’t as race obsessed as other demographic groups, so that would appear unlikely. Plus you have to factor in the effects of the lock step Democrat sub-groups among the white demographic, e.g., K-12 teachers, government clerical workers, full-time students, the hyper wealthy, etc. Stranger things have happened, I guess, but Romney + 7 probably is an outlier.

    On the other hand, Romney + 7 would be consistent with economic realities as applied to presidential elections. The last time we had an incumbent running for reelection during a truly bad economy the winning margin for the challenger was 5.60%. The time before that it was 9.8%. Romney is no Reagan and the media back then was a lot less partisan. A plus-7 margin in any case would fall within the politico-economic ballpark.

    Speaking of the media, Gallup is a sufficiently noteworthy organization such that this result will cause whatever remaining pretense to be thrown out the window. At this point the media will flip out into full and abject lunacy mode. Remember “fake but accurate?” You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The media loves Obama as much or even more than they hated Bush. From this point forward, then, it truly will become a farce, uninterrupted.

  7. grumpy realist says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: “white” still happens to be the default position in the US, so saying whites are not as “race-obsessed” as minority groups means zilch.

    Furthermore, why should any of us of a minority persuasion vote for a political party that does nothing but sneer at us and call us stupid and deserving of subordinate status?

  8. The Q says:

    Tsar, I don’t understand your point that “The last time we had an incumbent running for reelection during a truly bad economy the winning margin for the challenger was 5.60%”

    Define “truly bad economy”? Was it 1936 when the unemployment rate was 14%? but then the incumbent won by a landslde?

    Or was it 1984, when the unemployment rate was 7.2% (the same as when he was elected in 1980) and the incumbent won by a landslide?

    I guess you are referring to Carter….as all wingnuts do when trying to make some absurd point.

  9. Septimius says:

    Ok. You don’t like the results of the Gallup poll, so the Gallup poll sucks? Their likely voter model is junk? You’re all POLL DENIALISTS! You can expect a snarky post from Dr. Steven L. Taylor reprimanding you for your sins in 3. 2. 1…Never.

  10. Geek, Esq. says:

    @grumpy realist:

    Well, anyone who watches Fox News can tell you that white people are equally race-obsessed whenever confronted with the existence of non-white people.

  11. David M says:

    I don’t like discounting polls without a very good reason, but I think the Gallup LV probably isn’t as useful as the RV, at least nationally, so I think it’s still a very close race.

    I do think there’s a chance that Romney’s numbers in the South are artificially propping up his national numbers in a way that won’t result in electoral votes for him though.

  12. john personna says:

    Really distriburbing that voters like Romney’s China answer.

  13. Geek, Esq. says:

    @David M:

    No doubt it’s a close race–virtually tied.

    Has anyone crunched the numbers to see what demographic moves would be necessary to have Obama go down 22 points in the South. I’m assuming virtually all of that movement would be from a decrease in white voters.

  14. KariQ says:

    I don’t normally reject any poll, but Gallup’s LV results are so far out of line with everyone else it does raise eyebrows. Even more telling, it doesn’t make any sense just in their own data. The RV model closes by a point, but the LV lead expands? Obama is at 50 percent approval, but behind by 7 points? This is just weirdness.

    Nonetheless, I do still include them in the averages, and it still comes out to very close to a tie. Which I’m inclined to guess means Obama is probably ahead by at least 1 point.

  15. David M says:

    @Geek, Esq.:

    Is the 22 point margin in both the Likely Voter & Registered Voter results? Could be a combination of poor demographics in Gallup’s sample combined with a poor LV screen.

    @Septimius:

    There’s a difference between rejecting all poll results as fundamentally flawed and pointing out a single poll has a poor track record and might be questionable as it contains contradictory data.

  16. Geek, Esq. says:

    @David M:

    Likely voter only. All data I’m citing is per the crosstabs from their LV results.

    Their LV model is notorious for nonsense results–at this point 12 years ago they showed Bush up +11 nationally (Gore won popular vote). They had McCain up 10 (!!!) at one point in 2008. Etc etc.

  17. Jr says:

    @Geek, Esq.: Exactly, Gallup’s LV model has always been crappy.

    This doesn’t mean they are crappy pollster(their RV model and Approval rating model is still very useful)….but I generally take their LV model with a grain of salt.

  18. jan says:

    Speaking of the media, Gallup is a sufficiently noteworthy organization such that this result will cause whatever remaining pretense to be thrown out the window. At this point the media will flip out into full and abject lunacy mode. Remember “fake but accurate?” You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The media loves Obama as much or even more than they hated Bush. From this point forward, then, it truly will become a farce, uninterrupted.

    Gallup does seem too good to be accurate. But, like Doug once inferred, it’s more about following trends, and the trends do seem to be trending towards Romney and away from Obama.

    This, like Tsar said, is driving the press and Obamabots to pure madness. For instance, Candy Crowley was obscene during Tuesday’s debate, where she annoited herself fact-checker-in-chief, totally turning the debate on a false turn. She helped Obama, from what seemed like a factual take-down, by interjecting herself and validating a misstatement publically. The self-correction, later on, gives her no points, as the damage was done in front of 60 plus million viewers. She also gave Obama more time to talk, interrupted Romney 28 times, as compared to the 9 times she intervened in the President’s drawn-out remarks. This is far from being seen as a neutral commentator, by ‘most’ people, and, IMO will forever more discredit Crowleys image and reputation as a credible journalist.

    However, the Benghazi debacle will be revisited during the Foreign Policy debate on Monday, and wrongs will be righted. And, I think it will make Obama seem even more out of touch and scrambling to muddy the clarity of what, when, where and why Benghazi played out as it did, despite all the red flags, warning signs (British Consulate attacked, Red Cross earlier leaving because of the safety factor, several other attacks on this consulate etc.), beforehand, along with withdrawn security in the midst of increasing instability in the area.

    I am also feeling, that no matter how Obama tries to manipulate his debate words, that
    his debate performance is irrelevant, or becoming more so, as the public is starting to focus on his acts and actions, rather than just the rhetoric and promises.

    Put it this way. When it comes to Obama, most people’s minds are made up. 45 percent are going to vote for him. 45 percent will not. Of the remaining ten percent, Obama has had four years to close the sale and he has failed. If those 10 percent believed that Obama’s record as President warranted another four years, they would not be undecided. The primary reason they’re undecided is because they’re still assessing Romney. If people see a version of Obama that’s arrogant, petulant and stammering, that will have a slight negative effect, but it won’t sway people’s opinions too much. And the upside of a rousing debate performance is extremely limited, because we’ve heard it all before from President Obama.

    In other words, Romney soared in the polls after Denver not because Obama performed so poorly but because Romney himself performed so well.

  19. David M says:

    @jan:

    Romney’s statement about Obama was not true, so Crowley was right to correct it. There’s absolutely no question that Obama did not wait 14 days to call the attack an “act of terror”, as he used that phrase on the 12th and twice more on the 13th.

  20. PD Shaw says:

    @Geek, Esq.: I think the problem with the regional summaries is different than the one you identify. Take the three most populous states in each region:

    (1) New York (strong Obama)
    (2) Pennsylvania (toss-up)
    (3) New Jersey (leans Obama)

    (1) Illinois (strong Obama)
    (2) Ohio (toss-up)
    (3) Michigan (leans Obama)

    Any population-based analysis would be weighed strongly in favor these areas over smaller states like Vermont and Nebraska; yet I would submit that its the differences in voting preferences these less densely populated areas that define regional character.

    I think people would be better-off looking at a projected electoral college map than looking at this type of analysis.

  21. Geek, Esq. says:

    State polling should become frequent enough to provide a good idea of where this is going, instead of nationally.

    Specifically:

    NC, FL, VA,. : If Romney loses any of these, he’s doomed to a substantial loss in the EC. Don Meredith would start singing “Turn out the lights, the party’s over.”

    CO, NV, IA, OH, NH, WI: Romney needs 21 EVs from this group of states, assuming he sweeps the first group of three. One can see how daunting this task is without Ohio–if he loses Ohio, he needs at least three of the remaining five. And that wouldn’t necessarily be enough–he could win NH, IA, and NV and would still lose if Obama took CO and WI.

    National numbers still matter because it’ll take a wave of increased support to put Romney over the top in the second tier of states. If Romney starts going backwards in support, he very well could be in danger of losing one of the first three.

  22. Geek, Esq. says:

    @PD Shaw:

    Well, if we’re measuring the national popular vote, those states should carry a lot more weight. And Gallup’s finding that the most liberal, Democratic group of states in the country only barely leans Obama is a red flag.

  23. jan says:

    Presidential Poll for the State of Pennsylvania:

    Barack Obama: 45.8%
    Mitt Romney: 45.2%

    1468 Certain to Vote, 1.1% MOE

    Here are some additional details:

    39D/32R/31I

    Women Voters:

    Obama: 47.9%
    Romney: 43.6%

    Male Voters:

    Romney: 49.5%
    Obama: 46.4%

    Paladin/CFP

    Here is a poster’s explanation regarding this particular poll. This poster lives in PA, and has long been dubious about Romney’s ability to even be close to Obama in this state. However, this poll is telling a different story, and falls into line with how this election appears to be trending, as well as the role of ‘undecided’ voters out there.

    Allow me to explain. We actually compiled 2 samples. I was so stunned by the first sample that I called Heinz and asked him to have the team work triple time to compile another example. The first sample was over a 2 day period covering October 13 and 14. The second sample was over the 16th and 17th. The incredible part is that the first sample yielded a 0.8% Obama lead while the second sample yielded a 0.4% Obama lead. The top line is a combination of poll boths.

    For our scale that is a LOT of undecideds. We noticed the trend in our first sample. There, of those that are undecided we asked them if they supported any candidate previous to declaring themselves to be undecided. Sit down. A full 4% (yes 4%!) of Obama’s voters went away from him to undecided. We have virtually zero voters leave Romney. Statistically, Heinz tells me it is 1 in 10,000 that this could happen but he adamantly thinks it is real given the movement in other polls and other states.

    .

  24. Geek, Esq. says:

    Romney’s people have told reporters they don’t consider Michigan or Pennsylvania “remotely winnable.”

    Spare us.

  25. David M says:

    Romney winning PA or MI is probably less likely than Obama winning AZ, and none of those will happen if the race is close in 2012.

  26. mantis says:

    @jan:

    Where is the link to that poll? Is it supposed to be a “Paladin/CFP” poll? Who are they?

  27. Jr says:

    @Geek, Esq.: Yeah, Romney has effectively pulled out of PA and MI and has put all those resources in Ohio.

    The election is about Ohio, everything else is noise.

  28. mantis says:

    @Geek, Esq.:

    Jan is falling for bogus wingnut emails promoting polls from pollsters that don’t actually exist. She gets all her news from crazy uncle email chains.

  29. wr says:

    @mantis: ” Is it supposed to be a “Paladin/CFP” poll? Who are they? ”

    They are people who tell Jan what she wants to hear, and thus they are the bearers of the Truth.

    As opposed, of course, to the truth, which Candy Crowley brought to the debate, making her in Jan’s eyes a horrible, horrible person.

  30. David M says:

    Wow, I figured “Paladin/CFP” results were bogus because they were partisan, but I didn’t think the polling organization didn’t even exist. That’s just sad.

  31. Tano says:

    Just a few points about all this.

    Today’s numbers actually include two days of “post-debate” polling,

    No, that is not correct. There is no polling on the night of the debate after the debate. Only one day’s results, yesterdays, are included.

    When looking at these rolling average polls, one must keep in mind what causes the numbers to move. It is the difference between the new night’s polling results and the older results that are dropped from the average (from 3 days ago for Rasmussen and TIPP, from a week ago for Gallup). So if you see Gallup go up one point today for Romney, it might be because yesterday’s polling results were a bit better for him, or it might be because the results from Wed. a week ago were a good Obama day, but that day is now dropped from the average.

    The RCP electoral college map is another example of their massaging their own data to give the GOP the best possible image. The count for Romney has passed Obama’s because they just moved NC from tossup to Romney, but a few days ago, they moved PA from Obama to tossup. There has not been a single poll since February (!) showing Romney ahead in PA. No one is their right mind thinks the state is in play. The RCP average of polls shows Obama up by 5. But for some reason, RCP decided that Romney has more of a chance there than Obama does in NC – a state where he was clearly leading until the first debate.

  32. Geek, Esq. says:
  33. PJ says:

    @mantis:

    Where is the link to that poll? Is it supposed to be a “Paladin/CFP” poll? Who are they?

    CFP may be “Canada Free Press”…
    Google gives me one result when I search for Jan’s quote. You’re reading it…

    @jan:
    Where did you find that quote?

  34. Jen says:

    It does seem strange that we are seeing more of what I would consider outlier results, whether it’s the President leading in AZ (I’m just not convinced) or Romney close in PA or MI.

    And the Gallup results do seem to be outside the results of many other polls that show a far closer race.

    When comparing to previous presidential election years, is there any data on the number of polls conducted? Maybe it’s because I’m in a swing state (NH), but I’ve never, ever, received so many polling calls. Some are from names I recognize, but some are not. We’ve gotten to the point where we are no longer answering the phone, because it’s on the order of 5, 6, 8 calls a night.

  35. jan says:

    @David M:

    Romney’s statement about Obama was not true, so Crowley was right to correct it. There’s absolutely no question that Obama did not wait 14 days to call the attack an “act of terror”, as he used that phrase on the 12th and twice more on the 13th.

    Read the transcript from the 12th, and it is obvious that Obama’s reference to terrorism was in relationship to 9/11/01 and not Benghazi —> Obama’s Benghazi lie.It was just fluky luck that he even included a mention of ‘terrorism’ in that speech, being able to then stitch it in belatedly as if it applied to Benghazi, rather then the meme of the video he clung to for so many days/weeks. Crowley, corrected herself, later on in an interview, and agreed with Romney, but it was too late, and the story was already in the spinners’ hands.

    In the meantime, actions speak louder than words. In the days/weeks that followed Sept 12th 2012, Obama went to the UN, talking about the video in his comments as it related to the Benghazi attack, not terrorism. He also went on Letterman, The View addressing the Benghazi tragedy as it was related to the video, not a terrorist attack. Then you had Rice and her 5-Sunday-Show performance adamantly attributing what happened in Benghazi to the video, not an act of terrorism. Furthermore, tying a bow on how disingenuous or misinformed this President has been, the consensus of people (past and present) working in government is that anybody going on Sunday news shows have their comments first approved by the WH. That means, whatever Rice said first had to be pre-washed by the WH. The BS used in such a washing was that it was a video, not terrorism, that was at the root of the Benzhazi attack. And, as of now, we all know that to be simply not true.

  36. mantis says:

    The origins of Paladin/CFP may be explained here (if the folks on this board are correct):

  37. PJ says:

    @Jen:

    It does seem strange that we are seeing more of what I would consider outlier results, whether it’s the President leading in AZ (I’m just not convinced) or Romney close in PA or MI.

    Besides the possibility of shoddy polling, more polls released also means more outliers. 1 in 20 polls will have a true result based on the questions asked that’s outside the poll’s margin of error.

  38. David M says:

    @jan:

    I’ll be polite one last time. There’s no question the following statement by Romney is not true:

    I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    Even with the disagreement about the remarks on October 12th, Obama said this on the 13th:

    Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week — we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya. Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed. And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.

    And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important. We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make. And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare.

    So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world. No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.

  39. PJ says:

    @mantis:
    Maybe Jan created her own poll, I mean, she created her own reality….

  40. mantis says:

    @jan:

    Read the transcript from the 12th, and it is obvious that Obama’s reference to terrorism was in relationship to 9/11/01 and not Benghazi

    Stop reading your wingnut uncle emails. It’s rotting your brain. Anyone who looks at that transcript and concludes that he was not referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror is stupid or lying.

    In the meantime, actions speak louder than words. In the days/weeks that followed Sept 12th 2012, Obama went to the UN, talking about the video in his comments as it related to the Benghazi attack, not terrorism.

    He talked about the video because there were protests across the Muslim world about it. They believed the terrorists in Benghazi used the video as an opportunity for an attack.

    He also went on Letterman, The View addressing the Benghazi tragedy as it was related to the video, not a terrorist attack.

    You lie! Here’s Obama on Letterman:

    You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who is an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam, making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. This caused great offence, uh, in much of the much of the Muslim world. Uh, but what also happened was extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies.

    Terrorists!

    Then you had Rice and her 5-Sunday-Show performance adamantly attributing what happened in Benghazi to the video, not an act of terrorism.

    Actually, she did both. Here’s what she said on ABC:

    We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

    The video protests around the world were seen as a pretext for terrorists to attack.

    You are an idiot and a liar.

  41. Tillman says:

    @jan: I’m running out of words for this level of willful ignorance.

    Crowley, corrected herself, later on in an interview, and agreed with Romney, but it was too late, and the story was already in the spinners’ hands.

    She agreed with his larger point, and I’m being generous by saying it was actually his point. Looking at the debate, he was hoping to catch Obama in a lie about the words he used.

    If Romney had wanted to have an honest discussion of the Obama administration’s handling of Libya instead of playing word games, who knows, he might have been able to put together a cogent argument about ducking responsibility. That’s not what he did. He tried to play an oversimplified semantics game. He very clearly tried to play an oversimplified semantics game. It was a debate tactic, it wasn’t an argument about being truthful to the American public.

  42. Mr. Replica says:

    Read the transcript from the 12th, and it is obvious that Obama’s reference to terrorism was in relationship to 9/11/01 and not Benghazi

    Stop reading your wingnut uncle emails. It’s rotting your brain. Anyone who looks at that transcript and concludes that he was not referring to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror is stupid or lying.

    I wouldn’t say it was so much an “Wingnut Uncle” that was the problem. The fact is many news sources on the right, such as FoxNews edited the way the transcipt was strctured, to make it seem Obama was talking about 9/11/01 and not 09/11/12-Benghazi.

    As Americans let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those, both civilian and military, who represent us around the globe.

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

    Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/transcript-president-obama-remarks-following-deadly-attacks-at-us-consulate-in/#ixzz29glIB1Xd

    There also seems to be a stink about how FoxNews change the spelling of

    for more Americans

    rather than the official speech that said

    four more Americans

    Either way here is the official transcript, the same one Doug posted yesterday.

    As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

    No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

    I emphasized the “acts of terror” line to show that it is true that Obama said that on 9/12/12. And that Romney and Ryan were/are wrong to say Obama never called Benghazi an act of terror the following day in the Rose Garden.

  43. Wayne says:

    @Doug
    Sorry for nit-picking. RealClearPolitics has the average at +0.7 in Romney’s favor not the President’s. In addition, unless they took the poll after the debate on that day, which is unlikely, it is only a one day of “post-debate” polling. Just pointing it out.

    As for polls, my opinion on them hasn’t change. They can show you trends and the internals need to be look, etc . A big question is the breakdown of who shows up on Election Day.

  44. jan says:

    Regarding that Paladin Poll I posted. It comes from a polling blog site I’ve been reading for several years. Paladin is a poll that several of the posters cite without links. The numbers and predictions have been quite accurate, though, the past several years. When I asked for more specifics, this is what I got:

    Paladin/CFP is a merged polling firm. Both original firms were created to fill a void after both Strategic Vision and Research2000 folded due to falsifying polls. We have been polling since 2010, and we did very well in the house and senate polling in 2010.

    I don’t really care what you think of this poll. I look at it merely as a sign that there could be a change in the political weather afoot — no more or no less.

    However, at about the same time as I picked up the Paladin one, there is another one published on PA showing a similar shift in their numbers: Romney leading in blue-PA .

    Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.

    At this moment, as PA has been in the Obama column, these are outliers. However, ‘outliers’ can turn into reality if they show a continuance of the populace changing their political alliances.

  45. Jr says:

    @jan: During the same time period. PPP found Obama up 9 and Qunnipiac found Obama up 4.

    If Mitt wants to waste time in PA, by all means go for it.

  46. KariQ says:
  47. Geek, Esq. says:

    Obama up 51-45 in Wisconsin, 51-43 in Iowa, per Marist/WSJ/NBC

    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/18/14542135-polls-obama-holds-his-lead-in-iowa-wisconsin?lite

    Virtually unchanged from last month.

    A good deal of the interviews were conducted before Tuesday’s debate.

    WI and IA are firmly in the firewall.

  48. jan says:

    @Mr. Replica:

    Look, the statements from Obama, and others in his administration, the video clips, the shows he has gone on are overwhelming in displaying Obama’s pathetic and disingenuous attempts to spin the cause of Benghazi away from a terrorist attack, to pinning it on an innocuous internet video. You can rationalize it, talk about a network changing a word (??), but a lie is a lie is a lie. Obama lied and more people are seeing it that way. Obamabots are the real wingnuts in this scenario….

  49. David M says:

    @jan:

    Paladin/CFP is a merged polling firm. Both original firms were created to fill a void after both Strategic Vision and Research2000 folded due to falsifying polls. We have been polling since 2010, and we did very well in the house and senate polling in 2010.

    That’s comedy gold there, Paladin/CFP is filling the void left by Strategic Vision / Research2000. If those two firms folded after it became public knowledge they were faking their poll results, what kind of void is Paladin/CFP filling?

  50. Geek, Esq. says:

    @David M:

    There is a demand for falsified, wingnut propaganda, and they are stepping forward to meet that demand,

  51. David M says:

    @jan:

    Last chance, was this statement from Romney true or false?

    I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    Regardless of whether you think Obama handled the situation in Libya properly or not, that is the claim Romney chose to make, and Crowley corrected.

  52. An Interested Party says:

    The media loves Obama as much or even more than they hated Bush. From this point forward, then, it truly will become a farce, uninterrupted.

    The only farce here is you and your constant whining about how the media is supposedly in the tank for the President…oh, and white people can be just as obsessed with race as minorities…add denial to the projection you already show…

    This, like Tsar said, is driving the press and Obamabots to pure madness. For instance, Candy Crowley was obscene during Tuesday’s debate, where she annoited herself fact-checker-in-chief, totally turning the debate on a false turn.

    Oh look, more whining…some conservatives really do seem to be afflicted with a strong sense of victimization…it’s almost like a disease…

    However, the Benghazi debacle will be revisited during the Foreign Policy debate on Monday, and wrongs will be righted.

    Considering how dismal Romney was in the second debate regarding foreign policy, he’ll need a miracle far eclipsing his first debate performance to right that wrong…perhaps he should start praying now…

  53. Mr. Replica says:

    @jan:

    I never once in my post talked about the Obama administration’s spin. I didn’t talk about the video, nor did I try to cover for their mishandling of the situation, nor defend their actions. Not once. If you think that by quoting the speech I some how defended those actions, then, well, that’s on you.

    What I did was show the fact that there were differences in the way the speech was reported by right wing sites like FoxNews and how it differed from the official transcript.

    Also, as far as the misspelling of the word “for”, rather than “four”, as it says in the official transcript. I really do not care. I merely pointed out that people had problems with the switch. Not once did I say I had a problem with it.

    If you want to take offense to the fact that Romney/Ryan are wrong regarding when Obama said “act of terror”, like it’s some sort of personal attack, then again, that’s entirely on you.
    Obama said on 9/12/12, the day after the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, that it was an “act of terror”. Period. Not 14 days, not two weeks, not one week. One day.

    If criticizing Romney/Ryan and defending Obama (because he happened to have been right in the debate) makes me an Obama-bot to you, I really do not care.

    It wouldn’t matter if I said how I really felt about Obama, that I really do not have a high opinion of him as president(although a higher opinion of him compared to the neo-con chameleon that is Romney). That wouldn’t change anything would it? No, it wouldn’t. I know that because I happen to have the gall to criticize your man, your candidate, your team, your tribe, and that automatically makes me wrong to team players like yourself.

  54. @Septimius: I am not going to buy any skewing arguments at the moment, no.

    The numbers are what the numbers are. If somebody decides that they are going to recalculate the numbers to fit their preferences, then they would, in fact, be a poll denialist.

    My point has always been that one has to take the numbers as they come, compare them with the other polling, and not be guided by one’s partisan preferences. And, ultimately, that the proof will be in the final results.

    Romney has clearly done quite well of late, and better than most of us expected.

    I still think that, because of the EC, that Obama has the clear edge to win. Remember, though, I have made it quite clear that I prefer a popular vote method to select the president.

  55. @Tillman:

    He very clearly tried to play an oversimplified semantics game. It was a debate tactic, it wasn’t an argument about being truthful to the American public.

    Exactly. Romney’s main problem with Benghazi has been that, from day one, he has treated it as a gotcha! opportunity rather than a topic about which to have a serious discussion. Clearly there are thing to criticize about the events in question. Instead of intelligently doing so he acted like a kid at his first high school forensics tournament.

  56. grumpy realist says:

    @Mr. Replica: So Fox Snooze edits the transcript to make it different from the original, the new interpretation gets picked up by the Rightosphere which thinks it’s reality, and it comes back to bite them in the ass….

    It’s unbelievable how similar these clowns are to the Soviets. Keep telling yourself pretty lies and soon enough you start to believe them.

  57. PJ says:

    @jan:

    Regarding that Paladin Poll I posted. It comes from a polling blog site I’ve been reading for several years.

    Is it a super secret site? Just wondering since you fail to actually link to the site.

    Did you read the link mantis posted?

    I don’t really care what you think of this poll. I look at it merely as a sign that there could be a change in the political weather afoot — no more or no less.

    A fake poll isn’t a sign that there could be change in the political weather afoot.

    What it is though, is one more sign that you clearly have no clues whatsoever.

  58. jan says:

    @PJ:

    ….but then again, there is the Susquehanna poll today showing Obama down by 4 –> 49/45. This state has been a ‘blue’ given for Obama. The fact that there is even an outlier there is news — news that does not bode well for Obama’s momentum.

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Romney’s main problem with Benghazi has been that, from day one, he has treated it as a gotcha!

    “None are so blind as those who will not see.” is applicable here.

    You look at Romney’s comment as a ‘gotcha,’ while others see it as normal outrage, and an incredulousness for some of the initial apologies coming out from government aligned sources. At this stage, Romney’s remarks seem almost prescient, while Obama’s remarks seem more symptomatic of lying or initiating a cover-up.

  59. @jan:

    You look at Romney’s comment as a ‘gotcha,’ while others see it as normal outrage

    Having a press conference in the middle of an ongoing event (as was the case with Romney”s first utterance on this topic) was clearly an attempt at a “gotcha!” over the Tweet from the Egyptian embassy. It was hardly a serious policy statement or critique.

    And the bit the other night at the debate was about trying to say that Obama took 14 days to characterize the event as “terror”/”terrorism”–watch the clip from the debate again. Romney thought he had scored a victory over the utterance of a single word. That is the very definition of an attempt at a gotcha.

    As I noted, there were far more complex ways to critique the president on this topic, but instead Romney has tried what I will again call intro-level high school debate tactics.

  60. @jan:

    At this stage, Romney’s remarks seem almost prescient,

    ??

    “Prescient” refers to knowing the future. How has any of his statements on this topic been predictive or otherwise demonstrated foreknowledge?

  61. Smooth Jazz says:

    @Septimius:

    “Ok. You don’t like the results of the Gallup poll, so the Gallup poll sucks? Their likely voter model is junk? You’re all POLL DENIALISTS! You can expect a snarky post from Dr. Steven L. Taylor reprimanding you for your sins in 3. 2. 1…Never”

    THAT. IS. RICH. OH NO YOU DI-HINT GO THERE. Dr Snark only thinks Reps are poll deniers. Same with most of the far left cranks that own this site. LOL.

  62. jukeboxgrad says:

    geek:

    WI and IA are firmly in the firewall

    Yes, and this makes the electoral college analysis pretty simple. Obama just needs these states: OH, WI, IA. That’s enough to get him to 271, even with Mitt getting all these: FL, VA, CO, NH and NV.

    Another approach is to swap NV and IA in the above analysis.

    Last time any poll showed Mitt ahead in NV: April.
    Last time Mitt showed a lead in the RCP average for NV: never.
    Current RCP average: Obama +3.

    Last time any poll showed Mitt ahead in IA: 9/25.
    Last time Mitt showed a lead in the RCP average for IA: never.
    Current RCP average: Obama +3.3.

    Last time any poll showed Mitt ahead in WI: 8/19.
    Last time Mitt showed a lead in the RCP average for WI: never.
    Current RCP average: Obama +2.8.

    Last time any poll showed Mitt ahead in OH: 10/10.
    Last time Mitt showed a lead in the RCP average for OH: never.
    Current RCP average: Obama +2.4.

    As long as Obama continues to lead in OH, WI and NV (or IA), he wins.

  63. jukeboxgrad says:

    Smooth, I’m still waiting for you to show us that mysterious poll that has Mitt leading in NV (link).

    Like Jan (and Mitt and Ryan) you love fiction.

  64. Smooth Jazz says:

    @Geek, Esq.:

    “Obama up 51-45 in Wisconsin, 51-43 in Iowa, per Marist/WSJ/NBC

    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/18/14542135-polls-obama-holds-his-lead-in-iowa-wisconsin?lite

    Virtually unchanged from last month.

    A good deal of the interviews were conducted before Tuesday’s debate.

    WI and IA are firmly in the firewall.”

    Just be aware Marist has a DUBIOUS record. I wouldn’t take their results to the bank, especially their IA numbers. Be sure to view their numbers within the prism of other surveys to make sure it is not an outlier. So far, there are significantly more Reps than Dems registered in IA, and their early voting numbers look hokey.

    http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/18/nbcwsjmarist-survey-codepink-in-iowa-and-wisconsin-find-obama-leading/

  65. David M says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    Ignoring the polling average (multiple other polls) for a specific poll result that favors your candidate could be a form of poll denial.

  66. jukeboxgrad says:

    smooth:

    Just be aware Marist has a DUBIOUS record

    Forget Marist. We love Rasmussen, right? Here’s what he’s been saying about IA:

    10/7 – Obama +2
    9/19 – Romney +3

    Great trend, right? Keep hope alive.

  67. PJ says:

    @jan:

    The fact that there is even an outlier there is news — news that does not bode well for Obama’s momentum.

    Do you have any clues about what an outlier is?

  68. PJ says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    And the bit the other night at the debate was about trying to say that Obama took 14 days to characterize the event as “terror”/”terrorism”–watch the clip from the debate again. Romney thought he had scored a victory over the utterance of a single word. That is the very definition of an attempt at a gotcha.

    The best part of that exchange is Obama telling Romney to “please, proceed”, as in “please, proceed digging the hole you’re standing in”.

  69. anjin-san says:

    Romney has not been talking about Libya since the debate – his team knows damn well he got his ass handed to him on this one.

    First Read: “This also caught our eye yesterday: Romney didn’t mention Libya — or the exchange on the topic from Tuesday’s debate — during two campaign stops in Virginia yesterday. Instead, Romney focused on the economy and what he said was Obama’s failure to lay out a vision for a second term.”

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/18/romney_doesnt_mention_libya.html

  70. bill says:

    the obsession with daily polls is beyond ridiculous, agree with them or not they don’t matter once the vote is in. sure, there’s some posturing to affect the voters but by an large this race is going to be too close to call unless one of them runs into a wall.

  71. al-Ameda says:

    I’m guessing that Republicans don’t believe this poll either, right?

  72. al-Ameda says:

    @jan:

    Obamabots are the real wingnuts in this scenario

    Straight from the conservative echo chamber to you, then to us here at OTB.

    Do you buy the Republican argument that all polls are skewed except the ones that show Romney in the lead?

  73. KariQ says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    Just be aware Marist has a DUBIOUS record. I wouldn’t take their results to the bank, especially their IA numbers.

    I’m not taking anyone’s numbers to the bank, but I decided to check Marist’s track record in 2008.

    Iowa Marist 10/23 – 10/24 645 LV 4.0 52 42 Obama +10,
    Iowa Final Results 53.9 44.4 Obama +9.5

    Colorado Marist 10/27 – 10/28 682 LV 4.0 51 45 Obama +6
    Colorado Final Results 53.7 44.7 Obama +9.0

    Ohio Marist 10/24 – 10/26 661 LV 4.0 48 45 Obama +3
    Ohio Final Results 51.5 46.9 Obama +4.6

    Rasmussen’s for the same states:

    Iowa Rasmussen 10/23 – 10/23 700 LV 4.0 52 44 Obama +8
    Colorado Rasmussen 11/2 – 11/2 1000 LV 3.0 51 47 Obama +4
    Ohio Rasmussen 11/2 – 11/2 1000 LV 3.0 49 49 Tie

    I don’t see any reason to dismiss Marist. They were actually a little better than Rasmussen last time.

  74. Geek, Esq. says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    Thanks for the unskewing.

  75. KariQ says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    I tried to resist, but finally I clicked through to the article you linked. I shouldn’t have, it was a moment of weakness, but I did. Let’s just say the article is unpersuasive, but in particular, this bit at the Update:

    Healthy reminder from Jay Cost at The Weekly Standard. Marist has a fairly bad track record of over-sampling Democrats. Immediately before the 2010 mid-terms they released a national survey claiming that among likely voters the country was split right down the middle 46 to 46 voting between the Democrats and republicans up for Congress (~60% of the way down).

    This is not true. Marist’s final generic House ballot in 2010 was Republican 49 Democrat 43, Republicans +6. The subgroup that was labeled “Most likely to vote contained 34% GOP, 31% Dem, 35% Independent or Other.

  76. KariQ says:

    Then again, maybe they do have a case. Marist had Toomey (GOP) ahead by 7 in 2010 and he won by 2, and Murray (Dem) ahead by only 1 in Washington in 2010 and she won by almost 4. But then, reporting that the claim is that they always favor Democrats, so pointing out that they overstated GOP support in some cases wouldn’t help their case. I guess it’s impolite of me to bring it up.

  77. Fiona says:

    Hey Jan–still waiting for a link to your super secret polling site.

  78. J-Dub says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Are there any topics that Romney doesn’t treat as merely “gotcha” moments? It seems that is all he has and most of it is not even remotely factual. Apology tours, “you didn’t build that”, etc.

    Jon Stewart had a great bit on the Benghazi moment at the debate. He said that whenever your opponent tells you to “please, proceed” that maybe you should take that as a clue to shut up.

  79. mantis says:

    @jan:

    don’t really care what you think of this poll. I look at it merely as a sign that there could be a change in the political weather afoot — no more or no less.

    Hilarious. I point out that you are referencing a poll from a polling firm that doesn’t exist, that you have been taken by a long-running internet prank, and you chalk that up as just my opinion of the poll (which doesn’t exist) and still contend that the fake poll means there is movement among voters.

    Ok, Jan. I just read that the Tristero/Rosicrucian poll of Florida voters gives Obama a 15-point lead over Romney. This looks like really bad news for Romney!

  80. Ben says:

    Looks like the post-debate numbers are starting to come in finally and have an effect. Nate Silver had Obama’s win probabilty surge overnight from 65ish to over 70

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

    Nate also tweeted:

    Also, the polls with the most recent field dates generally suggest more strength for Obama than those from earlier in the week.

  81. sam says:

    @Fiona:

    Hey Jan–still waiting for a link to your super secret polling site.

    Yeah. I can’t find any site for Paladin/CFP or CFP/Paladin. All I find are sites cross-posting “poll results” reported on other sites. A daisy-chain, in other words. Maybe jan will post the link to her Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 15:39 quote. Or maybe not.

  82. mattb says:

    Yeah. I can’t find any site for Paladin/CFP or CFP/Paladin.

    That’s because they don’t exist… other than as a joke.

    Paladin/CFP or CFP/Paladin continues to copyright their “polling” as such

    Paladin Polling, All Rights Reserved. Carlton Hotel, San Francisco, CA.
    source: http://davidwissing.com/?comments_popup=12484#comment-751002

    The entire thing is a reference to the “Have Gun Will Travel” and “Paladin” TV and Radio programs, whose main character had an office at the Carlton Hotel, SF. Plus here’s an example of the types of posting that one of the “principles” of Paladin regularly makes about the organization:

    A great night for Paladin/CFP (“Always a Step Ahead). We nailed the Kane v Murphy race and were the first to understand the significance of the race to Barack Obama. Our newly created decision desk made the call for Kane well before any other media outlet.

    On a personal note, this has been a trying time for me. Helping to create the decision desk, work on the new CTV algo, do all the re-checks on our current polls and tending to my A-Hole responsibilities has left me worn out.

    Marv – could you get the board to spare the jet for me? I need a vaca.

    Comment by MD — April 25, 2012 @ 7:54 am
    [http://davidwissing.com/?comments_popup=17916#comment-1151221]

    Jan, unless you can present proof as to the company’s legitimacy, all the evidence points towards fact is you are citing a pretty obvious hoax.

  83. Dave Anderson says:

    @Jen: I am not too surprised that we are seeing a couple of oddities per week (Susquehanna in PA, Civitas in NC where Romney was getting 30% of the African American vote a couple of weeks ago, the Arizona poll etc) as there are a hundred plus polls per week so just on statistical noise alone, there should be a couple of oddities for each candidate per week. Then throw in a lot of pollsters who have less than impeccable processes (short windows, no call-backs, no cell-phones, weird re-weighing systems) that are all methodologically defensible but introduce more noise into the poll from the true signal, oddities should happen.

    As a data geek, I would be scared if all the polling from every outfit converged every day for a month straight.

  84. mattb says:

    BTW, for anyone whose interested, here is the thread that “launched” Paladin polling in 2010:
    http://davidwissing.com/?comments_popup=12479

    Key announcement:

    I am announcing today the launch of a new polling firm. It is called Paladin Polling. Our mission will be to poll political elections in the near future. Our motto is “Have Poll – Will Travel.”
    Comment by DW — June 29, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

    Would anyone here like to hire Paladin Polling to give you a poll for any house or senate race you have an interest in?

    We pride ourselves on a very fast turnaround, and our fee is only $1000. However, right now, we have an instant $1000 rebate offer going. So name your race, and Paladin polling will give you fast results.
    Comment by DW — June 29, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

    Paladin’s first gig, which was “contracted” and “polling” was completed in less than 10 minutes according to the time stamp… man they are speedy!

    DW, I am headed back to CA; I’d like top lines on the Gov and Senate contests. I’ll even throw in a cup thick, muddy of Navy Joe.

    Comment by GF — June 29, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

    Here are the results. Thank you for choosing Paladin Polling. We look forward to serving you again.

    Paladin Polling – 6/29/10

    CA – Senate

    Boxer (Inc-D) 47%
    Fiorina(R) 49%

    800 LV – MoE +-4

    Women – 425
    Men – 375

    Republicans – 200
    Democrats – 400
    Independents – 200

    CA Governor

    Jerry Brown (D) 46%
    Meg Whitman(R) 48%

    800 LV – MoE +-4

    Women – 425
    Men – 375

    Republicans – 200
    Democrats – 400
    Independents – 200

    All rights reserved, 2010 Paladin Polling. “Have Poll – Will Travel”

    Comment by DW — June 29, 2010 @ 2:34 pm

    Here’s another insta poll request from the same thread (with the suggestion that the results get… shall we say, “massaged”):

    DW,

    I would like Palladin polling to show Pat Leahy losing in VT. Can you produce a poll showing me that?

    Comment by Tommy_Boy — June 29, 2010 @ 4:15 pm

    Always ready to please a customer, here’s Paladin’s results (again, with a fast turn around):

    57….here you go. We got breaking news that Leahy was one of the Russian spies recently was captured. In light of that news, we polled 400 Likely Voters in the Green State. By the way, your $1000 fee is waived.

    Paladin Polling – 6/29/10

    VT – Senate

    Leahy (Inc-D) 43%
    Britton(R) 52%

    400 LV – MoE +-4

    Women – 225
    Men – 175

    Republicans – 10
    Democrats – 200
    Independents – 190

    2010, Paladin Polling – All rights reserved. Carlton Hotel, San Francisco, CA.

    Comment by DW — June 29, 2010 @ 4:22 pm

  85. mantis says:

    @mattb:

    Paladin/CFP polls are unreliable. You should be watching my new polling outfit, Tristero/Rosicrucian polls.

  86. mattb says:

    @mantis:
    Do you take requests? How much do you charge? And what is your turn around?

  87. mantis says:

    @mattb:

    Do you take requests? How much do you charge? And what is your turn around?

    I can get you 1067 likely voters in any state or nationwide in five minutes or less or it’s free!

  88. mattb says:

    @mantis:

    likely voters

    Bah, Paladin/CFP has you beat! Their model is based on the ground breaking “CTV” measure – “certain to vote.”

  89. mantis says:

    @mattb:

    Oh, it’s October 19? Today’s the day we change over to our CTVAWNDOBIBE model, or “Certain to vote and will not die or be imprisoned before election.”

  90. mantis says:

    Sadly, our model cannot yet account for those who may become trapped under something heavy on election day.

  91. matt says:

    @mantis: oh manthat made me lagh too hard. Now the computer lab im watching has people staring at me.. its all your fault…

    one handed typing ftl

  92. David M says:

    @jan:

    So no answer as to whether this this statement from Romney was true or false?

    I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

  93. Davebo says:

    @jan:

    What PA poll are you citing Jan.

    538 has Obama with a 89.2 percent chance of winning in PA.

  94. Smooth Jazz says:

    “538 has Obama with a 89.2 percent chance of winning in PA.”

    What is 538?? Is that some gospel or something similar.

  95. al-Ameda says:

    @Smooth Jazz:

    “538 has Obama with a 89.2 percent chance of winning in PA.”
    What is 538?? Is that some gospel or something similar.

    538 is the number of trips Ann has taken in her new Car Elevator.

  96. jukeboxgrad says:

    Smooth, you should stick with trying to understand easier numbers, like 9-9-9.

  97. Smooth Jazz says:

    “538 is the number of trips Ann has taken in her new Car Elevator.”

    LOL, Too funny; How about this, Multiple choice question:

    1. 538 represents a far left crank masquerading as some kind of paragon of impartiality working for a left wing propganda rag who freaks out every time a poll comes along that threatens to upend his 99% probability Obama wins horse manure, finger to wind, model

    2. 538 represents the number of times Michelle Mooch Obama took trips on the country’s dime and wasting the tax papers money on frivolous BS

    Xtra credit if you can guess: Who’s the only guy on earth who still has a 99% or whatever probability of Obama victory on his bogus, “Only Liberals Come Out Ahead” model even as FL, VA, NC slips away and he has to pray that OH barely gets his chosen one over by the skin of his teeth – His chosen one, I might add, is down to a last ditch “triage” strategy with a mushy firewall around a few states.

  98. jukeboxgrad says:

    smooth:

    538 represents a far left crank masquerading as some kind of paragon of impartiality

    I wish you could meet the guy who said this:

    I prefer Sam Wang’s methodology over at Princeton Election Consortium. Sam is a very smart guy and a professor of neurophysiology at Princeton with good mathematical ability. Bear in mind he’s an ardent Obama supporter, much more so than Silver. I think both men are of high integrity, and won’t let their political preferences influence their work. I personally think Nate’s stuff is too complicated, and I don’t understand his methodology for dealing with correlation between and among the states. Sam could do a better too in the explanation department, but I understand what he’s doing. http://election.princeton.edu/

    I did not know Nate was under attack. I hope people are not attacking him personally. I don’t like Nate’s review of the Hibbs Bread and Peace model, and some of this other writings on non-polling subjects. He doesn’t seem to be aware of the ergodic assumption.

    What makes it funny is that he is absolutely 100% just as much of a wingnut as you are. A bit smarter, though.