ELECTIONATE OCTOBER 5, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
It’s still too soon to judge whether Romney received a debate bounce. The initial signs point toward movement in Romney’s direction, but not necessarily decisive movement. On average, Romney gained 2.2 points in today’s polls compared to pre-debate polls, although it is worth emphasizing that nearly half of those surveys included samples conducted prior to the debates.
Four points:
1) If Obama performed poorly in Rasmussen or Gallup’s samples yesterday, the results weren’t worse than the day dropped by the trackers. In Gallup’s case, Obama actually did better yesterday than he did in the sample from seven days ago. Similarly, Obama actually gained ground in the RAND American Life Panel. The only tracking poll to show clear movement to Romney is Reuters/Ipsos, and it certainly showed clear movement, with Romney now gaining a net-four points since Wednesday’s release.
2) It’s worth comparing the relative stability of the trackers with the clear movement in Obama’s direction following the DNC. Obama probably held a 7 or 8 point edge in the first few nights of post-DNC tracking and even the slow moving seven-day Gallup tracker lurched immediately in his direction. It’s hard to say whether the post-debate polls should behave like post-convention bounce pols, especially since the first day of post-convention polling reflects multiple days of convention coverage, not just one day of debates. And there is reason to believe that the post-debate media coverage can be just as important as the impressions of the debate itself. But there is at least a case that yesterday should have been Romney’s best day, and it doesn’t necessarily look like he got a spectacular bounce.
3) On the other hand, the We Ask America polls showed an abrupt 6-point swing in Romney’s direction in both Virginia and Florida. Now, WAA is perhaps the only poll showing evidence of such clear movement in Romney’s direction, so it would be wise to wait for confirmation from other pollsters before asserting that Romney has made particularly large gains. That’s especially true since Rasmussen polled two of the same states and found Romney gaining just three points and making no gains in the critical state of Ohio. Of course, the balance of these polls was indisputably good for Romney, if confirmed by other pollsters.
4) So far, a relatively small and unrepresentative selection of pollsters have provided post-debate results. Rasmussen and WAA's battleground state polls were one day samples by automated firms, and their results have not always mirrored of the broader universe of pollsters. Most pollsters began to survey today or yesterday and the post-debate landscape won't be clear until early next week, when the broader set of pollsters relying on more conventional multi-day or live interview samples are able to weigh-in. By then, the tracking polls will more fully reflect the post-debate landscape, as well.
14 comments
And over the next few days the drop in the unemployment rate below 8% may weigh in Obama's favor.
- bjones
October 5, 2012 at 5:34pm
I certainly hope the truth-checkers revealing how much Romney lied will have some effect on the polls. Not to mention the 7.8% unemployment numbers, once the Right-Wing Media gets over freaking out about them.
- AllanL5
October 5, 2012 at 10:02pm
I just spent a couple of hours with the table of Electoral College votes in 2008 and Nate Silver's state-by-state probabilities. What I came away with is this: To get to 270 electors, Romney will have to win OH, CO, IA, VA and FL. All of them. Only VA and FL appear genuinely up for grabs at this point, and Romney has to secure them to contest the other three, with OH the safest for Obama. So, the most important single bit of information in the table above provided by Mr. Cohn is that Ohio did not budge, and that comes from Rasmussen, with its Republican bias. Unless and until Ohio starts to move in Romney's direction, Romney is going nowhere. Obama can continue to make Romney contest FL and VA while holding Ohio as is hole card. Given Rasmussen's record, we can expect the rest of the polls, when they appear, to be less favorable to Romney in FL and VA. In hindsight, I am sure that David Axelrod figured out what a successful auto bailout would mean for Ohio, Michigan, and the 2012 election. I didn't think about it at the time, but I would bet that he did.
- roidubouloi
October 6, 2012 at 12:47am
Yikes Roid, you either have too much time on your hands or are even more worried about this than I am. Either way, I hope you're right; maybe I will lose less sleep tonight.
- shellski
October 6, 2012 at 1:31am
Well, I was procrastinating in doing an econometrics assignment that is daunting. So I thought I would look at some statistics that are simpler. Mostly though, with some poll results that suggest VA and FL had shifted toward Romney or even into his column in the wake of the debate, I got curious about just how significant that is, or is not. The answer is that FL and VA are the difference between Romney having lost -- dead, finished, over -- and merely being in a desperate and almost surely un-winnable situation. Think of it like layers of defenses, increasingly difficult to defeat. VA and FL are a broad moat. If you cannot get past that, you aren't even in a position to attack. CO and IA are a very high wall, even more difficult to overcome. OH is a nearly impregnable keep behind the moat and the wall. VA and FL were the weakest for Obama. CO and IA are quite strong. OH has so far been impervious to Romney. Romney needs to run the table. Only a slim possibility unless there is a radical change in the tenor of the whole race. I don't know why Obama doesn't get better advice about his own public speech and demeanor. Maybe it is impossible to tell a sitting president anything at all about himself. The perils of sitting alone at the top. But it seems clear that his people have a much better understanding of the dynamics of the race than Romney's. I don't happen to think demeanor is the biggest reason that Obama "lost" the debate. It is that Romney made a sharp rhetorical move toward the center, consisting entirely of lies about his own previous statements and proposals and falsehoods about Obama. Obama was not primed with the talking points effectively to counter Romney lies, and a lot of the "swing" electorate is so uninformed it will buy whatever nonsense he spouts. Obama, rather than having his ripostes all lao There is now lots of opportunity in the key states for Obama to stick Romney with his own words and shred that move to the center, which by all accounts should be far too little and too late. Romney needed to do that in the spring but couldn't because he was terrified of the Tea party and the rest of the extreme right. Obama needs to have people all over FL hammering Romney's voucher-care and all over VA hammering Romney's voodoo tax math and tax evasion. He needs to be in Ohio touting the finally arriving recovery, the rescue of Ohio, and the fact that Romney was more than willing to let the auto industry and the people of Ohio hit bottom. I don't know much about Colorado and Iowa (I have only ever skied in the former and for a time owned part of an animal feed company in a far corner of the latter), but whatever he has been doing has been working and he should keep doing it, more. If he spends some money in Wisconsin and Minnesota just to drive Ryan nuts, that is money well spent. And, of course, Obama needs to have his catchy talking points and defenses ready and primed for the next two debates. Most of the public doesn't even notice when there are total non-sequiturs. So, there is no need actually to "debate." Just be ready instantly to deliver, with all the faux conviction necessary, the pre-packaged thrusts and ripostes. Obama has a hard time delivering bullshit with conviction and fell back on rational thought. Big mistake. The illiterate public and the pundits interpret that as "professorial," "bored," and "detached." He should take a page from Romney's book and get over it.
- roidubouloi
October 6, 2012 at 9:43am
Well, if O's team knew they couldn't prevail against O's own judgement, it may have been a blessing in disguise (or not in disguise depending on the way you look at it) because leaving O alone meant the slap of cold water in his face was his alone to analyze and interpret!
- Tgossard
October 6, 2012 at 1:53pm
Obama is continuously and widely criticized for being condescending. I personally have not seen that, or at least in the collective images of him. I find him analytical, pragmatic, and with a great decision making style and process. I believe he overcompensated to the condescension claim by the people who only like vanilla. I think, and hope, we will not see debate 1 Obama again.
- smabry03
October 6, 2012 at 2:03pm
I don't think Obama is condescending, but he is professorial which the numbskulls who are "anti-elitist" interpret that way. He is, however, clearly embarrassed by the bullshit you have to be willing to utter in political life, and thus retreats to the rational, whereas Romney is unashamed of uttering the most outlandish lies. As a role model, Obama might look to Clinton -- simplify and deliver with some zest and humor and you don't have to tell preposterous lies.
- roidubouloi
October 6, 2012 at 2:33pm
Who is talking to Obama about his presentation style? Can someone get in there and in a professional, don't-take-this personally manner metaphorically slap him around: keep your head up, respond to attacks and lies with a rebuttal instead of ignoring it and moving to pre-arranged rational response, look incredulous, show anger, use your hands and arms occasionally but firmly, speak with emphasis, raise your voice a bit, allow in a hint of sarcasm as needed, don't take insults with a shrug... Roger Ailes (I believe it was) prepped the senior George Bush and was brutal (and effective) saying things like, "Don't flap your hands in that sissy way!" "NO, no, no, don't ever smile that way with your moth," "Stop it now! Never raise your pinky like that again," etc etc. Bush didn't mind, took most of the advice, and improved his televised appearance (in 1988 I, believe it was). These quotes are paraphrase but very close to the specifics and spirit as I best recall it. (Published report I read somewhere.) Republicans are not dainty when it gets down to the behind the scenes "nut-cutting" (to use a phrase Nixon once accidentally used in a live interview); Democrats are elder statesmen like Kerry, instead of media savvy strategists. Get real people!
- atlasqq
October 6, 2012 at 4:51pm
Everybody acts like Romney lying is a drawback. Isn't lying one of the chief needed skills in a head of state? "Of course, we have no intention to cross your borders . . ." Etc. As an experienced CEO, Romney should be a much more accomplished liar. Well, that was a different area. Just lying to people who were willing to buy any old shit. Now, we have a few selective suckers to add to the mix.
- skahn
October 6, 2012 at 9:20pm
It's amusing. It makes perfect sense that Mitt would come out with this kind of flip flop for his first national appearance after the convention. And yet, I certainly didn't see it coming, and apparently very few people, if any, did. Round 1 goes to Mitt, thankfully the bout isn't over yet.
- GSpinks
October 7, 2012 at 11:31am
More people may watch the second debate after all the hoopla over the first debate. Romney played the lying card. I'm hoping President Obama trumps it with the truth.
- Nusholtz
October 7, 2012 at 11:35am
Roid: clear-eyed analysis. Spinks: I get the sense that this was a test for Obama. They threw it to see exactly what Romney could come up with. The "can't be trsuted" ads are already running and, keep in mind, these reinforce already formed views of Romney: you can't change people's minds at this point, but you can remind them why they did not like this guy before the debates. Whether Axelrod or Obama saw the lies coming is questionable - I really think they felt Romney had something up his sleeve, and so they had to draw him out. And they did.
- icarus-r
October 9, 2012 at 10:46am
(partial repost) Roid: On style, I concede that it is possible that 1) Obama had a bad day; 2) he is just a bad debater; 3) he does not want to be President any more; 4) he is an awful communicator; and 5) Romney is a superlative debater and just walloped Obama. Possible. But, frankly, unlikely. I read about how awful he was and I see the numbers, and I have to remind myself that these can't be wrong - and that it is entirely possible that I am suffering from cognitive dissonance in dismissing all this information. And yet. And yet. All of this is not consistent with the character of the man. I remind myself of this timeless clip: http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KsVu11CSrQ The facts, lined up, all tend to one "inescapable conclusion" - but Clouseau in all his clumsiness ends up being right. And here, the character of the man Obama tends to a different conclusion than what appears to be the consensus "inescapable conclusion". In the Osama episode, he waited. He wanted evidence. When they had reasonable certainty, he was given two options - to simplify - and he chose the riskier option that was also the more certain one. Even as the plan was unfolding, he attended a roast and, for heaven's sake, put down Trump and ended the whole birther nonsense. His entire presidency hangs in the balance and the man betrays no fatigue, no distraction, nothing. Look at Bain. The punditocracy said that the Bain attacks would backfire. He went ahead and persisted. And so on. This is not a man who goes into a debate expecting to have a policy discussion (as Axelrod put it). He is not a man who gets distracted by Syria and Turkey. And, as he knows - as we all know - bounces and debate victories early October could fade. I am also reminded of this clip, from The Lion in Winter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxZdTLa4CWA Start with minute 1; the punchline comes at minute 3: "I found out the way your mind works and the kind of man you are." Not just that, but in front of 50 million people he got Romney to contradict everything he had said from taxes to the ACA - to his Etch-A-Sketch on national TV in the course of 90 minutes. Not a mean feat that. After Ryan's speech, and given that Romney has been lying his heart out the entire campaign, I cannot believe that either Obama or Axelrod were shocked at how easily the man lied during the debate. Now he will be going into the next debate with a bounce in his gate. He will be responding to the questions of ordinary citizens. And at that point, expect the contradictions to come back and to haunt him. And expect Obama to finish him off - without any time left to recover.
- icarus-r
October 9, 2012 at 10:58am