ELECTIONATE OCTOBER 10, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yesterday, Gallup released data showing that Obama returned to pre-debate levels over their last two days of interviews, suggesting that Romney’s bounce had already come and gone. Similarly, today’s Gallup poll seems to suggest that Obama’s strong showings are continuing.
There are other hints that Obama has fared better in interviews conducted after October 5th than he did immediately after the debates. Perhaps it was the waning memory of the debate or Friday’s jobs numbers, but there is a case that Obama has performed better in national and battleground surveys (I decided to exclude neurotic polls of MA) where the majority of interviews appear to have been conducted on October 6th or later than those where most interviews were conducted on October 4th or 5th.
And these are not the only polls suggesting that Obama might have rebounded from his post-debate nadir. Over the last twenty-four hours, CNN shows Obama leading by four points in Ohio, while PPP actually shows Obama making gains in Minnesota. And while Rasmussen suggests that Romney has made gains in Pennsylvania, nearly all of their other state polls show the president performing well in the battleground states since Sunday. Similarly, PPP suggested that their interviews on Saturday and Sunday were quite strong for the president and the ABC/Washington Post favorability poll found Obama and Romney near pre-debate levels, with the exception of a very strong night of interviews for Romney on the Thursday following the debates.
But! The picture isn’t nearly as clear as I just made it seem. Neither Rasmussen nor Reuters/Ipsos show Obama making gains over the last few days and Reuters/Ipsos actually finds Obama continuing to slide in today’s survey, which was conducted entirely after October 5th. And most of the reason why Obama appears to be performing better over the last few days is due to Rasmussen surveys in Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire, but Rasmussen’s pre-DNC surveys were unrealistically poor for the president, making the most recent surveys look better. If one excludes the Rasmussen state surveys, Romney has gained an average of 4 points in post-October 5th polls compared to 6.4 points before October 5, with polls like the Washington Times/Zogby showing Romney holding onto big gains.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
So although Gallup, CNN, PPP, YouGov/Economist are consistent with the idea that the Romney’s bounce receded, Zogby, ARG, and Reuters/Ipsos do not point toward movement in Obama’s direction, while Rasmussen suggests that both Romney never received a bounce and that Obama hasn’t gained over the weekend. In the aggregate, it looks like Romney’s bounce has subsided a bit, but a few more days of data will help resolve whether Romney’s bounce is largely intact.
11 comments
I think it's because President Obama came out and said he was being polite. I wish he had not been so polite, but at least he was polite.
- Nusholtz
October 10, 2012 at 3:32pm
Today's polls are bouncing a lot, but taken together they suggest to me that we are returning to the same stasis we had all the way from May all the way through most of August: Obama with about a 2 point lead nationally. I'll wager that by week's end that's what the poll averages will show.
- timteeter
October 10, 2012 at 4:52pm
Read here Romney's explanation of how he turned his campaign around:
- Haole45
October 10, 2012 at 5:27pm
What the hey? What do I have to do to paste in a link? http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-proudly-explains-how-hes-turned-campaign-ar,29845/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-proudly-explains-how-hes-turned-campaign-ar,29845/
- Haole45
October 10, 2012 at 5:30pm
Ah, just don't put in the < >. Got it.
- Haole45
October 10, 2012 at 5:31pm
If the president actually believes that too much politeness was his problem in the last debate, then we are in big trouble. The president can't debate, period. I'd suggest that he does whatever it takes to bring in Bill Clinton as his debate prep partner or as a teacher in how to clearly explain the good things he, Obama, has achieved the last four years. Somebody should, also, teach him how to counter the new Romney. The president's current style and approach to debates won't cut it. In my humble opinion, he is not going to beat Romney in the next two debates. Style, as they say in boxing, makes the fight. Romney's new-found vigor and assertiveness is tailor-made to beat Obama's meandering delivery and lack of clarity. I pray that I'm wrong, but I believe Democrats are in trouble.
- scrubby
October 10, 2012 at 8:05pm
Everyone is down on poor Mitt. The issue is not Mitt. Who on the left does not know that he is a lying, shift-shaping weasel? You mean in the debate he was a lying weasel? What a surprise! The problem is Barry, the absent minded professor. Of course his feckless non-performance had an impact on low info swing voters. How could it not? He apparently didn't even bother to write a coherent summary for the closing. I guess he forgot he would be asked to give a closing statement. His performance was beyond pathetic, and anyone--and I mean anyone--who saw it would question his competence to be President. A little guy staring at his shoes, like the teacher put him in the corner. Oh sure he'll probably do better next time. Maybe he'll be able to catch up to the train that left last Wednesday. Let's hope so.
- Vogelfam
October 11, 2012 at 12:11am
Vogel: "His performance was beyond pathetic, and anyone--and I mean anyone--who saw it would question his competence to be President." Of all the stupid comments I have read, this one takes the cake - in fact, the whole bakeryshop and the supply chain. Anyone reading this sentence alone would, and in fact ought to, question your political education and competence as a voter. Seriously, dude? We are to judge the performance - nay, the competence - of a sitting president with a record of accomplishment (and failure) on the basis of one night's performance, in a structured debate, against an admitted (by you) liar and snake-oil salesman? I tell you something - any individual and any group of oik and foofs who gets spooked so much by Romney and who gets disappointed so much by Obama on the basis of one night's performance as to question the competence of his side's candidate really deserves to have Romney as President. The problem with liberals is not that Obama is not liberal or aggressive enough, it is that most have been beaten by Republicans into a permanent fear-crouch. We saw this in 2008; we saw this in August; we are seeing it now. Get a grip.
- icarus-r
October 11, 2012 at 9:55am
Sure as President he's done well in some areas and poorly in others. But on the basis of the debate, no one would say "That guy would make a good President". He may, in fact, be competent, but why would anyone assume his competence in economic policy when he can't present or defend himself crisply and concisely? It may be window dressing, but that's how a politician garners support. That's what the swing voter sees. His performance was miserable in too many ways to list, and most have been listed anyway. By the way, I'm having a sale on crullers and muffins.
- Vogelfam
October 11, 2012 at 11:17am
"But on the basis of the debate, no one would say "That guy would make a good President". He may, in fact, be competent, but why would anyone assume his competence in economic policy when he can't present or defend himself crisply and concisely?" "I mean anyone" Dude, presenting and defending yourself concisely and crisply has nothing to do with competence in economic policy. One does not "assume" competence, but "assess" it, and one does not assess competence on the basis of the ability to communicate economics in a debate. Competence to be president is not just about ability to communicate economic policy in a debate, but rather, about judgement and decision-making ability in a vast array of matters, not least of which is the people you appoint to do stuff. Your premise is off; your assertion of universality ("I mean anyone") is just daft; your conflation of communication on economic policy and overal presidential competence is silly. If you had said that, "For certain segment of the population, mostly low-information voters in the undecided camp, the sight of a commanding bully behind a lectern implies superlative presidential qualities, and to that extent, Obama failed the test for them", I would agree. To make an assertion about "I mean anyone" questioning the competence of Obama to be President, and to persist in defending the statement, is plain asinine.
- icarus-r
October 11, 2012 at 11:52am
Thanks for the pointers on logic and universal statements. What I meant to say was: the negative impact is not so much that Mitt was great, but that Barry was bored, tired, failed to make much eye contact with either his opponent or the camera, rambling, unresponsive and generally (sorry) weak. And for that reason he came across as incompetent. Believe that is a big hit, and on some level is the real source of unease on the left as well as the reason some fence sitters are bailing on him. Crisp and concise explanations are not the same as wise policy decisions, duh, but they are a huge part of a politician's job if he wants people to support him. Hee-haw.
- Vogelfam
October 11, 2012 at 4:18pm