• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Latest Swing State Polls

areafiftyone

areafiftyone

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
84
Reaction score
36
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Here are the today's swing state polls, updated as needed throughout the day:

A new USA Today/Gallup Pollof twelve swing states shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by just two points, 48% to 46%

Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% ( Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT)

Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 44% ( Fox News)

Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 42% ( Fox News)

Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 44% ( CNN/ORC)

Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 41% ( Morning Call/Muhlenberg)

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 46% ( Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT)

Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 46% ( We Ask America)

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 43% ( Fox News)

Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 45% ( Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT)

Wisconsin: Obama 54%, Romney 40% ( Marquette Law School)




Updates will come today at: Taegan Goddard's Political Wire
 
Rasmussen has Romney winning in Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa.
 
duhu said:
Rasmussen has Romney winning in Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa.
Click to expand...

Great... If Romney wins only those swing states, he loses the election. He must win two of three of Florida, Ohio and Virginia to win the election. Even if he wins 2 of 3, Obama only needs one of those states plus a smaller state. Ohio, at the moment, looks out of reach for the Reds...

RCP, yesterday, took Wisconsin out of the Toss-Up classification and moved it to "Leans Obama", giving Obama a starting point is 247 votes, meaning he ONLY needs Florida or Ohio and one other state.

Go ahead and write your own scenario:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ey_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html

No matter how you slice it, though, Romney is in deep, deep trouble.
 
Last edited:
duhu said:
Rasmussen has Romney winning in Colorado, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa.
Click to expand...

I did see that. The Daily poll has Obama up by two. One week Romney is up next week Obama is up. But neither one is really up by huge numbers. Shows how tight this race really is.
 
Something about these number as a group is out of whack. USA Today saying Obama is up 2 nationally and up 1 in swing states and then the state break downs are that off. Makes no sense. Unless Obama turns out a huge GOTV, I do not see him winning VA but Romney has lost FL already. Ohio-PA who knows. I saw an announcement that some coal miners are being laid off in PA--not a lot but something that may send some local shockwaves into Pittsburgh maybe. Sounds like the election may be determined by whether or not a line of thunderstorms roll up the Appalachians on election day.
 
Fisher said:
Something about these number as a group is out of whack. USA Today saying Obama is up 2 nationally and up 1 in swing states and then the state break downs are that off. Makes no sense. Unless Obama turns out a huge GOTV, I do not see him winning VA but Romney has lost FL already. Ohio-PA who knows. I saw an announcement that some coal miners are being laid off in PA--not a lot but something that may send some local shockwaves into Pittsburgh maybe. Sounds like the election may be determined by whether or not a line of thunderstorms roll up the Appalachians on election day.
Click to expand...

Nate Silver has actually a plausible and logical explanation on why some polls are "out of the norm". Cell phones. Polls like Pew, who include cell phones come out with Obama ahead considerably, but if you look at polls that dont include cell phones then it is neck and neck. Rasmussen for example does NOT call cell phones, which can explain why they are so off often .. that or/and their political bias of the owner.

Oh and today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll.. Obama up by 2... so a 3 point gain in a day.
 
Those Medicare D books are going out in the mail now. Since seniors never like to see their premiums/copays go up, it may swing wildly some more before election day.
 
UPDATED POLLS:


Here are the updated polls:


Here are the today's swing state polls, updated as needed throughout the day:

Florida: Romney 48%, Obama 44% ( Caddell/McLaughlin)

Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 46% ( We Ask America)

Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 38% ( Detroit Newss)

New Hampshire: Obama 47%, Romney 40% ( YouGov)

North Carolina: Obama 46%, Romney 46% ( YouGov)

Ohio: Obama 47%, Romney 44% ( Caddell/McLaughlin)

Pennsylvania: Obama 48%, Romney 42% ( We Ask America)
 
I'd give Romney NH anyway, since he has a home there. A lot of the swing states look like they're starting to trend to the Big O. Bad news for Mitt.
 
Obviously national polls are meaningless. Ask President Gore, who won the National election in 2000 by a half a million votes. The only thing that matters are the polls in those swing states, and they do not bode well for Romney.
 
Remember that at this time the most comparable election would have been Carter vs Reagan in 1980. Crappy economy; likeable President who didn't seem to be getting the job done; a relatively unknown challenger that the media was not treating kindly. And yet at this point prior to the election, prior to the debates, Carter was leading Reagan by almost double digits in a head-to-head matchup when third party Anderson was not included--and I don't believe any poll showed Reagan in the lead anywhere. Yet in that election, it was a blowout for Reagan. In the second term we still had some pretty ugly economic indicators, though there was considerable improvement, and again the polls showed the election would be close. Reagan carried every single state except Mondale's Minnesota and he almost got that.

The polls are heavily dependent on methodology, what time of day they are conducted, and care to poll consistent demographics. Rasmussen's rolling three-day-averages have consistently proved to be among the more accurate. But at this time the polls are more affected by people's gut feelings than by anything else. They aren't paying that much attention. Let's see how it goes when it gets closer to the election and they start really focusing and making up their minds.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Remember that at this time the most comparable election would have been Carter vs Reagan in 1980. Crappy economy; likeable President who didn't seem to be getting the job done; a relatively unknown challenger that the media was not treating kindly. And yet at this point prior to the election, prior to the debates, Carter was leading Reagan by almost double digits in a head-to-head matchup when third party Anderson was not included--and I don't believe any poll showed Reagan in the lead anywhere. Yet in that election, it was a blowout for Reagan. In the second term we still had some pretty ugly economic indicators, though there was considerable improvement, and again the polls showed the election would be close. Reagan carried every single state except Mondale's Minnesota and he almost got that.

The polls are heavily dependent on methodology, what time of day they are conducted, and care to poll consistent demographics. Rasmussen's rolling three-day-averages have consistently proved to be among the more accurate. But at this time the polls are more affected by people's gut feelings than by anything else. They aren't paying that much attention. Let's see how it goes when it gets closer to the election and they start really focusing and making up their minds.
Click to expand...


Everyone's favorite comparison, but rather moot. First, Ronald Reagan was an extremely likeable guy. Second, Reagan was happy to tell you where he still on issues and what he would do as president. Third, Reagan was consistent.

People wanted an excuse to vote for him; they just wanted to be sure he could be trusted with the "button". With the Iran hostage crisis continuing (making Carter look more impotent each day) and the prime rate lingering in double digits, and an outstanding performance by Reagan in the debates, the people had the permission they needed.

Unlike Reagan, Romney lacks likeability, a clear message and consistency. Unlike 1980, the electorate is far more firmly entrenched in a party (its 47 to 47 regardless of what happens, with a 6 point swing, maybe). Like 1980, the name Romney will become a trivia question; an answer to name past presidential candidates and tell me where they are now.
 
Conflicting and fluctuating poll numbers from various different polling agencies in various different areas... no way... really? You might think that means that the election hasn't happened yet, and people's opinions sway back and forth between now and then...
 
Albqowl is correct that Rasmussen's numbers are historically more accurate. I think I heard somewhere those were the only numbers Clinton relied upon when they were still a fringe polling group because they are more accurate.
 
Navy Pride said:
Rasmussen was the closest of all the pollsters in 2008.
Click to expand...

And the farthest of all pollsters in 2010. My problem with Rasmussen is the way they weight their polls. They try and weight by Party Affiliation numbers based on what they think that the turnout will be. Sometimes, like in 2008, they are pretty close to accurate. Other times, like in 2010 they are wrong, and their results suffer. I prefer the pollsters who weight only by immutable demographics like age, gender, and race. Another problem is that they don't poll cellphones.
 
To be honest...it seems like Obama is starting to pull away with this thing. Romney really screwed up with that video and I don't see him having the charisma or ability to pull himself out of that deep hole. In the upcoming debates, I see Romney getting slaughtered a lot like he did in the Republican debates earlier this year. Romney has ZERO likability and charisma. Obama has both of those and will use it well.

I stand by my claim that Republicans picked pretty much the worst candidate they could have. As much as I loathe Santorum and Gingrich...they would have been better to rally around the base. Of course...to me Ron Paul was the best choice as he appealed across party lines and to independents. Romney...nobody really likes him at all. People like Paul Ryan more than him.

I think Republicans are already thinking about 2016 with Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or maybe even a Rand Paul.
 
Anagram said:
And the farthest of all pollsters in 2010. My problem with Rasmussen is the way they weight their polls. They try and weight by Party Affiliation numbers based on what they think that the turnout will be. Sometimes, like in 2008, they are pretty close to accurate. Other times, like in 2010 they are wrong, and their results suffer. I prefer the pollsters who weight only by immutable demographics like age, gender, and race. Another problem is that they don't poll cellphones.
Click to expand...

Election modeling often has a problem really anticipating high and low voter turn out. What they generally do is track actual results and turnout over time (decades) all the way down to the wards/precincts and use that as a basis for the trend. They did allocate GOTV along the historical break down (in 50 years, they have been 51-48 dem so we assume that for the all GOTV). When one party has very high or very low turnout, the models become less reliable. Was it 2008 or 2010 that saw those massive straight-line thunderstorms throwing out a few tornadoes along the way that ripped through the middle of the country? I forget, but rain matters as well.
 
Navy Pride said:
Rasmussen was the closest of all the pollsters in 2008.
Click to expand...

Why is it, NP, that when Rasmussen has numbers that you like....Rasmussen is AWESOME and Accurate....but when Rasmussen numbers don't reflect your desires they are "A biased pollster that only polls liberals"? LOL.....
 
Fisher said:
Something about these number as a group is out of whack. USA Today saying Obama is up 2 nationally and up 1 in swing states and then the state break downs are that off. Makes no sense. Unless Obama turns out a huge GOTV, I do not see him winning VA but Romney has lost FL already. Ohio-PA who knows. I saw an announcement that some coal miners are being laid off in PA--not a lot but something that may send some local shockwaves into Pittsburgh maybe. Sounds like the election may be determined by whether or not a line of thunderstorms roll up the Appalachians on election day.
Click to expand...

Romney surrendered here in PA about 3-4 weeks ago. I haven't heard a presidential political ad in that time and they were on every 20 minutes before that. Looks like even the state's GOP driven attempt to stop as many low income people as possible from voting with their superfluous ID law wasn't enough to hand Willard the state.
 
I think you may be jumping the gun. Obama is trying to force Romney into Fl and out of the north. I expect that come Oct 15 or 20th, every swing state will be carpet-bombed by Romney who reportedly has way more money than Obama to retaliate with. Romney bought the nomination with a barrage of highly targeted negative ads. I expect he is going to go back to that playbook when Obama won't have the time or money to respond in everyone of the swing states as soon as the last debate is over.
 
Fisher said:
Something about these number as a group is out of whack. USA Today saying Obama is up 2 nationally and up 1 in swing states and then the state break downs are that off. Makes no sense. Unless Obama turns out a huge GOTV, I do not see him winning VA but Romney has lost FL already. Ohio-PA who knows. I saw an announcement that some coal miners are being laid off in PA--not a lot but something that may send some local shockwaves into Pittsburgh maybe. Sounds like the election may be determined by whether or not a line of thunderstorms roll up the Appalachians on election day.
Click to expand...

VA is sure to go to Obama unless something dramatic happens. I'm in VA and I know for the senate race Tim Cain is going to be senator, he's up by like over 10 pts.
 
shiang said:
VA is sure to go to Obama unless something dramatic happens. I'm in VA and I know for the senate race Tim Cain is going to be senator, he's up by like over 10 pts.
Click to expand...

The only poll that matters is the one taken Friday night before the election. That is the only historically true representation of how the vote will go. I think it has only been off 1 in the history of polling when it was within the margin of error.

The Washington Post has Kaine up by 8; Real Politics has him up by 4; and Kaine may have inadvertently derailed himself when he said he was open to everybody having to pay some taxes even if it is a minimum amount.
 
Fisher said:
I think you may be jumping the gun. Obama is trying to force Romney into Fl and out of the north. I expect that come Oct 15 or 20th, every swing state will be carpet-bombed by Romney who reportedly has way more money than Obama to retaliate with. Romney bought the nomination with a barrage of highly targeted negative ads. I expect he is going to go back to that playbook when Obama won't have the time or money to respond in everyone of the swing states as soon as the last debate is over.
Click to expand...

Something a little contradictory in your logic there. If Romney has money to spare, why not continue his ads in PA and force Obama to spend precious resources defending his lead here instead of allowing it to grow and planning some massive 4th quarter comeback? Either Romney is an idiot as a strategist or he knows the bell has already tolled for him in the Keystone State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom