Rasmussen: Obama leads Romney in key swing states

StillBallin75 said:

Alright, I did some research and it appears you're correct. But if this is true, I believe you're simply magnifying the significance of the undecided vote past what it really is.

In 1964, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Goldwater, not Johnson - but Johnson won anyway, winning the popular vote by 60 percent. INCUMBENT VICTORY.
In 1972, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to McGovern, not Nixon - but Nixon destroyed McGovern, once again also winning over 60 percent of the popular vote. INCUMBENT VICTORY.
In 1976, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Carter, not Ford. Carter wins the popular vote 50-48. CHALLENGER VICTORY
In 1980, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Reagan, not Carter. Reagan wins the popular vote, 50-41. CHALLENGER VICTORY.
In 1984, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Mondale, not Reagan. Reagan wins the popular vote, 59-41. INCUMBENT VICTORY.
In 1992, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Perot or Clinton, not Bush. Clinton wins the popular vote, 43-37.5. CHALLENGER VICTORY.
In 1996, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Dole, not Clinton. Clinton wins the popular vote, 49-40. INCUMBENT VICTORY
In 2004, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Kerry, not Bush. Bush wins the popular vote 50-48. INCUMBENT VICTORY.

Tally:

Incumbent victories - 5
Challenger victories - 3

So, out of all of these situations, you are entirely correct that the undecided vote breaks for the challenger every single time. And yet, there are five incumbent victories, and only three challenger victories. Which means, based on the admittedly limited simple size, that either the undecided vote simply doesn't have a significant impact on who wins, or if anything, undecided voters going for the challenger means the incumbent is more likely to win.

So what makes you think undecided voters will have that big of an impact this time around? What makes you think Obama has more in common with Carter, Ford and Bush 1, as opposed to Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush W?

Click to expand...

It's a matter of math... (yikes was it really 80% each time?)

If you take polls, and have a margin of 2-4% with, with 5% undecided... if 80% of the undecided vote goes to the challenger, it's more than enough to swing the election...

2012 General Election: Romney vs. Obama - Pollster - Huffington Post 2012 Election Dashboard
Pollster has a poll average set at; Obama 45.6%, Romney 44.8% (a difference of .8), Undecided 6.6% (which at 20-80 would break 1.32-4.28. which would then make it 46.92-49.08... theoretically)

I still think these polls are too early to indicate much of anything... and all the historical polls people keep pointing to are from july and beyond (we just entered April)... so it's no use really concerning ourselves with this crap yet...

Of the situations you posted above, the only one which looks similar to this race so far is the Carter-Ford race, with the 50-48 popular vote (Ford had a similar unemployment rate)...

Arbo said:

I don't think there has ever been a poll 6+ months out that has even come close to the final result. Thus it's findings are more than likely, like every other one before it, worthless.

Click to expand...

Until you find one with Obama losing of course.....then it will be the most accurate poll in history and you will remind us again, that Ras got it right in the last election.
If the election was held today Romney would lose big, that's what it means and all it means. I doubt it will change much by November, though.
That Ryan budget is quite a big pill to swallow and all the polls say we should raise taxes on the rich not lower them even more. You really think Romney can sell that to voters?

IndepCentristMA said:

It's a matter of math... (yikes was it really 80% each time?)

If you take polls, and have a margin of 2-4% with, with 5% undecided... if 80% of the undecided vote goes to the challenger, it's more than enough to swing the election...

2012 General Election: Romney vs. Obama - Pollster - Huffington Post 2012 Election Dashboard
Pollster has a poll average set at; Obama 45.6%, Romney 44.8% (a difference of .8), Undecided 6.6% (which at 20-80 would break 1.32-4.28. which would then make it 46.92-49.08... theoretically)

I still think these polls are too early to indicate much of anything... and all the historical polls people keep pointing to are from july and beyond (we just entered April)... so it's no use really concerning ourselves with this crap yet...

Of the situations you posted above, the only one which looks similar to this race so far is the Carter-Ford race, with the 50-48 popular vote (Ford had a similar unemployment rate)...

Click to expand...

So what you're really saying here is a combination of either "We don't really know" and "it's too soon to tell." I completely agree.

StillBallin75 said:

So what you're really saying here is a combination of either "We don't really know" and "it's too soon to tell." I completely agree.

Click to expand...

He is. However, I gotta say....the undecided trend is exceedingly interesting and a nice nugget I've actually not heard through any various talking head that I can think of lately. While not of great use now, as it is too early, it'd definitely be an interesting theoritical number to look at in a month or so out of the election.

iguanaman said:

Until you find one with Obama losing of course.....

Click to expand...

In that case I would say the same thing, it is far too easy to tell. Does consistency through you for a loop?

Zyphlin said:

He is. However, I gotta say....the undecided trend is exceedingly interesting and a nice nugget I've actually not heard through any various talking head that I can think of lately. While not of great use now, as it is too early, it'd definitely be an interesting theoritical number to look at in a month or so out of the election.

Click to expand...

It is a pretty interesting trend. We need a smart person to tell us why this might be the case.

Deuce said:

It is a pretty interesting trend. We need a smart person to tell us why this might be the case.

Click to expand...

Honestly I'd take a stab at an admittedly baseless hypothesis...

Those who are undecided towards the end of the election but are going to vote are individuals who feel that they NEED to vote but simply have no strong desire between which leads to their quandry. In the case of the Incumbant, in the 4 years the person has been in office they've not done enough to make the person become a supporter. They've seen everything the person could throw at them for 4 years and still have came off as "meh". In the case of the challenger, they have no real strong attraction to the candidate but at the same time the candidate offers the unknown. The Incumbant is a known commodity, and his 4 years and your views on it are clear to you. The Challenger at least holds the possability for something different and something you may like.

Mind you, these are undecideds. If they absolutely just disliked the challenger, they'd be decided for the Incumbant by and large rather than undecided. These are likely people, by and large, who on the candidates along could give or take either one. So I think it may be the notion that you have a 50/50 shot of gambling on the "unknown" that it may lead to being something you like, where the Incumbant represents the same stuff you've not really been enthusiastic about for the past 4 years as an almost gaurantee.

As such, my hypothesis would be that the majority of voters, when faced with a situation where on campaigining/personality/ideolgoy alone the two candidates are relatively equal, that voters prefer to gamble on the hope that a new person will do things they are enthusiastic about rather than to vote for the continuous of 4 years they were somewhat "meh" about.

Whether that swings the election however depends more on how many people each side shores up. If you're only having 5% of the electorate being "undecided", and out of the decideds you're commanding a good 60% of them...well, that undecided factor is irrelevant. On the flip side, if the undecided factor is closer to say 15%, and you and your opponent are relatively near each other in terms of the percentage of decided voters, it suddenly becomes a much bigger thing.

StillBallin75 said:

Alright, I did some research and it appears you're correct. But if this is true, I believe you're simply magnifying the significance of the undecided vote past what it really is.

In 1964, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Goldwater, not Johnson - but Johnson won anyway, winning the popular vote by 60 percent. INCUMBENT VICTORY.
In 1972, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to McGovern, not Nixon - but Nixon destroyed McGovern, once again also winning over 60 percent of the popular vote. INCUMBENT VICTORY.
In 1976, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Carter, not Ford. Carter wins the popular vote 50-48. CHALLENGER VICTORY
In 1980, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Reagan, not Carter. Reagan wins the popular vote, 50-41. CHALLENGER VICTORY.
In 1984, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Mondale, not Reagan. Reagan wins the popular vote, 59-41. INCUMBENT VICTORY.
In 1992, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Perot or Clinton, not Bush. Clinton wins the popular vote, 43-37.5. CHALLENGER VICTORY.
In 1996, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Dole, not Clinton. Clinton wins the popular vote, 49-40. INCUMBENT VICTORY
In 2004, over 80 percent of the undecided vote went to Kerry, not Bush. Bush wins the popular vote 50-48. INCUMBENT VICTORY.

Tally:

Incumbent victories - 5
Challenger victories - 3

So, out of all of these situations, you are entirely correct that the undecided vote breaks for the challenger every single time. And yet, there are five incumbent victories, and only three challenger victories. Which means, based on the admittedly limited simple size, that either the undecided vote simply doesn't have a significant impact on who wins, or if anything, undecided voters going for the challenger means the incumbent is more likely to win.

So what makes you think undecided voters will have that big of an impact this time around? What makes you think Obama has more in common with Carter, Ford and Bush 1, as opposed to Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush W?

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that?

The question now becomes this: has Romney simply hit a new lot having been damaged by the GOP primary process and once that is over he will climb back to higher numbers? Or is this a sign of more to come in the way of the public rejecting Romney


I think the new low Romney hit is just the beginning. He has problems. He has problems with Latinos because of his opposition to the Dream Act. He has problems with senior citizens because he supports Paul Ryan's "Kill Medicare" bill. He has problems with blacks because of the extreme views on race of the Tea Party. And he has problems with women because he sides with the Rush Limbaugh types on laws dictating to women what they can do with their bodies.

A big problem for Romney is that to know him is NOT to love him. I read somewhere recently that the more time he spends in a state, the lower his favorability ratings go, and apparently that was also the case in '08. On that basis it would not surprise me to see the gap between Obama and Romney widen as the general election gets underway ... *provided* that the recovery stays more or less on track.

I wish Romney was more like average folks and down home, but he's not. We need someone who can turn this around and if he can do that, then I don't care if he has a personality like a 2 x 4. Just do it.

Arbo said:

I don't think there has ever been a poll 6+ months out that has even come close to the final result. Thus it's findings are more than likely, like every other one before it, worthless.

Click to expand...

Why should ANY POLL six months out tell you anything other than where things stand today as the poll is taken? That is the nature of the beast.

Trinnity said:

It's based in voting patterns of past elections and it's logical.

The polls are close. But most polls are by registered voters, NOT likely voters. Registered voters are more likely to vote for Obama. But you can't base the election on them because many will sit it out, especially disgruntled voters who supported Obama the first time but won't support him now and won't vote Republicans.
Going at least back to 1964, with incumbent re-elections, most undecided votes went to the challenger. The incumbent almost never wins the majority of the undecided vote. Go back and research the elections back to '64 and see for yourself. Do your own homework, please.

Click to expand...

Follow-up post in response to Trin.

For what it's worth, Rasmussen's samples include likely voters, not just registered voters.

Top Cat said:

The only folks here that actually believe that Mittens has a chance at beating Obama are the resident extremists. You'll note that these extremists are the same type that still think he's not an American, a Muslim, a commie pinko, a Marxist, the 2nd coming of Hitler and a terrorist or all of the above.

One would think that those on the right could have dredged up someone with more broad based appeal than the 3 ass clowns they currently have out there. I suspect we will see a much stronger set of candidates in 16.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's anything other than an American, I think he's a Christian, and that he is mere a liberal caught up in a contentious political environment (causing compromises).....and yet I believe Mitt has a chance.

I broke your argument.