Obama Leading In 14 New Swing State Polls, Tied In The Other Two

November 2, 2012

Comments

As he has for the past severa weeks, Taegan Goddard is tracing the Swing State polls and today was a very good day for President Obama:

Colorado: Obama 46%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Colorado: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Public Policy Polling)

Colorado: Obama 47%, Romney 45% (Denver Post/SurveyUSA)

Florida: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Iowa: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Gravis)

Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 47% (Rasmussen)

Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 46% (Public Policy Polling)

Nevada: Obama 50%, Romney 44% (Mellman)

New Hampshire: Obama 50%, Romney 44% (New England College)

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 47% (CNN/ORC)

Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 49% (Rasmussen)

Ohio: Obama 47%, Romney 45% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (We Ask America)

Virginia: Obama 48%, Romney 45% (Reuters/Ipsos)

Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 48% (We Ask America)

Wisconsin: Obama 52%, Romney 45% (We Ask America)

With only three days of campaigning left, there’s no sign anywhere of a Romney surge in the swing states, and the President continues to be competitive in states like Virginia that many were contending a week ago that Romney was on the verge of wrapping up. So, either all these polls are going to turn out to be wrong, which is certainly possible, or the President is headed for re-election.

29 responses to “Obama Leading In 14 New Swing State Polls, Tied In The Other Two”

MBunge

November 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm

If Obama wins by a big Electoral College margin, I wonder if they’ll be any blowback at conservative media from thir audiences. I mean, would even Fox viewers every tolerate seeing Dick Morris on their screen again? Do they start to wonder what else Sean Hannity isn’t being completely up front about?

Mike
Geek, Esq.

November 2, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Mittmentum is the new Joementum.
David M

November 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm

@MBunge:
Never underestimate the appeal of “clap louder next time”.
Jr

November 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm

Yeah…..Obama looks like he is going to win.
Geek, Esq.

November 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm

@MBunge:

Fox will just bring someone on who’ll blame the loss on voter fraud, ACORN, the New Black Panther Party, and the LameStream Media.

Fox’s viewers don’t tune in because they want to learn anything–they oppose that kind of endeavor. Rather, they tune in because they want their fantasies validated.
Jr

November 2, 2012 at 4:10 pm

You know things aren’t going well when Rasmussen has Ohio tied after it being R+2.
C. Clavin

November 2, 2012 at 4:13 pm

As of 3:00pm today Princeton Election Consortium has those states as:
CO – Obama +2
FL – Obama +.5 (Toss-Up)
IA – Obama +5
MI – Obama +6.5
NV – Obama +3
NH – Obama +3
OH – Obama +3
VA – Obama +.5 (Toss-Up)

It appears to me that the same thing that was true months ago is still true; Obama has several ways to win…Romney has one and it requires Ohio where Obama is up. And even if Romney wins Ohio there are still ways for Obama to beat him.

Of course this all ignores the stupid vote. I predict Romney.
Ron Beasley

November 2, 2012 at 4:16 pm

@Jr: Nate Silver predicted that Rasmussen polls would fall in line with the rest a few days before the election. They have to protect their reputation so someone will listen next time.
Jr

November 2, 2012 at 4:17 pm

@Ron Beasley: Oh, I know. They do this every year, even their daily tracker has the race tied after it being Mitt +4 last week.

Their a narrative pollster and a joke.
djw

November 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Dick Morris is always wrong about everything, and it never seems to hurt his career. I’m not sure why this time would be any different. Remember his book about how the upcoming HIllary vs. Condi presidential election will be the most important of our lifetime?

Philip Tetlock, in his outstanding book about “experts”, noted that there is a robust inverse relationship between the frequency with which “experts” appear on TV and how often their predictions are correct. Tetlock doesn’t give this finding a name, but I’ve always thought it should be called the Morris law.
michael reynolds

November 2, 2012 at 4:51 pm

@MBunge:

Dick Morris’ job is to lie to cretins (Fox News viewers.) I think it’s important to understand that these are not people who want the truth and are then upset when it turns out they’ve been lied to. That’s how you or I would feel. But these people live in a whole different world: truth is irrelevant. In fact, truth is to be actively avoided. Truth is the enemy.

They sense the truth: there is no God, Republican political theories are nonsense, the Good Old Days never really existed and in any case they’re gone for good, the stupid old white bigots demo is losing power, etc… They sense all that, and they don’t want it confirmed. They want to be lied to. They want someone to pat them on the head and tell them it will all be fine.

I mean, look at people like Florack or Tsar or Jan let alone superdestroyer. Have you ever seen truth make even the slightest impression on them? No. Never. So Dick Morris understands perfectly well what his job is, and he’s doing it.
Tsar Nicholas

November 2, 2012 at 4:55 pm

It’s a good thing Romney controls the voting machines. Oh, shit, did I say that aloud?

On a serious note, not that I’m not already being serious, for obvious reasons I won’t bother deconstructing all of those polls. You’d all get crushingly bored and I would too.

But just for shits and giggles, and for the pure hell of it, I’ll point out a few items regarding that Iowa poll by Gravis Marketing. Why that poll? No particular reason. On various fronts most of these media polls are interchangeable.

To believe that poll, and ergo to believe Obama is + 4 in Iowa, here’s what you also have to believe: (1) that Democrats substantially will be a larger percentage of the ’12 vote in Iowa than they were back in the “transformative” wave election year of ’08 (41% in that poll vs. 34% actual turnout in ’08); (2) that the margin by which Democrat turnout in IA will exceed GOP turnout in IA this year substantially will be greater than it was back in ’08 (D+6 in that poll vs. D+1 actual turnout in ’08); (3) that substantially a higher percentage of Iowa Republicans will vote for Obama this year than the percentgage of Iowa Republicans who voted for Obama over McCain’s walking corpse of a candidacy (16% GOP crossover votes in that poll vs. 9% actual crossover votes in ’08); (4) that Independents, who [cough] coincidentally are breaking for Romney 43-38, according to that poll, will be substantially less of a percentage of the Iowa vote this year than they were four years ago (24% of that polling sample vs. 33% actual turnout in ’08).

You don’t really believe all that, do you? If so, well, there are bridges for sale all over Atlantis, sight unseen.

Obama is not going to win Iowa by four points. It’s quite likely that Obama won’t win Iowa. And Obama is not going to win the nine states to which those polls make reference. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark. Shit, other than Michigan it’s not totally out of the question that he’ll lose all of them.

But still none of this will matter. Because of the demographics of the chattering classes. If Obama wins this election, even if by the margin of one dead felon in Milwaukee and two crack addicts in Cleveland, the left will party like it’s 1999 and the right will go full retard circular firing squad. And if Romney wins the election, even if by a larger margin than Bush in ’04, the left will go 5150 and will blame everything from Sandy to sushi, and the right instantly will begin nitpicking his presidency. Either way the chattering classes will be covered.
mantis

November 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm

@Tsar Nicholas:

Shorter Nicky the Dipshit: Those polls are all totally gayskewed by gay communist math jerks! O-bummer will probably lose all fifty states! If he doesn’t, it’s because he cheated and the crack addict vote turned out big!
michael reynolds

November 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm

@Tsar Nicholas:

Wow. That’s a very compelling case. Now go explain it to Rasmussen – the GOP’s favorite pollsters – because they had it Romney by just 1 as of yesterday, which doesn’t seem quite to match up with your dire assessment.
KariQ

November 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm

The national polls moving in Obama’s direction takes away the last real uncertainty that there seemed to be about the election, and the topic that seemed to interest a lot of people this week: How could Romney lead the national polls while trailing in the state polls? Now, that he’s moving ahead in national polls as well, you have to assume a vast conspiracy by every single pollster in the business, including the ones who work for Republicans, to make it look like Obama’s winning when he’s actually way behind.

Of course, no one is paranoid and delusional enough to believe such a thing…oh, wait.
Anderson

November 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm

I posted this over at TPM, but y’all are too special, or unfortunate, for me not to share:

Thirteen Ways of Looking at an Electoral College Map

I
Among twelve swinging states,
The only moving thing
Was the Electoral College map.

II
I was of three minds,
Like an Electoral College map
In which there are three pollsters.

III
The Electoral College map whirled in the autumn polls.
It was a small part of the pantomime.

IV
A man and a woman
Are one.
A man and a woman and an Electoral College map
Are one.

V
I do not know which to prefer,
The beauty of polling averages
Or the beauty of margins of error,
The Electoral College map on Election Day
Or just after.

VI
Polling averages filled the computer monitor
With particolored glass.
The shadow of the Electoral College map
Crossed it, to and fro.
The mood
Traced in the monitor
An indecipherable result.

VII
O thin men of Gallup,
Why do you imagine national averages?
Do you not see how the Electoral College map
Trips up the feet
Of your likely voters?

VIII
I know noble models
And lucid, inescapable algorithms;
But I know, too,
That the Electoral College map is involved
In what I know.

IX
When the Electoral College map turned all to tossups,
It marked the edge
Of one of many circles.

X
At the sight of an Electoral College map
Glowing in a purple light,
Even the bawds of punditry
Would cry out sharply.

XI
He rode over Ohio
In a glass coach.
Once, a fear pierced him,
In that he mistook
The shadow of the 47%
For Electoral College maps.

XII
The polls are moving.
The Electoral College map must be shifting.

XIII
It was four days till the election.
It was polling
And it was going to poll.
The Electoral College map refreshed
On the smartphone.
Modulo Myself

November 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm

The thing about Romney losing is that an enormous amount of money was raised from rich people and then spent in order for it to happen. And it was entirely pointless. Obama has done wonders for the stock market and the wealthy. He’s totally in favor of making money and accruing wealth. His big domestic policy is designed to lower the costs of the largest government program we have.

Meanwhile, his opponent has ended up with the complicated platform of shaking a stick at the heavens so to be showered in manna. That’s it. That’s what Rove and the Super PACs and the Kochs and Adelson came up with. Mitt Romney grinning uneasily as he talks the secret way he has to ‘turn things around.’

If I was on Wall Street and kicking in 100K or more for the sake of a decrease in the capital gains tax rate, I would hopefully look in the mirror and call myself a sucker. And then I would want Rove’s head, Roger Ailes’ head, and everyone else, down to Dick Morris and the entire staff of the National Review. Because in 2008, the GOP turned into a state designed for one thing–to raise a ton of money and opposition in order to take down a moderate president in 2012.

They raised the money (oh yes) and boy, is their pointless babble and opposition, but they probably won’t be doing the last.
Peg

November 2, 2012 at 5:44 pm

@MBunge:

You have to wonder but I truly think they are so deeply invested in their alternate reality they will just accept whatever they’re told. I see Dick Morris is already backing off as is Ras polling and they can always use “Obama thugs” stealing the election and “voter fraud”.

It’s frankly amazing they are still seemingly convinced that not only will Mitt win but will win in a landslide…a landslide, really? It used to be you could have some kind of a discussion with a conservative but this election cycle I had to admit there is no way to “discuss” with them. I just write them off as too stoopid to bother with.
Tim D.

November 2, 2012 at 5:44 pm

@Anderson: That was awesome! It’s not everyday you see a good Wallace Stevens joke 🙂
Modulo Myself

November 2, 2012 at 5:48 pm

@Anderson:

Anecdote of the Independent.

I polled a man in Ohio
And undecided he was, in his garage.
He made the partisan wilderness
Besiege that garage.

The candidates rose up to him,
And became moderates, of the middle class.
The independent was honest and round
And American and made up of air.

Was his dominion one or the other?
His outlook was gray and bare
He did not give off interest
Like many other voters in Ohio.
Anderson

November 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Well done, Modulo!
ernieyeball

November 2, 2012 at 8:27 pm

I voted early sixteen days ago
Illinois let me cast my vote so
I’ve turned off the TV
(I still read OTB)
Hope to see 4 more years of Big O!
C. Clavin

November 3, 2012 at 8:00 am

Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium:

“…A few days ago, the word was that Team Romney was buying ads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania. If he wins either of those states I will eat a bug. Ohio…a really big bug. And yes, I will post a photo…”

They now have Obama by 2% in VA and up by 1% in FL.
Nate Silver has raised Obama’s chance of winning to 83.7% to Romney’s 16.3%.
I still don’t trust the stupid vote…electing Romney is the equivilant of electing Bush 43…only with better hair…and we did that twice…why not once more??
But there seems to be some pretty consistent O-mentum right now…when it counts.
Davebo

November 3, 2012 at 10:01 am

Wow, obviously comments on deleted posts have struck a nerve with James.
mantis

November 3, 2012 at 12:12 pm

@Davebo:

What was the deleted post about?
mantis

November 3, 2012 at 12:16 pm

@mantis:

Oh never mind. So he hit publish too early. So what?
James in LA

November 3, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Absent a bold prediction, Morris would be unable to then claim fraud. He is able to think a whole step ahead of his viewers, the ones that are still with us, that is. Even if he loses his job, he will be able to feed himself for years on what protrudes forth.

Tsar, I love your satire! Do you write for The Onion?
Barry

November 3, 2012 at 2:37 pm

@MBunge: “If Obama wins by a big Electoral College margin, I wonder if they’ll be any blowback at conservative media from thir audiences. I mean, would even Fox viewers every tolerate seeing Dick Morris on their screen again? Do they start to wonder what else Sean Hannity isn’t being completely up front about?”

No. If pundits are held accountable for their (pleasing to the elites) BS, then the new crop of pundits might prioritize not BS-ing over being pleasing to the elites.

Take the Iraq War – how many supporters suffered for being wrong?
Barry

November 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm

@Modulo Myself: “They raised the money (oh yes) and boy, is their pointless babble and opposition, but they probably won’t be doing the last. ”

I disagree. No matter how good the Democratic Party is for the elites, they know/believe that the GOP will be better. If the GOP can’t deliver better economic growth (and they can’t), the GOP will give the elites lower taxes, a larger slice of the pie, and a massive ego boost.