Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
First, from Rasmussen this morning:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
These updates are based upon nightly interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed before President Obama’s prime-time speech last night at the Democratic National Convention.
It's unlikely that last night's speech -- and this morning's job numbers -- will bump Obama's numbers up higher. So, for the moment, and because it's Friday, let's indulge in a little soothing cocooning, shall we?
From Investor's Business Daily:
While either party winning the presidency in 2012 historically can expect seat losses in the [2014] midterm, they are usually far worse in a [re-elected president's] second midterm. To this disadvantage Democrats add the 2014 hurdle of defending 20 Senate seats to Republicans' 13.
So no matter who wins, it's looking good for congressional Republicans. Also:
When it comes to their party's presidential nominee, members of Congress should be careful what they wish for. This year's winner may gain only a few seats. If so, Democrats will be in the worse position to absorb the larger losses historically accompanying a two-term president.
From a congressional Democratic perspective, 2012 looks like a higher four-year risk than reward. We have not seen four consecutive congressional election losses since the Depression, but in a worst-case scenario, Democrats could be looking at that — 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.
The result could be appreciable Republican majorities and a Republican president in 2016, the same result Democrats enjoyed after 2008. Seeing this, both parties in Congress — especially Democrats — could be excused for quietly asking: Is it worth it?
I'm trying to be very careful not to believe things just because I want them to be true. But this makes an interesting -- and non-ideological -- case.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Youve seen it before....
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
The trick is, you need to follow polls that are worth following.
Pollsters that hide the partisan breakdown of their polls are not worth following, listening to, or trusting in any way. It's just that simple.
They're probably trying to depress Republican turnout, and from your comments here, they seem to be succeeding, at least with you. · 17 minutes ago
Problem is, you sound just like me in 2006 and 2008. In both those years, I refused to believe what the polls said, nitpicking the partisan samples, talked about the "narrative pollsters were trying to set," leapt obsessively on anecdotes about turnout strength in certain states etc. In the end, the polls were right twice and I was wrong. I decided then I would not let myself be blinded by wishcasting.
Gallup is the oldest and most respected pollster and has been one of the friendliest to Romney in this cycle. I can't only listen to what Rasmussen tells me, as many conservatives seem willing to do. · 23 minutes ago
You're listening to someone who refuses to tell you how many Democrats they're polling.
That is, in all candor, not wise.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
Problem is, you sound just like me in 2006 and 2008. In both those years, I refused to believe what the polls said, nitpicking the partisan samples, talked about the "narrative pollsters were trying to set," leapt obsessively on anecdotes about turnout strength in certain states etc. In the end, the polls were right twice and I was wrong. I decided then I would not let myself be blinded by wishcasting.
Gallup is the oldest and most respected pollster and has been one of the friendliest to Romney in this cycle. I can't only listen to what Rasmussen tells me, as many conservatives seem willing to do. · 28 minutes ago
Rasmussen also correctly called the Senate in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008.
You're the one following Gallup, how'd they do in those two?
Jun '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Call me when Dear Leader polls at 50%+ consistently. Then I'll panic.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
Problem is, you sound just like me in 2006 and 2008. In both those years, I refused to believe what the polls said, nitpicking the partisan samples, talked about the "narrative pollsters were trying to set," leapt obsessively on anecdotes about turnout strength in certain states etc. In the end, the polls were right twice and I was wrong. I decided then I would not let myself be blinded by wishcasting.
Gallup is the oldest and most respected pollster and has been one of the friendliest to Romney in this cycle. I can't only listen to what Rasmussen tells me, as many conservatives seem willing to do. · 34 minutes ago
Finally, as for oldest and most respected, the New York Times is one of the oldest newspapers in the nation and is respected by a lot of people.
Does that make their coverage fair and unbiased?
Apr '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
ConservativeWanderer
Rasmussen also correctly called the Senate in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008.
You're the one following Gallup, how'd they do in those two? · 14 minutes ago
Couldnt find the 2006 Senate numbers, but Gallup was off in the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008 by a slight bit. Unfortunately, it was wrong in that it overstated the Republican's numbers.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
Rasmussen also correctly called the Senate in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008.
You're the one following Gallup, how'd they do in those two? · 14 minutes ago
Couldnt find the 2006 Senate numbers, but Gallup was off in the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008 by a slight bit. Unfortunately, it was wrong in that it overstated the Republican's numbers. · 0 minutes ago
In other words, Rasmussen was right and Gallup was wrong.
And which one are you trusting?
Apr '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
Rasmussen also correctly called the Senate in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008.
You're the one following Gallup, how'd they do in those two? · 14 minutes ago
Couldnt find the 2006 Senate numbers, but Gallup was off in the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008 by a slight bit. Unfortunately, it was wrong in that it overstated the Republican's numbers. · 0 minutes ago
In other words, Rasmussen was right and Gallup was wrong.
And which one are you trusting? · 43 minutes ago
Rasmussen was horribly wrong in 2010, systematically overstating the Republican vote by over 4 points. Why do you trust them?
Edited on September 7, 2012 at 10:40pmRe: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Gallup, indeed, deserves attention. We will have to see what the favorability ratings are a week from now.
Mar '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
hey all-- not to stir things up anymore but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't this link contain the partisan breakdown you're looking for? please correct me if I'm wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154577/election-2012-weekly-demographic-data.aspx
My take -- of course Obama was going to get a convention bounce. But there's a reason they're called bounces. the ball typically comes back down.
Apr '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Nate Silver on Rasmussen (yes, I know he is biased):
Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.
Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
Rasmussen also correctly called the Senate in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008.
You're the one following Gallup, how'd they do in those two? · 14 minutes ago
Couldnt find the 2006 Senate numbers, but Gallup was off in the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008 by a slight bit. Unfortunately, it was wrong in that it overstated the Republican's numbers. · 0 minutes ago
In other words, Rasmussen was right and Gallup was wrong.
And which one are you trusting? · 43 minutes ago
Rasmussen was horribly wrong in 2010, systematically overstating the Republican vote by over 4 points. Why do you trust them? · 20 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
Rasmussen called the Senate right again in 2010. They said 48 Dem, 45 GOP, 7 tossup. The end results were 51 Dem, 47 GOP, which is pretty darned good.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin: Nate Silver on Rasmussen (yes, I know he is biased):
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/ · 9 minutes ago
Nate Silver is so biased he's horizontal (with his head in Obama's lap).
He was a member of Journolist, remember?
Edited to add: If Nate Silver told me that stone was hard, I'd try out a rock as a pillow. If he hates Rasmussen, that tells me they must be doing something right.
Edited on September 7, 2012 at 11:19pmJun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Michael Hussey: hey all-- not to stir things up anymore but if I'm not mistaken, doesn't this link contain the partisan breakdown you're looking for? please correct me if I'm wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154577/election-2012-weekly-demographic-data.aspx
My take -- of course Obama was going to get a convention bounce. But there's a reason they're called bounces. the ball typically comes back down. · 19 minutes ago
That's not that bad, but that breaks down as Obama and Romney, not D/R. Not all Dems will vote Obama, nor will all Republicans vote Romney. I'd be very dubious drawing any conclusions using that data as a part of the analysis.
Apr '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
Rasmussen also correctly called the Senate in 2006 and the Presidential election in 2008.
You're the one following Gallup, how'd they do in those two? · 14 minutes ago
Couldnt find the 2006 Senate numbers, but Gallup was off in the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008 by a slight bit. Unfortunately, it was wrong in that it overstated the Republican's numbers. · 0 minutes ago
In other words, Rasmussen was right and Gallup was wrong.
And which one are you trusting? · 43 minutes ago
Rasmussen was horribly wrong in 2010, systematically overstating the Republican vote by over 4 points. Why do you trust them? · 20 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
Rasmussen called the Senate right again in 2010. They said 48 Dem, 45 GOP, 7 tossup. The end results were 51 Dem, 47 GOP, which is pretty darned good. · 4 minutes ago
Almost everybody got final results right, as in most races were not close. Rasmussen overstated Republican margins systematically. Since we are dealing with a difference of a few points in the Presidential race (or maybe not, if other pollsters end up finding what Gallup is finding) that is significant.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
Rasmussen was horribly wrong in 2010, systematically overstating the Republican vote by over 4 points. Why do you trust them? · 20 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
Rasmussen called the Senate right again in 2010. They said 48 Dem, 45 GOP, 7 tossup. The end results were 51 Dem, 47 GOP, which is pretty darned good. · 4 minutes ago
Almost everybody got final results right, as in most races were not close. Rasmussen overstated Republican margins systematically. Since we are dealing with a difference of a few points in the Presidential race (or maybe not, if other pollsters end up finding what Gallup is finding) that is significant. · 0 minutes ago
You said "horribly wrong," now you admit that almost everyone got final results right.
Just look at yourself. Look at the extent you're having to go to defend your chosen pollster... you're flip-flopping worse than Obama on Gitmo.
The bottom line is, you've become emotionally invested. You're equating criticism of Gallup with criticism of you, personally, and that's not what I am doing.
Wise people realize when they've made a mistake, and change course.
Apr '11
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
Rasmussen was horribly wrong in 2010, systematically overstating the Republican vote by over 4 points. Why do you trust them? · 20 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
You said "horribly wrong," now you admit that almost everyone got final results right.
Just look at yourself. Look at the extent you're having to go to defend your chosen pollster... you're flip-flopping worse than Obama on Gitmo.
The bottom line is, you've become emotionally invested. You're equating criticism of Gallup with criticism of you, personally, and that's not what I am doing.
Wise people realize when they've made a mistake, and change course. · 11 minutes ago
Rasmussen was in the bottom 3 pollsters in 2010.. Their polls were horribly wrong.
Jun '12
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
ConservativeWanderer
wmartin
Rasmussen was horribly wrong in 2010, systematically overstating the Republican vote by over 4 points. Why do you trust them? · 20 minutes ago
Edited 19 minutes ago
You said "horribly wrong," now you admit that almost everyone got final results right.
Just look at yourself. Look at the extent you're having to go to defend your chosen pollster... you're flip-flopping worse than Obama on Gitmo.
The bottom line is, you've become emotionally invested. You're equating criticism of Gallup with criticism of you, personally, and that's not what I am doing.
Wise people realize when they've made a mistake, and change course. · 11 minutes ago
Rasmussen was in the bottom 3 pollsters in 2010.. Their polls were horribly wrong. · 2 minutes ago
You got proof of that? From someone unbiased, and not Nate Silver?
If so, let's see it.
I've been providing my proof that Rasmussen is accurate at every stage... you have yet to show a single shred of evidence that they're not. It's cards-on-the-table time.
Edited on September 7, 2012 at 11:45pmRe: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Paul A. Rahe
Lucy Pevensie
wmartin
Yes. Their convention absolutely did it's job. And, when you look at tv ratings, they outdrew us substantially, so their base is energized. · 1 minute ago
wmartin, if you can find something negative to say, you do so. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Again, from my husband's volunteering with the party and the campaign, I am hearing lots of encouraging information. It begins to seem as though you are making a deliberate effort to demoralize people. · 5 minutes ago
I think that wmartin is wrong in trusting the polls, but he seems to me to be telling us what things look like as he reads the trends -- and he may be right. A cold-water bath is occasionally a good thing.
That having been said, the convention, when there is one, bounce usually dissipates pretty quickly. In October, folks will be asking themselves whether they can tolerate four more years of stagnation. · 6 hours ago
That's a good motto: "A cold water bath is occasionally a good thing."
May '10
Re: Friday Morning Cocoon: Victory Coming, More on the Way
Polls are good as the guard rails on the roadway. They are not the centerline.