Three New Likely Voter Polls

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I'm not looking for a silver lining...or anything else, just a poll that takes into account historical averages. That 8% more of the public may identify as Democrats is not particular probative of anything. What is important is the historical average turnout, and thats about DEM +3.

In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform), although I agree with the administration on probably more issues overall. I could still go either way, or, not vote at all for the top of the ballot.

Wow a conservative that actually will admit that he agrees with the administration on a few things? Where is all the hate you're supposed to have for the POTUS?.

Seriously though, I disagree with you on the SS and Medicare stuff, but glad to see that you're open minded, even if you do end up voting for Romney.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I
In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform)

Did you listen to Romney on 60 Minutes? He claims he's not going to mess with Medicare or SS, then bashed Obama for cutting $760 million from Medicare.

[Kid A]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Did you listen to Romney on 60 Minutes? He claims he's not going to mess with Medicare or SS, then bashed Obama for cutting $760 million from Medicare.

I think it was Josh Barro of Bloomberg who has pointed out that Romney has moved to the left of Obama on Medicare.

Conservatives who were excited by the Ryan pick had to be a little confused that the Romney campaign, at the exact same time, began to disavow almost all Medicare reform plans by both guys on their ticket. It's all about keeping the senior citizen vote, even if it means dumping on the young and poor via massive, brutal slashes to Medicaid...which also spends a huge amount of money on seniors, but they're betting on voters not being as aware of that.

[Pseudofool]

Here you go, SoCal: http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

Here's a nice discussion of why they don't skew in favor political party: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-...0120925?page=1

Money quote:

Pollsters counter that the results they are finding reflect slight changes in public sentiment — and, moreover, adjusting their polls to match arbitrary party-identification targets would be unscientific.

Party-identification is rather arbitrary, following the tail-wind for whom a voter decides to vote. So if Obama is 'winning', more (otherwise) independent voters will identify as a Dem for the time being.

[TonyR]

This morning’s Washington Post poll found Obama leading Romney by 8 points in the Buckeye State. That’s on the high end of recent margins, but the trend is unambiguously in the president’s favor: Obama was up 5 in an Ohio Newspaper Organization poll, up 4 in a Purple Strategies poll, and up 7 in a Fox News poll and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College Poll. That’s all in the last two weeks.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-...io-136596.html

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Did you listen to Romney on 60 Minutes? He claims he's not going to mess with Medicare or SS, then bashed Obama for cutting $760 million from Medicare.

He has to say that before the election. Medicare and SS absolutely must be "messed with" at least to some degree.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

He has to say that before the election. Medicare and SS absolutely must be "messed with" at least to some degree.

Not true. We simply need to return to the progressive tax code that worked brilliantly for almost 80 years. Instead, we are returning to Gilded Age policies. People should read about the America that was, under that era. It was a very dark and nasty place. Read about the coal strike TR settled in Pennsylvania. There was blood in the streets.

Yesterday, there was a report that 57% of American students taking the SAT cannot read at a college level. We continue to funnel wealth to the top while our future (our children), our R&D, and our infrastructure collapse. Why? So the rich can stash more wealth in the Cayman Islands. These are the policies of a society engaged in slow suicide.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

Here you go, SoCal: http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

Here's a nice discussion of why they don't skew in favor political party: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-...0120925?page=1

Money quote:

Party-identification is rather arbitrary, following the tail-wind for whom a voter decides to vote. So if Obama is 'winning', more (otherwise) independent voters will identify as a Dem for the time being.

In likely voter polls, party identification is not really something that makes much difference. In fact, it doesn't even need to be asked at all, particularly this close to the election. The moderates in the middle who decide the election are the ones much less likely to have any official party identification, for sure. But at this point, most people's minds are made up.

It doesn't surprise me one iota that, in a state where the Democrats have won every election but one since 1988 by 5 or more points, in a state that voted for the incumbent in the last election by a 10 point margin, only 4% of those polled are self-identifying as independents.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

He has to say that before the election. Medicare and SS absolutely must be "messed with" at least to some degree.

Well, Obama actually has "messed with" Medicare (something I don't agree with, FWIW), while Romney claims he won't. So, what is your evidence that Romney is the better candidate (based on your stated criteria) than Obama on this issue?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Not true. We simply need to return to the progressive tax code that worked brilliantly for almost 80 years. Instead, we are returning to Gilded Age policies. People should read about the America that was, under that era. It was a very dark and nasty place. Read about the coal strike TR settled in Pennsylvania. There was blood in the streets.

Yesterday, there was a report that 57% of American students taking the SAT cannot read at a college level. We continue to funnel wealth to the top while our future (our children), our R&D, and our infrastructure collapse. Why? So the rich can stash more wealth in the Cayman Islands. These are the policies of a society engaged in slow suicide.

Yep. It's the ol' Grover Norquist playbook. Underfund (or in the case of SS, steal from) programs, then claim they're unsustainable. Social Security was perfectly sustainable until Reagan raided the surplus and gave the rich massive tax cuts.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by Dexter

Wow a conservative that actually will admit that he agrees with the administration on a few things? Where is all the hate you're supposed to have for the POTUS?.

Seriously though, I disagree with you on the SS and Medicare stuff, but glad to see that you're open minded, even if you do end up voting for Romney.

I'm a moderate Republican (except on fiscal issues, where I am very conservative and by conservative I mean, its very important to have low debt and very low budget deficits. That means spending cuts when necessary and also tax increases when necessary, I'm not opposed to reasonable tax increases purely on principle. They are often necessary and I support the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts). I supported Huntsman in the primary (check the search function). I'm not a fan of Romney and I never have been, and its mainly because he's a worthless empty suit with only a rudimentary understanding of issues. He won because he had huge financial advantages over everyone else and drowned them out. But I am slightly leaning towards him primarily because he picked Ryan. I am a fan of Ryan on spending issues, most notably on SS/Medicare and I'm intrigued by Ryan's ideas on these issues, and I'm encouraged that he's flexible as well (he worked with Sen. Wyden and slightly altered his approach). I'm encouraged by the CBO analysis of his premium support proposals which also include increasing the Medicare eligibility range over time and the fact that the supports vary by income levels also helps to soften the effect. I know it is essentially cost shifting in part to seniors and I'm okay with that. While its true that through SS and Medicare taxes they have paid into the program, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they are entitled to the exact same benefit formulas that have been provided to others in the past, just that they are entitled to some significant benefit, not necessarily this particular benefit. The changes in demographics with a greater aging population will put a huge strain on us financially. This is the long term debt driver. There has been discussion of raiding the funds in teh past and its true htats happened, but even without that, it wouldnt come close to fixing hte long term problem (and SS trust fund funds dont address Medicare issues). Even CMS admits this is the biggest problem going forward. I think the long term debt is something like 63T over 75 years, about 1T a year without any changes. That a few hundred billion or even a trillion in total were removed from SS trust fund in the past would not have cured this problem. CBO estimated that, without more, the proposal would sharply reduce the debt to GDP ratio over time. I am providing a link to their analysis for your review: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...yan_letter.pdf. With regard to BroncoInferno's point about Romney now saying he won't touch it, I think I read an article awhile back indicating he had put out an actual proposal earlier in the campaign that was not materially dissimilar from Wyden-Ryan, so I'm thinking his current talk is to merely make sure seniors don't abandon him in the election.

I realize that on issues such as taxes, Romney-Ryan are not as responsible as they are on these issues, but I think the tax problem is largely solved due to the fact that if nothing else happens in 2012, we will go back to the 2001 tax code, which will be great for long term debt control. Between that and serious SS/Medicare reform, we will be in good shape. I'm not persuaded that tax increases alone will solve these issues. Tax increases alone doesnt solve a 63T long term problem and I dont think its fair to apportion everything to taxes, anyway. It has to be a balanced solution.

I do support the administration on issues such as cap and trade (I prefer this approach rather than a carbon tax because I like the idea of injecting market based principles into the equation to disincentive businesses from environmentally inefficient conduct, rather than the simple imposition of a tax, make everyone try to run it as efficiently as possible so they can sell their credits elsewhere...there is good precedent for this approach in Europe) and I generally support the administration in foreign affiars with the exception of supporting insurgencies and democracy in the ME. I think thats abysmal. I don't give a **** about "promoting values". I care only about acting to presreve US strategic interests. I'm in the Nixon school of foreign affairs, not the Carter school. I'm more than willing to support brutal, repressive dictatorial regimes, so long as it promotes stability and protects US strategic interests. I'm concerned about AL Qaeda gaining a foothold in the region due to us promoting these popular uprisings. I'm not a fan of this at all. Other than that, I generally approve of the administration in foreign affairs, especially the Vietnamization in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued arms control with Russia.


I could still go either way with my vote and there is a good chance I could ignore the top ballot. I don't like Romney and I never have. If he did not select Ryan, and we didn't have the impending sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts merely by inaction (in a divided congress, which we will likely get, a Romney tax cut couldnt pass), I probably would not vote for him at all.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

With regard to BroncoInferno's point about Romney now saying he won't touch it, I think I read an article awhile back indicating he had put out an actual proposal earlier in the campaign that was not materially dissimilar from Wyden-Ryan, so I'm thinking his current talk is to merely make sure seniors don't abandon him in the election.

Keep in mind that if Romney wins, he's going to want to be reelected. If he comes into office and starts fiddling with Medicare, he's going to be out in one term. So, I highly doubt that's going to be his approach, at least not in his first term.

I'm in the Nixon school of foreign affairs, not the Carter school. I'm more than willing to support brutal, repressive dictatorial regimes, so long as it promotes stability and protects US strategic interests.

I simply can't understand how anyone can still hold this position. Supporting dictators and meddling in the affairs of other nations to further short-term interests has bitten us in the ass too many times. The CIA staging a coup to install the Shah in Iran back in the 50s is still a blunder that reverberates in the region today. Reagan arming and training the Taliban in the 80s to fight the Soviets. The infamous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam. I could go on and on. It's historically proven at this point that the type of foreign policy you support causes more long-term problems than it solves in the short-term. How are you missing this?

Enjoyed the rest of your post. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[Rigs11]

oops

*** The impact of 47%: Want to know the impact that the video of Mitt Romney’s comments on the “47%” have had in this presidential contest? We have two fresh pieces of evidence. The first are brand-new New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac surveys -- conducted right after the release of the video -- showing Obama leading Romney by nine points among likely voters in Florida (53%-44%), 10 points in Ohio (53%-43%), and 12 in Pennsylvania (54%-42%). These are margins we haven’t seen before. The second (and perhaps more telling) piece of evidence is Romney’s new 60-second TV ad, his first of the general election where he looks to the camera. “President Obama and I both care about poor and middle-class families,” Romney says as the camera zooms in on him. “The difference is my policies will make things better for them. We shouldn’t measure compassion by how many people are on welfare. We should measure compassion by how many people are able to get off welfare and get a good paying job.” Folks, this is an admission that the “47%” remarks – and the Obama camp’s new TV ads on them -- have done real damage. Realize: Candidate-to-camera ads are typically when all else is failing and the bonds of trust with the voters are fraying. Even Obama had to do it in late July, after the welfare hits and the “You didn’t build that” attack

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...7-percent?lite

[Rigs11]

Dry your eyes righties! You too can be like Mittens and simply use your own data.

Romney camp trusts own data, strategy, not public polls, in Ohio

VANDALIA, OH – For the Romney campaign, Tuesday brought yet more bad news from the Buckeye state: a new Washington Post poll showed the Republican presidential nominee trailing President Barack Obama by eight points in this critical battleground state, with 52 percent of Ohio voters in favor of giving the incumbent another four years.

Before Mitt Romney's plane touched down at the Dayton airport today, two top aides were dispatched to the press cabin to put out possible fires the numbers might have sparked.

"The public polls are what the public polls are," Romney Political Director Rich Beeson told reporters. "I kind of hope the Obama campaign is basing their campaign on what the public polls say. We don’t. We have confidence in our data and our metrics."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...s-in-ohio?lite

[TonyR]

Nate Silver's latest gives Romney a 3.6% chance of winning. So there's that for the righties to cling to.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[houghtam]

And when asked by the Rachel Maddow show, they were unwilling (or more likely unable) to show the methodology and data for the polls they claim they have.

That's what makes a poll legitimate (exist?), folks. You publish your methodology.

Bloodbath.

[Pseudofool]

The polls from today are devastating for Mitt. Wow.

Florida	CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac	Obama 53, Romney 44	Obama +9
Ohio	CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac	Obama 53, Romney 43	Obama +10
Penn	CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac	Obama 54, Romney 42	Obama +12

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

The polls from today are devastating for Mitt. Wow.

Florida	CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac	Obama 53, Romney 44	Obama +9
Ohio	CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac	Obama 53, Romney 43	Obama +10
Penn	CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac	Obama 54, Romney 42	Obama +12

Washington Post has it

FL Obama +4

OH Obama +8

VA Obama +8

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

The polls from today are devastating for Mitt. Wow.

As many of us have been saying from day 1, he's a terrible candidate. I thought he had a shot because of the economy and the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda. But it's starting to look like he's even worse than I thought. Borderline unelectable.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TonyR

As many of us have been saying from day 1, he's a terrible candidate. I thought he had a shot because of the economy and the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda. But it's starting to look like he's even worse than I thought. Borderline unelectable.

Not really. If the Right Wingers can illegally squelch the vote in enough key areas, they could pull it out. How could anybody remember what happened in Gore v Bush or four years later in the Ohio robbery and take a victory for granted?

[Pseudofool]

Gallup tracking (over seven days) shows a six point lead for Obama. It has typically been more favorable to Mitt than other major polls (beyond Rasmussen).

[Old Dude]

I think I hear the Fat Lady warming up.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

...they could pull it out...

They could, sure. But it's looking less and less likely. Which is why I'm saying Romney is such an awful candidate, and the GOP such a joke. They should have run away with this election.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TonyR

They could, sure. But it's looking less and less likely. Which is why I'm saying Romney is such an awful candidate, and the GOP such a joke. They should have run away with this election.

I think this cartoon says it all about the GOP in this election:

[SoCalBronco]

Huntsman would have won this race by 5 plus points.