Romney leads Virginia, race tightens in Ohio

[mavs>spurs]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/virginia-poll-romney-48-obama-43_647862.html


Virginia Poll: Romney 48, Obama 43

A new poll from We Ask America shows Mitt Romney leading Barack Obama in Virginia, a key swing state Obama won in 2008. Of the 1,106 likely voters in Virginia polled, 48 percent support Romney, with just over 43 percent supporting Obama and nearly 9 percent remaining undecided.


The RealClearPolitics average for Virginia, however, shows Obama with a 1.4-point lead in Virginia, and most recent polls show the president leading there by at least small margins.

The same poll also surveyed voters for the open Senate seat, where Republican George Allen is facing Democrat Tim Kaine. Forty-four percent support Allen, with only 35 percent supporting Kaine and a whopping 21 percent remaining undecided. RealClearPolitics, however, also shows a closer race, as most recent polls have actually shown Kaine with a slight lead. We Ask America's polling could reflect a rightward shift in Virginia now that both Romney and Allen have won their Republican primaries--or the results could be outliers.

We Ask America's poll of the presidential race in Colorado (another potential swing state), however, shows that the 1,083 likely voters surveyed tracks closely with those in other recent polls. Obama leads Romney 46.6 percent to 43 percent, with over 10 percent remaining undecided.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/poll-obama-slips-in-ohio-127304.html


Poll: Obama slips in Ohio
50

Comments (91) By BYRON TAU | 6/26/12 11:21 AM EDT
President Obama's lead in Ohio has narrowed, according to a new survey.

Obama leads Mitt Romney 47 percent to 44 percent in the Buckeye State, according to the latest poll by the Democratic-leaning firm PPP. But that's down from a seven point lead that he maintained in the last two PPP surveys of the state.

Obama is clinging to his lead based on his strength with three demographic groups: black voters, young voters and women. Obama leads among African-Americans 93 percent to 6 percent, and he beats Romney among young voters 54 percent to 36 percent. Women support Obama over Romney 52 percent to 41 percent.

(Also on POLITICO: Dems move convention celebration)

Obama has built his reelection campaign around themes aimed at wooing working class whites in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania — focusing on the successful auto rescue, Romney's offshoring record and vocational training and education.

But those voters are showing signs of moving towards Romney. The sharpest decline in Obama's support has come among white voters. He and Romney split the white vote essentially evenly in PPP's previous polls. But their latest numbers shows Romney leading 49 percent to 44 percent among whites.

And among white Democrats, Obama has lost support as well. In May he lead 89 percent to 6 percent, but that has dropped to 78 percent to 16 percent.

[ChumpDumper]

What are Ron Paul's numbers in these states?

[CosmicCowboy]

Barring a meltdown or major gaffe, don't undecideds usually break against the incumbent and for the challenger? If they aren't for Obama after 3+ years what is going to change their mind in the next 120 days?

[SnakeBoy]

What are Ron Paul's numbers in these states?

The numbers don't matter, Ron Paul has found a constitutional loophole that will allow him to win these states and the presidency by losing.

[clambake]

The numbers don't matter, Ron Paul has found a constitutional loophole that will allow him to win these states and the presidency by losing.

:lol :toast

[George Gervin's Afro]

Barring a meltdown or major gaffe, don't undecideds usually break against the incumbent and for the challenger? If they aren't for Obama after 3+ years what is going to change their mind in the next 120 days?

so using that logic why aren't they flocking to Romney?

[johnsmith]

so using that logic why aren't they flocking to Romney?

My guess is because they're still undecided.

[TeyshaBlue]

Barring a meltdown or major gaffe, don't undecideds usually break against the incumbent and for the challenger? If they aren't for Obama after 3+ years what is going to change their mind in the next 120 days?

No. They undecideds (Independent) voters seem to swing on their own vine. The last two elections they have held the pattern you describe, but that's about it.

[SnakeBoy]

so using that logic why aren't they flocking to Romney?

because they are indecisive people.

[CosmicCowboy]

My guess is because they're still undecided.


Yeah, they don't actually have to commit till November.

I found this:

http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

Incumbent Races:
Closer Than They Appear

by Nick Panagakis


How will undecideds vote on election day? Traditionally, there have been two schools of thought about how undecideds in trial heat match-ups will divide up at the ballot box. One is that they will break equally; the other, that they will split in proportion to poll respondents who stated a candidate preference.

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

The 155 polls we collected and analyzed were the final polls conducted in each particular race; most were completed within two weeks of election day. They cover both general and primary elections, and Democratic and Republican incumbents. They are predominantly from statewide races, with a few U.S. House, mayoral and countywide contests thrown in. Most are from the 1986 and 1988 elections, although a few stretch back to the 1970s.

The polls we studied included our own surveys, polls provided to us directly by CBS, Gallup, Gordon S. Black Corp., Market Opinion Research, Tarrance Associates, and Mason-Dixon Opinion Research, as well as polls that appeared in The Polling Report.

In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger:


DISPOSITION OF UNDECIDED VOTERS
.

Most to challenger 127
Split equally 9
Most to incumbent 19



The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it’s clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear.
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide.
Many polls may have been improperly analyzed and reported. Some postmortem accounts of polls have been inaccurate -- many polls remembered as wrong were, in fact, right. It’s only natural to interpret the term "undecided" literally. But as with so many other findings in survey research, data should be analyzed according to what they mean, not what they say.

Undecided about the Incumbent
Why do undecided voters decide in favor of challengers?

It seems that undecided voters are not literally undecided, not straddling the fence unable to make a choice – the traditional interpretation. An early decision to vote for the incumbent is easier because voters know incumbents best. It helps to think of undecided voters as undecided about the incumbent, as voters who question the incumbent’s performance in office. Most or all voters having trouble with this decision appear to end up deciding against the incumbent.

The exceptions we found to the Incumbent Rule help support the theory on why this happens.

Many challengers who did not get a majority of undecideds were recent or current holders of an office equal to the one they were seeking. Voters were equally or more familiar with the challenger’s past performance in a similar office, so the challenger assumed incumbent characteristics. Other exceptions include well-known challengers or short-term incumbents.

Some examples of where more undecideds voted for incumbents or split evenly:

Last year in Minnesota, where Hubert Humphrey III challenged Sen. David Durenberger; and in Nebraska, where Bob Kerrey, the former governor, challenged David Karnes, who had been appointed to his Senate seat. In 1986 in Florida, when incumbent Sen. Paula Hawkins faced ex-Gov. Bob Graham. And in Chicago in 1979, where two-year incumbent Mayor Michael Bilandic split undecided voters with challenger Jane Byrne.

These examples and similar ones account for 17 of the 28 exceptions to the Incumbent Rule that we uncovered. In some of the remaining cases, the incumbent simply turned the race around in the final days. A good example of this is the 1982 Missouri Senate race pitting incumbent John Danforth against Harriet Woods. Other exceptions can be explained by sampling error.

There is an interesting pattern in the polls where most undecideds voted for challengers. In 98 of the 127 cases (77%), the incumbents’ final polls standing was plus or minus four percentage points from the actual election result. The most frequent result was two points gained by the incumbent over the final poll preferences -- 24 cases in all.

In 41 cases, or 32% of the 127, the incumbent ended with less than his stated poll percentage. This means that about one in four of all 155 polls actually overstated the incumbent’s percentage.

Of the 127 challengers who gained more undecideds than did incumbents on election day, 78 gained 10 or more points over their stated poll percentage.

Making allowances for factors stated above, most polls appear to estimate support for the incumbent. All or most undecideds end up with the challenger regardless of the size of the undecideds.

Most troublesome are polls showing an incumbent leading but who ends up losing the election.

Some examples: In Wisconsin in 1986, incumbent Gov. Tony Earl and incumbent Attorney General Bronson LaFollette were ahead in the late polls with less than 50%, but lost by five and seven points, respectively. In 1986, one poll showed Georgia incumbent Sen. Mack Mattingly ahead by 10 points, but he gained only one more point to lose with 49%. In 1984, incumbent Illinois Sen. Charles Percy led with 45% and 49% in final polls and wound up losing the election 48% to 50%. ...

Avoiding Election Day Surprises
The overwhelming evidence is that an incumbent won’t share the undecideds equally with the challenger. To suggest otherwise by emphasizing point spread or to say that an incumbent is ahead when his or her percentage is well under 50% leads to election day surprises.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Barring a meltdown or major gaffe, don't undecideds usually break against the incumbent and for the challenger? If they aren't for Obama after 3+ years what is going to change their mind in the next 120 days?

I never quite got "undecideds". I mean, how the fuck is anybody undecided? Don't people watch the news, read, discuss political, socail, economic shit with other people? It would seem to me you either like and support Obama, or you can't stand his views and will vote agasint him.

To me, any undecideds are fucking lost souls. Sorry to be harsh:lol.

[scott]

Barring a meltdown or major gaffe, don't undecideds usually break against the incumbent and for the challenger? If they aren't for Obama after 3+ years what is going to change their mind in the next 120 days?

I have no evidence to support this, nor am I going to bother to look it up... but it seems like this didn't hold true in '04.

[ElNono]

IMO, the state of the economy in sept/oct/nov will decide this election...

[mavs>spurs]

IMO, the state of the economy in sept/oct/nov will decide this election...

:rollin see ya later then Barry. it's impossible for a rebound in that amount of time. only thing barry can do is call up the saudi's and have them ramp up oil production to lower gas prices for a while, but that won't be enough as people should already know about that trick.

[possessed]

I never quite got "undecideds". I mean, how the fuck is anybody undecided? Don't people watch the news, read, discuss political, socail, economic shit with other people? It would seem to me you either like and support Obama, or you can't stand his views and will vote agasint him.

To me, any undecideds are fucking lost souls. Sorry to be harsh:lol.

I think they are more "I don't give a fucks" than "undecideds".

[ElNono]

:rollin see ya later then Barry. it's impossible for a rebound in that amount of time. only thing barry can do is call up the saudi's and have them ramp up oil production to lower gas prices for a while, but that won't be enough as people should already know about that trick.

Possibly, but people seem to be fixated more on things like stock market swings and jobs numbers... it's all seemingly about the moment, not the long term. It's still too early right now to forecast what can happen with those from here till November.

There's other specific items that I think can hurt Barry, like if the individual mandate is upheld. It's another expense that would hit the middle class probably the worst, and some of them are struggling as it is. So that will be interesting to see how it develops next Thursday. There's simply too many scenarios on how that can play out depending on how the justices rule.

All that said, the biggest positive Barry has going for him is that he's running against Romney. A guy that red-team members will likely vote for holding their noses. I think he's a very tough sell to independents, who ultimately decide the election.

[Wild Cobra]

Barring a meltdown or major gaffe, don't undecideds usually break against the incumbent and for the challenger? If they aren't for Obama after 3+ years what is going to change their mind in the next 120 days?
They do in economies like what we have.

[ducks]

time to cut cal in two
one side is liberal and one side is conservative
55 votes in one state is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much

[boutons_deux]

it's not sides, it's north and south

[boutons_deux]

Obama Leads Romney In Polls Of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/quinnipiac-polls-obama-romney_n_1630225.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=062712&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

[cheguevara]

:lmao mom jeans vs. etchasketch

:lmao picking one over the other

:lmao Wall Street + Fed #1 and #2

:lmao democracy

[SnakeBoy]

as of right now, sources with an actual level of credibility rightfully have Obama waxin dettt ass

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Jun25.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

So let's not start sucking each others' dicks quite yet gentlemen

Your links backup the op and show Obama might lose so what are you talking about.

[scott]

I can promise you, with 100% certainty, that Obama might lose.

[Edward]

I wonder who Alex Jones is gonna vote for (since he's no different than any of the other Republican talking heads, I'm guessing Romney).

rofl the Ron Paul supporters who claimed to be true independents and above the 2-party system following Ron's lead and voting for the Republican candidate.

[Juggity]

time to cut cal in two
one side is liberal and one side is conservative
55 votes in one state is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to much

Cutting Texas in two wouldn't be a bad idea either.