Gallup Polling – Romney 51 – Obama 45 – Likely Voters - MSNBC Post Debate Focus Group – Romney Appears to Have Edge - Analysis

Mitt Romney - Polling and Focus Groups indicate likely win in November -image Flagler.edu

Gallup Polling’s most recent ‘likely voter’ pollhas former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney leading President Obama by a margin of 51 to 45 as of October 16th The polling firm has used a model of likely voters, and includes those undecided voters that “lean” towards one candidate or the other. In reviewing Gallup’s final poll numbers versus the actual election results, (full history here at www.gallup.com), the pollster has been within the margin of error (under 4 points in predicting the winner) in sixteen of the last 19 U.S. Presidential elections.

From this perspective, there are few, if any, undecided voters left at this point, those who are now tuning in, are most likely voting party line and unlikely to be swayed either way. The number one issue remains, across all demographics, the economy and job creation, and it appears that Romney absolutely has the go head in that arena. MSNBC, not considered a right or moderate cable channel, hosted a focus group after the debate this week – the video appears below. The Focus group consisted of undecided voters – most of whom appear to be leaning towards or have decided upon Romney after this second debate, one undecided wanted to look at the final debate before drawing any conclusions. The size of the focus group appeared to be somewhat smaller than the Frank Luntz pollster group. Participants in the Luntz Group trended towards Romney. The fact that focus groups from both the left of media and the right of media appear to be leaning Romney coincides with Gallup’s findings, as well as the findings at the University of Colorado which has predicted Romney will win 330 of the electoral college votes, and now predicts there is a 77% change Romney will also win the popular vote. The analysis, using economic models, has accurately predicted the outcome of each race since the election of 1980.

The final debate on foreign policy will be held on October 22nd and available on all networks, cable and national affiliates, One might anticipate that the nod would go to the President, whose foreign policy has not exactly been stellar, yet, is being promoted as a plus over Governor Romney, due to the virtue of being in the Office. Romney, however, despite the media, has a sound and reasonable take on foreign policy and one would anticipate this area will give Romney the opportunity to at the least, tie the President (as in the second debate) or best him in light of the situation in the Middle East and elsewhere (especially Syria at this point).

With polling indicating a 4 point or better lead in Gallup and including the Colorado Study (among others such as Pew) at this late date, it may be impossible, if not improbable that the President will be able to overcome this deficit.

MSNBC Focus Group

Frank Luntz Focus Group Video Clip – Full Story with videos in two parts at www.realclearpolitics.com

2012 Presidential Debate – Part 2 – Bar Set High for President Obama – Both Campaigns Challenge Moderator Role – The Close Election? – Maybe-Maybe Not

Mitt Romney on the Campaign Trail - image Washington Post
The second of three Presidential debates will be held tomorrow night, and the expectations for a rebound by Incumbent President, Barack Obama, are high. The media suggests that the President must appear more energized than he did in the debate in Denver, especially after the performance of Joe Biden in the Vice-Presidential Debate, which by reasonable standards, was a draw, giving the base of the Democrat party some enthusiasm, while V.P. GOP Candidate Paul Ryan tended to appeal more to the independent voter. The Hill is reporting that both GOP and Democrat “insiders” anticipate the President will do “better” in the second debate: “But Washington insiders of all ideological stripes concur that Obama is too competitive a man and too gifted a politician to slip up so dramatically for a second time, when the candidates go under the spotlight at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., on Tuesday.” That may be true, however, Romney has the recent experience of participating in a long series of GOP debates held over the summer, so many that viewers were beginning to develop “debate fatigue”. In retrospect and reviewing the debate tapes, the protracted primary debates strengthened Romney in any format and arena. The onus, therefore, is on the President to out-Romney Mitt Romney, and that is a high bar, indeed. Romney, over a period of campaigns, has honed his town hall –style debate, the question of Romney’s ability to connect in a Town Hall Style debate was asked and answered by Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics>: The style poses a challenge for Romney, but: “But over the years he appears to have improved his ability to connect with voters on a personal level. For one thing, Romney is no stranger to question-and-answer sessions, having handled thousands of inquiries from mostly partisan voters in his four political campaigns over almost two decades. In fact, aides to Obama say the town-hall format is strength for their Republican opponent because of this experience.

During his 2008 presidential run, for example, so-called “Ask Mitt Anything” events were a staple of his time on the stump; some days he would often hold four or five such town-hall meetings. And during his 2012 primary campaign, particularly in the nation’s first voting state of New Hampshire, Romney did more of the same.”

One might suggest that the expectations are so high, that should the President appear more confident, it will indeed help his base support – given the fact that in the V.P. debate, one member of a focus group (CNN), gave the win to Biden because he did “better than Obama” in the Denver debate.

One may also suggest, that if the viewership is low for the second Presidential debate, those 80 individuals chosen to participate in the town-hall style debate, that are “undecided” (Selected by Gallup polling for this debate) may be a rarity as to the individuals who have or have not yet made up their minds as to for whom they are voting. The moderator, Candy Crowley of CNN, has even drawn a bit of pre-debate criticism for suggesting she might ask follow-up questions during the debate – Time Magazine discucsse the fact that both the Obama and Romney campaign attorney’s have concerns that the debate format calls for little to no questions from the moderator deviating from those posed by the participants. However, one would hope that Crowley would stick to her guns and, should a question require a follow-up, she might open the floor for a little more debate on any given subject by asking a question or two of the candidates that are relevant to the original questions asked. The format will be similar to the one held between then Candidate George W. Bush and Democrat Candidate, Al Gore in 2000. The format gives both candidates the ability to speak directly to the audience, and answer the questions posed by individuals. This is where, from viewing the previous debate clips that Romney does indeed, excel, while the President in the last round of debates in 2008, appeared at times to ramble.

Although the media is now calling this debate a “draw”, which along partisan lines, it very well may be, there should arise a clear winner – however, it will depend a great deal on not only the ability to “connect” with the audience, but the ability to clearly state and answer the question at hand. To call this debate a draw before it happens, as did the Boston Herald, albeit, in a sarcastic way (given the support for Romney by the author, Holly Robichaud), the fact of the matter is, even if Mitt Romney “clean’s his clock” as suggested, the media will, most likely, if Obama appears more confident, call it a tie.

The Washington Post is billing the Presidential Contest as “tight”, given their most recent poll which gives the President two points over Romney, or a statistical dead heat. That said, Real Clear Politics, and has painted a picture, using a combination of all polls taken, state by state, whereby Romney appears to be in the driver’s seat for the most part. They offer an electoral college map that gives an overview of states that, at this present time, are either solid, leaning, likely or tied (by the combined polls), and selects a state for either Romney or President Obama, depending on the outcome of the polls used. At the present time, the scenario appears to be that the President has a lock on ten states, (those are automatically given the candidate due to the percentage lead in polling being “out of reach” for the other candidate).

The likely and leaning states are then included in the total, and the balance are listed as “undecided” – as of today, the polls show the President with 201 electoral votes, and Mitt Romney with 191, and 146 are “toss-ups”. That said, when one looks at the polling data, in say Massachusetts, which is a given for the President, the polls used in the survey : here, show Obama with an average of 20plus point lead. The last poll on the boards was done by Public Policy Polling, taken October 10 and 11th, whereby the President has a 14 point advantage in the Bay State. This advantage is discussed by the pollster here where it is suggested that the President’s support had eroded in MA, Romney’s likability was up:

In the Presidential race Barack Obama's seeing the same kind of decline in Massachusetts that he is nationally. He leads Mitt Romney by 14 points, 55-41. That's down from an 18 point lead last month, and it's the smallest advantage we've found for him in the state all year. The big shift over the last month in Massachusetts has been among independent voters. They now support Romney 53-40, after giving Obama a 47-44 edge last month.

In further reading the poll marginals, one finds that the pollster used a sample of 41% Democrat, 16% Republican and 43% Unenrolled or Independent. The actual makeup of the electoral in MA as of 2010 (and before) Unenrolleds, 52%, Republican’s 12% and Democrats, 33% (others listed Green, Libertarian, etc., make up the balance). Therefore, without the proper sample based on the actual electorate, one might be hard-pressed to mathematically agree that the above poll simply adds up. For example there is an 8 point difference between the actual Democrats registered to vote and those taking the poll, there is 4 point plus for Republicans, and there is a 9 point deficit for “Independents” – therefore, if one were to take that 14 point lead, minus 8 points for oversampling Democrats – brings that to a plus 6 for Obama, plus 4 for over sample of Republicans, gives Obama a plus 10, and then minus 7 points (giving 2 points to Obama due to the % of Independents suggesting they are supporting the President in Massachusetts, which brings the final closer to an Obama plus 3, or a tie in the Bay State. Understanding that no poll is perfect, the fact that most of the polls in the Real Clear Politics combined methodology used a 2008 voter model, and/or are not closely aligned with the makeup of the states electorate to boot, then one might suggest the President has an inflated advantage in the polls.

Finally, one might also suggest if this is the case, then the electoral map may end up being a lot more red, than blue, with the exaction of 10 or so states (if that). Therefore, with the polls taken, the undecided’s, more likely at a lower percentage than 8 points, one might suggest there is little or nothing, this far into the game, to suggest the debate will count one way or another, regardless of expectations. Of course, no one has a crystal ball as to what will actually occur on election day in November.

Biden-Ryan 2012 Debate – A Draw for the Bases– CNN Poll – Ryan 48% to Biden 44% - What of the Independents? Polling Continues in MA for Obama.

V.P. Joe Biden and V.P. Candidate, Paul Ryan - Ryan Wins Over Independents - image: Salon.com

The 2012 Vice Presidential Debate held last night in Danville, Kentucky between Vice President, Joe Biden and GOP Vice-Presidential Candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan has been considered a draw by the U.S. media. A CNN/ORC poll taken immediately following the debate indicated the following:

Ryan won the debate by 48% to 44% - with the margin of error at 5% (normally 4%) indicates a tie

50% suggested the debate made no difference in their vote for the top of the ticket, 28% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 21% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.

By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

(CNN)

The polling sample used was smaller than average at under 400 surveyed, and CNN indicated that CBS polling gave Biden by a large margin, however, one might suggest it depended a great deal on the make-up of the viewership, and how each individual saw the exchange. From this perspective, Biden came across as more aggressive in answering questions, and, as one CNN Focus Group participant suggested (paraphrasing) following the debate, “he did better than Obama in the last debate” (which gave him the win for that man). On the flip side, Ryan came across as confident on the one hand, while being respectful of the office of the V.P. when Biden repeatedly interrupted Ryan, and allowed Biden to get away with a lot more than time, most likely allowed for Ryan to rebut. In total, it appeared to be a draw for both, a draw whereby the base on either side of the aisle would feel that their candidate won. That said, it was the independents who should have been the focus and that has not been discussed at any great length. Those watching CNN (chosen over other networks as it is not perceived to be either left or right, as in the case of MSNBC or FOX and for political junkies, has all the bells and whistles) were able to watch a focus group react to the debate in real-time. This focus group was made up of independents, using the usual dial approach, made up of male and female respondents. (The aforementioned is one of the bells and whistles.) Overall, the line was up over the bar whenever Vice President Biden spoke about appealing to the “middle-class”, however, as soon as he turned to campaign mode, it plunged, while Ryan enjoyed a steady stream of positive to flat when explaining issues, and had more ups than downs than his opponent. What was most interesting was that the females appeared to respond more positively to Ryan than to Biden.

It is the practice of rating on performance and points, and for that Ryan gets the nod for the win overall. He was not overly aggressive with Biden, nor the moderator, while Biden clearly was agitated and bombastic when asked questions that made him obviously uncomfortable, specifically the issue with the Libyan embassy attack. He answered the questions posed as clearly as possible, with the exception of one, and that was the challenge by the moderator to both men that they tell the voting public what each would personally bring to the office. Biden used the time to attack the Romney Campaign and Ryan defended Romney as well as reiterated the campaign messaging. Although neither candidate gave a direct answer, Ryan may have been able to define his relationship to those in his district and suggest that his bi-partisanship and record proved him the better V.P. That said, it is easy for anyone, the pundit or the opinionated, to “Monday-morning quarterback”. What to take away, Ryan won on points in the debate arena, not on “feelings”. Although others, (a conservative, a Democrat-liberal-turned independent and a staunch, right-leaning Republican) – all felt otherwise and gave the nod to Ryan overall. Granted that is an extremely small sample, but it does indicate that four people watching the same debate on different networks come away with a different point of view. Given the CNN after poll and the CNN real time independent polling, one would think that Ryan gave a bonus to the Mitt Romney team by appealing to more Independent voters than Biden. The polls taken over this weekend, however, are likely to indicate a total draw.

Worst moment for Biden: Looking into the camera and asking the public “Who are you going to Trust?”, Best Moment, speaking about Scranton and the middle class background. Ryan, steady, no one particular moment that was a negative, overall he appeared confident, if, and this is a note, he did appear on edge (either that or the man was extremely thirsty). Best moment for Ryan: his closing statement. It was that last statement that gave clarity and made the absolute difference clear between both camps. Biden’s laughter also was a bone of contention for some, however, one must understand that he had to appear more aggressive, the pressure was on from the Campaign to be aggressive, and he most decidedly overdid it, perhaps not for the base, but the base does not win an election.

The next debate is this coming Tuesday between President Obama and Govenor Mitt Romney, one might expect that Romney’s performance will remain status quo, given his ability, while President Obama is expected to be more aggressive. That said, Obama has to top expectations across the board, and the bar has been set pretty high, perhaps too high. Should the President have to defend his record, with Romney standing opposite, it will be a repeat of the first debate. (Which, in the first debate, is what derailed the President in the first five minutes of the first debate and Romney ran with it.) Should that happen and the final jobs numbers for September be revised upward to 8.2% due to the sudden revelation that a large state was not included in the mix, then this close to an election, with polls as they now stand and a draw with the VP debate for the base, while a win for Ryan with the Independents, one might suggest that Romney will remain in the lead through the finish.

One thing of note: During the debate, the VP referred to the Romney campaign as “not competing in Massachusetts”, which is not necessarily true, given the Campaign headquarters in Boston, and a very high profile Senate Race (Brown-Warren) in the equation. There have been several polls over the past three to four weeks, which focus exclusively on the Presidential race, another taken last night based on the Obama-Romney matchup, including questions for union members, such as: have you been approached by your Union to vote for President Obama, have you been called by a union member about voting for President Obama, do you think Mitt Romney or President Obama has the more negative ads, and so on.

This would suggest, with the focus so heavily leaning towards the President and union members, in Massachusetts, that there is indeed a need to secure the state by the Obama Campaign. The calls were made on the 11th, between 5 and 8 p.m., received at approximately 6:00 pm in Western Massachusetts households. At first neighbors were flattered, simply because no one, ever polls Massachusetts, now they are simply suspicious that there is more going on with the state and the Obama campaign specifically. To be fair, the area in which this is taking place in primarily Independent (or designated Unenrolled), the support and nod are going to Romney/Brown, but further west and north in the Western end of the state which is much less populated, the support should, by logic, be going to Obama. If this is occurring in a scenario similar to the 2009 special election, then the unthinkable may happen – Massachustts would, temporarily and on the surface be a red state. These are big if’s, the biggest being turnout for the Democrats (who can miraculously pull 30,000 votes out of a hat in under 13 hours), and the level of national interest in the Senate race, keeping eyes on the state (which would then make that 30,000 miraculous votes a bit more difficult to achieve –as was the case in the 2009 race for the “people's seat”. Suffice it to say, it may appear that the Romney Campaign may not be competing in Massachusetts (other than the television ads, and some door to doors, and phone calls which may be third party) but the Obama campaign certainly is.

Brown-Warren MA Senate 3rd Debate – Brown Wins Handily – Media bases Warren Win on Audience Participation!

The third debate between Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Democrat Candidate for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Professor, was held last night in the City of Springfield in Western Massachusetts. The debate attracted an audience of 2600, the amount of seats available for the event and the fact that the debate was sold out, was hyped by the media, including traffic reporting about where to park! Not for nothing, but if Springfield is going to be the site of a casino, hold concerts at the Mass Mutual Center, and generally attract people to events in the downtown area, and make a dime, it is hoped they can attract more than 2600 individuals. One has to just love the hype over, just about anything.

It was a feisty debate as dubbed by most of the media, however, the clip below from WWLP local NBC affiliate, might be the best show of bias in local media. Although the audience was equally divided (See entire debate via C-Span, link provided below), watching the news clip from the affiliate, one sees a different debate: one clip of boos for Senator Brown, two clips of applause for challenger Warren and finally an analysis that the debate was won by Warren on crowd response. Of course, the local is counting on the fact that no-one has watched the debate earlier, most likely a safe bet – but, what is the audience share of the evening news in a small market, which has three network affiliates vying for a limited viewership, and finally, does the individual viewer actually trust the source? That’s debatable.

From policymic.com, Brown decidedly wins the debate with Warren (overview included with timeline). The reasoning given was simple – content and delivery of questions asked and answered. One thing is certain, Elizabeth Warren has her talking point of “Billionaires” down, in fact, she has it memorized, and that appears to be about the extent of her “experience”. That and the woman can outright lie, but that fact, of course, is considered an “attack” if pointed out by Scott Brown or anyone else. One cannot dispute the facts, however, and Warren, who is outside her depth when it comes to the economy and foreign policy, how Brown voted (apparently she hasn’t visited the Congressional Record), and her own resume.

It is difficult to support a candidate who is so flawed, period, and Warren takes the cake. Warren released an ad in the market depicting one sympathetic woman who had lost her husband due to asbestos exposure, the premise of the ad being Brown lied about Warren’s roll in the entire case, noting that Warren too the case to the Supreme court for the people! (Apparently the same firm that made the Obama-PAC video featuring the man who insisted Mitt Romney gave his wife cancer, somehow, six years after he lost his job.) Warren worked for the Asbestos firm, period. She was a lawyer for that firm, and well, that would give one the impression that if she went to the Supreme Court to fight, it would have been for her client – the asbestos firm.

But, apparently spouting endless quips about Billionaires – is brilliant.

Brown, in an attempt to point out Ms. Warren’s less than honest claims, is called out for attacking the poor woman.

What is, frankly amazing, are the polls showing the large percentage of undecided’s in this case, however, one can hazard to guess those undecided’s will go down along party lines. As much as the state has been polled in the last few weeks, compared to other months, and several of those polls have focused solely on the Presidential race, one might have the impression that the Brown-Warren matchup isn’t the only hotly contested race in the Bay State. The release of polling data to date shows the President leading Romney handily in the Bay State, with the majority of the polls either University or performed by Public Policy Polling, but one poll, in a congressional race, with a solid makeup of current voters, tells a different story, and that poll was taken in a county that went heavily for Obama in 2008, who is now, within one point of former Governor Mitt Romney – in Massachusetts. That poll, conducted in September, before the Presidential Debate, showed Brown with a double digit lead over Warren and Romney in a statistical tie with the President. Looking at the questions, they were not leading, the makeup of the electorate was spot on, and the district polled is a microcosm of the Commonwealth. On one hand, for Progressives and the Obama Campaign, it is critical that Warren appear to be winning, due to the huge amount of polling (non-Senate) being taken in Massachusetts. Point: Massachusetts offers up a few more electoral college votes than say, New Hampshire. Massachusetts is the last bastion of Progressive think, or so it’s portrayed, however, the 51% of registered unenrolleds, may have something to say about the matter. They did in the Presidential races in 1980 and 1984, an anomaly to be sure, they did so again in 2009 in a special election. It is the unenrolled who will decide who wins or loses the Massachusetts senate race and the electoral votes.

Of course, there’s always ballot stuffing and the usual bag of tricks, however, in the first Brown Special Election, all eyes were on Massachusetts, and the five point final lead (some suspect it may have been higher) Brown had over Coakley was decisive. Once again, all eyes will be on Massachusetts, as this is being billed nationwide as the one Senate race to watch, a fact apparently, lost on the Commonwealth’s Progressives, and local media. Not having a crystal ball, but being a tad pragmatic, one might see the race come down with similar results in 2012, with the Western part of the state giving the majority of votes to the Progressives, with a few exceptions (Brown lost heavily in Springfield, Northampton and points west throughout the hill towns, expect nothing more or less), and then cleaned house in the balance of the Bay State. Should those unenrolled vote a straight ticket, fueled by either Romney or Brown it will be an historic event for Massachusetts. Those are big if’s, considering the level of hi-jinks that is displayed in elections in the Commonwealth, but it would not be an anomaly for Brown and Romney to defy the polls and the pundits and pull out a win, a miracle by virtue of the media spin, but not an anomaly.

Clips below.

WWLP News at 11 segment on the debate, watch this first, then watch the actual debate

Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren’s 3rd Senate debate

The entire debate on C-Span is available at www.c-spanvideo-org/program/MassachusettsSenateDebat Not yet available for embedding, clips only.

A few of many resources available

Asbestos Victims Travelers Insurance Elizabeth Warren, “Asbestos legal work could taint Elizabeth Warren”(The Boston Globe)

Warren’s work for other firms, including Travelers (ABC News)

ElizabethWarren’s Law License Problem (Legal Insurrection) – Apparently Warren was not Licensed, however practiced law without.

Left Counting on Biden in Debate to Keep Obama Campaign Afloat – Biden Takes Six Days To Study Debate – Updated Predictions from the UDenver: Romney Wins – Grab the Popcorn

Image from the Guardian UK - One might anticipate this expression on Ryan's face while Biden is either a) telling an uncomfortable truth, or b) (pick an outrageous statement or expletive

From the Daily Beats Headlines: Joe Biden’s Turn to Take down Paul Ryan, can only be characterized as denial. It is apparent, of course, that this particular blog is “carrying water” for the Obama Administration, and anyone knows that Biden is fine in the debate area – however, fine against Paul Ryan is not going to cut it. The Daily Beast goes on to say that Ryan has zero experience in debate in front of millions, rather has spoken only to a few hundred here and there. Apparently forgetting about that Convention in August, where he as indeed in front of millions, granted that was the convection. One might also understand that Ryan is used to being in debate, as he is in the Congress, and spends, just like Biden, the majority of his time, debating legislation, one way or the other.

From the other side of the political spectrum, the Weekly Standard is reporting Joe Biden takes 6 days off campaign trail for debate prep. The Weekly Standard notes the following:

For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."

As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled." – (Weekly Standard)

On the Paul Ryan Watch Raw Story reports Ryan taking three days to prep for the debate with Joe Biden Ryan spent the day yesterday with with his family, away from debate prep,(Minneapolis Star Tribune. Apparently Ryan, who is , from some points of view, not only a policy “wonk’ but an outright genius may have all facts, figures, and taking point down in 3 days, rather than the 6 days it might take V.P Biden. Biden may have to learn not to tell the truth or be outrageously over the top, something that has dogged the Obama campaign every time the V.P. is out campaigning. Biden can at one time appear reasonable, then Biden the truth-teller shows up in his remarks about the middle class suffering since 2008, or the other Biden may show up – making claims about Romney putting people in chains. – Either or, it’s going to be worth the price of admission.

Ryan, for those who have only seen him on the clips, might want to go back through c-span footage and take a look at how he handles the Congress, one might also want to take a look at Ryan’s ability to resonate with all voters, despite the election partisan hype – he was the very few GOP Congressional Rep in 2008 that won reelection in his district. One might say so what? –True, Ryan’s winning his own district, may be a big so what? – However, his district voted for Obama, by a smaller percentage overall than for Ryan – and that District favors the Democrats disproportionately.

That’s something to chew on.

Of course, just like Mitt Romney’s first debate with Barack Obama, in which Romney’s performance can only be characterizes as stellar, the Pres will be “fact checking” fast and furiously (pun intended) Ryan’s’ every word. And every word of it, not unlike Romney’s, will be “suspect”. Of course, when reading or listening to these articles or newscasts, there is not specific reasoning for the statements to be suspect, except they were “fact-checked”. Which brings up the question, if one can debunk the Romney fact checkers in less than 30 seconds, how much more quickly can on debunk the “fact checks” against Ryan.

Romney did not lie in his debate, the statements he made and the programs he offered were just not in agreement with the narrative of the sleeping Obama, so the press had to jump in.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Denver, there are some science wonks – they deal in numbers and statistics especially when it comes to predicting who will win the Presidential race. Previously it was Romney, and it is still Romney only this time, Obama lost 5 more points. The new prediction gives Romney 330 Electoral votes to the Presidents’ 208. They will update that model again before the election. This model has been accurate for the last several elections. Of course, not to be outdone, Cambridge, offers a variety of Election models to contradict –they are available at Campbridge.org,.

On things is certain, models, polls and the like are grabbing attention – but the question remains whose? Most of those living and breathing polls are the pundits and the media, while the general public is generally not either buying it, or too financially depressed to care.

The VP debate is this Thursday. The next Presidential debate will be held on Foreign Policy – one would think that is the President’s bailiwick, as the media has portrayed Romney as a dolt when it comes to foreign policy – that said, SoundBits and carefully parsed phrase, can indeed make one appear less knowledgeable. However, unless the moderator has a stun gun pointed at Romney, the general public will be allowed to hear his plans and policy in their entirety, and so will the public. At the same time, one might ask if the President, taken off his stride by the sheer knowledge of Romney unleashed, might go into his Denver State of Mind (unlikely as he’ll be fighting for his life), but regardless, Romney will be prepared. For those who look for lively debates, all three offer a bit of something, no matter to which side of the aisle one is politically wed.

Election 2012 – Obama vs. Romney – focus on swing states? Why are “Safe Democrat” States Polled Less than 2 Weeks Apart? Opinion Essay

Mitt Romney, former Governor of the Bay State, Candidate for President 2012

It was surprising to more than a few households in this conservative enclave in Western Massachusetts that their phones rang yesterday and they found themselves answering an automated poll! The polling, conducted by Public Policy Polling (a pre-recorded announcement) – is a bit surprising for two reasons. One, the Bay State is rarely polled, and several pointed out that they had never been polled before (and we’re quite thrilled to put in their two cents), the second reason, Public Policy Polling just polled Massachusetts on September 18th, a poll in which it shows President Obama with a substantial lead and a 52% approval rating. The question, why are they polling a second time? Perhaps it was to focus on the Warren Brown Race, (but that was only one of several questions, the majority focused on voter trend and the Presidency: who did you vote for in 2008, if the election were held today, who would you vote for, and then the demographic questions. (Age, Gender).

Perhaps they are shoring up their data, counting their electoral votes before they are hatched, or perhaps to emphasis that Obama is doing just fine – in Massachusetts?

What one has to consider in these polls, is the geographic data. When one looks at the state of Massachusetts and voting patterns, one find that, yes, there are Republican’ and Republican leaning independents in this state, but, the big but, they are spread and most of this is geographic: Therefore, if one were to call Worcester (Central MA) one would find a majority of Conservative, or for that matter several areas on the north and south shore. However, Western Massachusetts is similar to say, Cambridge, a much smaller population that the balance of the state, and home to the left of center and reliable Democrats, the actual Republican is rare, and Conservatives (part of the Unenrolled who are the majority of voters in MA), might be few and far between, and generally found in certain cities and towns and pockets. One neighbor remarked after the Brown election in 2009, that the neighborhood was crawling with Republicans! (A polite and avid Progressive, who expresses frustration over this fact fairly consistently.) That said, from the Connecticut River West and North along the eastern edge, the political ideology is more 1960’s than 1980’s, replete with tie-dye, long white hair and beards, and bongo’s – it’s referred to as quaint! There’s the urban center, such as Northampton, birthplace of Calvin Coolidge, the last Republican from Massachusetts to attain the Presidency. Northampton, home to Smith College, (Think Rachael Maddow), has the lovely town of Amherst to its left – home of UMASS, or locally referred to as the “People’s Republic of Amherst.

Now, understanding the lay of the land, one would anticipate that there would be no need to poll, considering one poll affirming the huge Obama lead was just produced by the same pollster and polls cost money. But, and here is the big but, Massachusetts has recently been redistricted, due to population loss. The entire state, when viewed on a redistricting map, has all of Western Massachusetts in one district (formally two) the 1st District cover’s half of the state – the most reliably Democrat part of the state. There was one district that was gerrymandered to include a the conservative enclaves of central Massachusetts, taking some of hoe more reliability Republican cities and towns, and pushing them away from the former 3rd district into the 4th, the fourth also lost the large urban centers of New Bedford and Fall River. This is the main reason Barney Frank retired, he had a close call in the 2010 elections, managing a 10 point lead over his challenger Sean Bielat (and that is with the dead voting). Most reasonable people would think a 10 point lead is huge, however, in Massachusetts, most Congressional Candidates enjoy a project 75% win, and that year, according to the New York Times, Barney Frank was going to sail through the election process, so was Richard Neal, the Democrat from the former 2nd District. They both had first time Republican Challengers, and the expectations we’re low. However, those that had, in the past, run minimal ads, or perhaps sent a direct mail piece – were actually campaigning and were forced to spend huge sums, call in big name party favorites – such as Bill Clinton, to help them win. The lay of the land, therefore, had changed.

Yet they still won, even if the margins were considering higher than anticipated.

Looking at this scenario, one would then wonder why, if election data from 2010 is so readily available on the Secretary of States Website, (from return of votes by city and town, drilled down by party,) why not use the most accurate data. However, if one were able to direct a poll, especially via robocalls, (which can be programmed to avoid or include specific area codes, and cities and towns) – it would make sense for a pollster, in support of a particular party, or commissioned to poll by a particular organization, to call into an area believed to be 100% Democrat.

There have been a few polls lately on the state, what with the race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, which makes sense, but, looking at those polls, one of which supplied geographic data, it was surprising to see a large percentage of those polled came from Western Mass, two to one, over those polled in Central Mass. Therefore the odds of polling a Democrat were greater.

One has to ask, why aren’t pollsters and that goes toward any pollster, but especially the professional firms, employing the state data, to evenly proportion a state based on geography combined with voter trends from the last federal election. This would produce a more accurate poll, the rest of the polls. Therefore, as polls are being conducted without regard to voting patterns in a state, or worse, intentionally targeting a particular section of the state that favored, say one party over another, they are –in a word-useless.

Perhaps they believe that by producing poll after poll which is fed to the media, and those pundits that sit upon their Beltway thrones, that somehow, should it appear one candidate is winning, then that candidate will eventually win, a combination of psychology that most of the “masses” will vote for the most popular candidate (the one ahead in the polls), and the fact that those supporting the underdog, will become concerned, and being to blather on about how that individuals campaign is sinking.

Will it work again? It worked swimmingly well in 2008, but there were other factors at play in 2008. John McCain was the weakest of three candidates standing as August reared, the strongest was Hillary Clinton, who, for all intents and purposes had the popular vote in the primary, and a choice between Clinton and McCain was a no-brainier. But, in the face of a Super-delegated candidate Obama, at the DNC convention, one had no choice but to vote for McCain, if one leaned Conservative at all. McCain, although a nice guy was just not in the least exciting, and also to be fair to McCain, the Republican brand had been so damaged, the ghost Ronald Reagan could not have been elected.

This election is a bit different however.

There are sides drawn and candidates are focused on swing states, the news tells us that these are the y keys to Obama’s victory. The polls tell us so. The pundits are assailing Romney for not being hard enough, or aggressive enough, or what-have-you, while the left (the press and the Obama Campaign) blast Romney for the most incredulously ridiculously inflated non-starters. They recycle old news, as if its breathtaking revelations as to how “bad” a candidate Romney is.

To someone who is, admittedly supporting Romney, but, that was not always the case - watching these polls and pundits repeating the negative mantra vis a vis Romney, it makes one believe that those who swear by these polls, are blindfolded.

Which is why one questions all of the polls, but, especially polls coming from individual States from swing to those that should be “in the bag” for Obama or any Democrat. PPP should poll the north shore of the Bay State – a recent poll commissioned by the partisan RNCC, gave the Congressional Challenger a fairly large lead over the incumbent Democrat, but more shocking and no less of import, the poll indicated that Romney and Obama were tied, and Brown was running away with the race in that district. The marginals showed the percentage of households in the state, with the results, and they were indeed skewed to favor the Republican. But, after looking at the city by city statistics and voter by party affiliation, one found the poll to be – perfect. It was based on the right percentage of voters Democrat, Republican and Unenrolled in that district.

A district Obama had won in 2008 by 20 plus points over McCain, a District that was redrawn to protect the seat of the Democrat.

If PPP has knowledge of that poll, and how it was conducted, then calling all of Western Mass makes sense, given the fact that it was withdrawn to be heavily Democrat. If PPP were a Democrat Polling firm Supporting the President. It could very well be the expense.

But it still begs the question why would they poll a State that is considered Safe Democrat, where a Republican can rarely win? The last Republican Governor was Mitt Romney, the 1st Republican Senator in decades is Scott Brown, and the last Republican to attain the White House from the Bay State was Calvin Coolidge. One would think there would be no need to poll. Maybe once, or twice, but repeatedly? Polls taken twice in the space of two weeks by the same pollster?

Unless that poll commissioned by a partisan group – somehow ended up being the most perfect poll as far as data is concerned – in recent memory, caught the eye of a campaign or pollster, instead of a “citizen” who writes opinion in a small enclave in Western Massachusetts.

In this opinion: Romney is doing everything right, and call it crazy, but his even tone, his measured response, and even his “alleged” gaffes, are ringing with those in the center, in the middle, the moderates, those unenrolled. He’s not a politician in the usual sense of the word, not the most charismatic (being charitable here), and not the most polished when it comes to off the cuff performances – but is the perfect looking, most popular guy in the class, really what the nation is looking for in a President this time?

We won’t know, we can’t know, because the polls are simply guessing games unless they are drilled down to the city by city, district by district level and that would cost too much. Therefore, what we, the consumer, are left with is anyone’s best guess, and if one feels their candidate is down in the polls, then one is most likely heading to a phone bank, plant a yard sign, or silently wait to go to the polls and show support by voting.

Those pundits who never set foot out of the heartland, or the broadcast booth, might want to trip into one of those swing states, or even the state next door to get an idea of how people are thinking, they might be surprised, that the gaffe the media considers shameless is being cheered on by the “masses”.

What’s Not Being Talked About: Reuters 2008 to 2012 - Voter Registration – Democrats Down, Republican’s up by wide margin

With all the talk about the polls and the media’s intent focus on Mitt Romney’s Ronald Reagan like Gaffes, and his campaign falling apart (similar to Reagan’s against Carter in same time period), one might think that the Massachusetts Govenor might as well pack it in –of course, a gaffe is in the eye of the beholder. Take that Romney fundraiser where he was discussing his campaign strategy and which voters he world or old not focuses on to bring them over to his side: he decided not to go after (target, fundraise from, and send camping literature to) 47% who were most likely Obama Supporters. Although 47 percent may not agree with Romney, there’s that 53% that do – If the election were held on that one gaffe, then Romney wins.

Apparently SoundBits and hidden camera moments do not make or break a campaign.

What does make a difference is voter turnout and enthusiasm and who shows up and why the day the votes are cast.

The polls, as has been discussed, are inaccurate at best and misleading at worst, but yet, they (media) continue to pound away on the amazingly tight race.

It defies logic that a poll (an educated guess – granted scientific) would sway an election, but the Obama Campaign is hoping it will.

They are also counting on early voting leads in swing states, however, Reuters suggested that may not be the best plan, as explained in their article: “Groups race against time to get Florida voters registered” In this article the suggestion is that Democrats are far less enthusiastic about early voting or registration for that matter; and Reuter’s cites the city of Jacksonville, FL as an example, and the numbers would suggest trouble for one particular campaign if they had to count on early voting or an uptick in voter registration to win reelection.

The Florida Times Union has said 11,365 people registered as Democratic voters in the 13 months that ended at the end of August, compared with an average of 209,425 for the same periods before the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.

Meanwhile, 128,039 Republicans have registered in the state over the past 13 months, up from an average of 103,555 in the same period in 2004 and 2008, the newspaper said.

One might suggest that given the enthusiasm is with the Republican’s given that snapshot. There are other factors at work as well, one has to consider the ground game, and who is most likely to turn out millions of voters on Election Day, and who is going to have to fill buses and get them to the polls.

Here’s a thought on that theory that Mitt Romney, the candidate, is down in the polls so, the race is over mantra from the Media will help re-elect the President, what if, for example, when those who are more concerned with the Presidents policy, as well as the economy, the crisis in the Middle East and holding onto one’s job, hears that Romney might not win? They may just be more inclined to vote for Romney, and get a few neighbors to join them. On the other hand, those Democrats who are feeling the same pinch, and yet, trying to cast blame on George Bush, are somewhat of an anomaly – they are the traditional Democrat vote – and they rarely stray from the “flock”. The rest of the moderate Democrats may or may not vote given they care for neither candidate.

The Debates: Yes the media is already harping on the “do or die” for Romney in the debates. Of course, no matter if the GOP Candidate out debates the President, the media, will give the win to Obama, regardless of the outcome, and report the same, noting that Romney can’t win. See AP Report: Gov. Carter Won First Debate with Reagan.

It’s to be expected.

Yet, after all the polls, and portents of a victory for one or the other, and the tight polls right up to the election – (or conversely, even a lead) – No one will know until the day after the November election – although there are some that believe History is in one of those maddening cycles, whereby more than 15 to 20 events over 4 years that are similar in scope to the past, so much so, it’s almost identical, might make one harbor the bet that not all is lost for Govenor Mitt Romney. It is not that Romney is comparable to Reagan, he is not, and it is the circumstances that gave Reagan the edge that are similar. Both men suffered similar treatment by the media –and the results, well, one is certain, as it has passed, the other, is more certain, given the circumstances and mounting physical evidence.

Poll Shocker: MA 6th District, Tisei Leads in Race by Double Digits, Romney-Obama Tied, Brown Up by 14 – Poll is Perfect: Analysis

Image: Massachusetts 6th District Map

From The Hill Blog: a new poll commissioned by the National Republican Congressional Committee sees GOP Candidate Richard Tisei besting, deeply entrenched, Democrat Congressman John Tierney in the general. The poll also shows that President Obama is 1 Point ahead of Mitt Romney in his home state, while Scott Brown, the Mass. Republican Senator, lead, Democrat Party darling, Elizabeth Warren by 16 points. The poll was characterized:

But the polling memo includes the party breakdown of those polled, which is similar to the makeup of Massachusetts. Thirty percent of those polled are identified as Democrats, 13 percent of those polled are identified as Republicans and 57 percent of those polled are identified as independent. In Massachusetts, the 2010 breakdown of registered voters was 37 percent Democratic, 11 percent Republican and 52 percent unaffiliated.

The poll was conducted by Stinson Strategies with 561 respondents and a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

(Press Release RNCC included in Hill blog Paragraph)

That poll is shocking politically on three levels: the first to unseat any deeply entrenched Democrat Congressional Representative in MA is nothing short of a daydream in most instances, second, that Obama and Romney are in a statistical tie defies logic and finally, 3: Scott Brown – makes sense, except for the polls, considering Essex County and the Boston area put Brown up by 5 points.

Registered Voters by Party by Town MA Secretary of State The polling marginal’s are shown to be slightly skewed in the above scenario, in favor of the Republican, however: An analysis comparing the newly redrawn 6th district with voter returns from 2010 shows this to be the most accurate polling model in any election to date – period.

Refer to photo’s district map as well as the return of votes Voter registration in Tierney’s Current district almost mirrors the polls sample: Out of 100% of voters in the new 6th: 31% are Democrats, 13% Republican, less than 2% Libertarian, and 54% (rounded to nearest percentile) Unenrolled The poll sample: 30% Democrat, 13 Republican, 57% Unenrolled

The polling data was automated, therefore, regardless of the fact that this was a Republican commissioned poll; the data supports the findings, perhaps for the first time in this election. To suggest that Romney and Obama are tied in Massachusetts would belie the balance of the polls – those that have been published. The Commonwealth continues to be polled on President Obama’s Job Approval, as well as voting patterns; this includes the relatively blue 1st District.

The races to watch in Massachusetts – especially with redistricting, would be – the 6th, and the 4th (Barney Frank retired when the new maps were drawn, making the 4th the most Conservative District in the Commonwealth – so much so it resembles Wyoming! It’s doubtful that even bringing a Kennedy in will make a difference, Sean Bielat is the Republican who came close to sealing Barney Frank’s fate in 2010 – He’s got a great ground-game to go up against the usual ballot stuffing and dead voting tactics used by the oppositions.

Suffice it to say – Massachusetts is in play – and those who are watching this state and our former Governor may be tempted to party like its 1980!

Resources: MA Secretary of State 2010 Voter Registration by District and Town

MA Legislature, New District Maps Note: Due to Population Loss, Massachusetts lost one of 10 remaining districts. All current Congressional Representatives are Democrat.

Polling and the 2012 General Election – Is there a Reliable Poll – most probably not – Fact: Polls Based on Four year old trends Cannot be Accurate

What happens when one adjusts the polling data based on 2008 trends with current voter identification? - 1980. image: screenshot of www.unskewedpolls.com

There’s a feeling of Déjà-Vu about this general election cycle, if one were awake or living in the year 1980 – the economy was in deep trouble, the President a proponent of “Big Government”, entitlements were up, interest rates were through the roof, the price of gas was astronomical, as was food, and to top it all off there was a crisis in the Middle East. The polls throughout the 1980 Presidential election were either tied or had the President in the lead – right up to the night before the election – the prediction: too close to call.

Of course, the news articles, and nightly newscasts referred to the GOP candidate, Ronald Reagan, as a “clown”, and negative articles and broadcasts appeared “stacked” against the Republican challenger to President Carter. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 5, 1980 – via the Washington Post: “Reagan Campaign Battles Slip-ups” - the article goes on to cite growing concerns within the campaign, the gaffes the candidate was making - the perception – the campaign was in disarray.

Sound familiar?

After the dust settled, Gallup explained the Carter loss as a “Dramatic Vote Changes Given Carter in 76, 80”(Youngstown Vindicator, December 21, 1980). Simply put, Carter won the youth vote and the ethnic vote, but lost his edge on the balance – his support among traditional Democrat voters fell from 82% to 69%, and he lost in a landslide.

Therefore, one had, an extremely re-electable President, by all polls, a challenger whose campaign was in trouble in late October, the GOP candidate made gaffes so often by the media standards, he was not electable - and yet – he prevailed.

Fast-forward to 2012 – and one finds Romney’s news coverage, with very limited exception – negative. He’s made a lot of gaffes and the polls are tied up or worse, the President is leading in three key swing states! – Romney’s Campaign is in disarray!

Trust in media has slipped to unknown territory – with these same pollsters offering a tied scenario – which allows broadcast to manufacture an image that the Romney campaign is somehow deficient due to the polls. These polls that are using samples (those surveyed) that are based off election statistics from 2008. Therefore in simple terms, this tests the limits of simple math.

In 2008, the Democrats had a large share of registered or identified voters, there were fewer registered Republicans, and Independents leaned Democrat, they made up a fraction of the vote. These statistics have changed over the course of the past four years, the Democrats have lost their huge lead over voter registration and the Republican’s have increased their share of the electorate, as have the Independents to a greater extent.

Therefore for a polling firm to base 2012 projections on the 2008 model may be a tad misleading.

Which is the reasoning behind the new website www.unskewedpolls.com - a site that is similar in scope to the model used by Real Clear Politics, which blends all polls and uses the average as a result. With the exception, the polls are re-calculated using voter registration/party identification from 2012. When one changes the percentage of the sample, one finds that candidate Romney is leading President Obama by an average of 7 to 13 points, as suggested by the unskewedpolls.com.

Although, one must question the accuracy of changing the original polling data, even basing that data on accurate samples, to project an outcome by using bad statistical data in the first place!

That said, the models used, even though the accuracy might be questions, give candidate Mitt Romney a lead that is identical to the results of the 1980 election. (Refer to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Gallup article in paragraph 2)

Therefore, it would be wise to take any polls, at this point, with a grain of salt, unless, of course, the pollster shares their methodology, showing an accurate sample of the electorate based on the most recent voter patterns and identity. Therefore, the results will be known on the morning after the November election.

If the statistics hold for the electorate as it now stands, and those numbers go to the polls and vote, regardless of whether or not a candidate is “likable”, regardless of how “smart” a candidate is, or “how rich” – then one would suggest that history might just repeat itself. One final thought:

The logic in 1980 was that although Reagan might be “likeable” – Carter would win on intellect (The Modesto Bee, September 28, 1980). The reasoning, people would not vote their wallet. This was a reverse on the angle that President Obama is more “likable” than Romney, and yet, the Obama Campaign is counting on the – economy not counting. Same election, different decade.

Romney Releases Tax Returns – Media Criticizes Romney for Paying Too Much and Not Being a Billionaire!!! – Romney 2011 Tax Returns Show Charity 1st Concern

Who Do You Trust? - Not the Media - Gallup Trust in Media by Political Ideology - graphic image Gallup

GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, is now taking heat for releasing additional tax returns – the American media and Harry Reid and the Obama Campaign’s bluff has been called, the only question was how fast they would spin it to a negative – the answer – seconds.

ABC News suggested that although Romney paid 1.9 Million in taxes in 2011, it was at a tax rate of 14.1%, and shame on him for paying too much! – Seizing on a Romney statement during a GOP primary debate, where he estimated his payment at a lower percentage (sending the same media reeling), apparently, now he’s paying too much, thus the implication – Romney “lied”. They also touch on his charitable giving, the reason his tax rate is higher than it need be – apparently the Romney’s giving is at a higher than average percentage and they claim less than half of what they give to charity. Since Romney does not take all of the available deductions – shame on him!

The Huffington Post is also questioning Romney’s public service, or more to the point, the fact that he abandoned his lucrative Bain Capital gig in order to save the Olympics in Salt Lake, run for Governor of Massachusetts and then for President, which made him a Millionaire – not a Billionaire!!

Of Course the Democrats are up in arms - suggesting that Romney’s releases of income tax returns was purely a political move(Washington Post).

This would suggest that after being harangued by the Democrats, the Obama Campaign for months about releasing tax returns, when he did so – it was political – yet it was not political for Harry Reid, current Senate Majority Leader and nut case, to suggest that Romney did not pay any taxes at all – and the media ran with it as gospel. It was not political for the President to call Romney out for not releasing enough tax returns – only two years, not twelve – and the media jumped on that.

Is it no wonder then that the most recent Gallup Polling - suggests:

Americans' distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.

Gallup Graph Political News Consumption by Political ID - image Gallup

The trust in media by party is telling: 26% of Republican’s Trust the Media, 31% of Independents feel the news is worthy, and the highest percentage of trust goes to those who identify as Democrats at 58% - In addition, those who watch political news (or pay attention) appears to be in reverse, with Democrats on the low scale at 33%, Independents at 39% and Republicans at 48% (Gallup).

Therefore, across the board, across all news media, two thirds of the nation isn’t buying what they are selling.

According to the Tax Returns Here in PDF via Politico, Romney paid more in taxes as well as gave more to charity than the President because he earned more from investments (well, that explains the taxes, not the charitable donations where by percentage Romney is extraordinarily generous.(President Obama 2011 Tax Returns PDF)which show that the President did, paid less in dollar amounts based on income than the Romney’s in taxes, but had a 5,000,000 deduction (page 4 schedule C – Computation of Generation Skipping Tax Transfer – trust for children), gave a total of 172, 130 in donations, and has an adjusted gross foreign and domestic income of 789,674 (includes the Presidents salary of $364,000 (and change) Investments are, for the most part, in U.S. Treasuries .

Also, Romney’s firm is rumored to be preparing a release of 10 year, and one can bet at this juncture, the media and the Obama Campaign is praying that he doesn’t.

Otherwise, the American People might find out that Romney is successful, Romney is generous, giving more to charity and not deducting all of his charitable giving, as that’s just not done in the true sense of giving, Romney pays his fair share of taxes and then some, Romney could have been much richer, but instead decided to donate his time to the U.S. Olympics and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (where he took no salary).

There’s more to Romney than meets the eyes, acts of kindness, charity, straight up heroics, but he keeps that to himself, which when one considers the mettle of the man, Romney is much maligned for being, in this world, a saint! He’s maligned for following the founders of this nation and making a success of himself. He’s maligned simply because, the media is to the left, and Romney is truly in the center. Therefore, as more and more American’s tune out, drop subscriptions as the media continues to spin out of control, what does that portend for the millions of individuals who are now employed by the demagogues of leftist ideology that run the aforementioned institutions? The media continues to blame the internet, in the same way the Democrats continue to blame George Bush –by wearing ideological blinders. If the aforementioned and this is all media outlets, would being to print and broadcast actual news (not clips designed to denigrate one political ideology, when millions have an entire tape on line to view), or inflict politically charged language into every conceivable broadcast from sports to entertainment, again, at a slant, it is more than probable that they would recover – unless of course, it’s too late.

2012 Is Massachusetts in Play for the GOP? Just for Giggles – Why Is MA being Polled for Obama? Why is the Warren Campaign Push Polling?

Elizabeth Warren and Barrack Obama - image ljworld

This is something to think about, in the 1980 and 1984 General Elections, Massachusetts, noted the most reliably blue state in the union - went deep red for Ronald Reagan. At that time (September 18, 1980) national polls had Carter and Reagan in a dead heat, in spite of a tanked economy and Carter’s major foreign policy fiasco with Iran (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) and by mid-October Carter had placed Massachusetts in the safe column(Boston Globe).

In 1984, once again the Mondale Campaign consider Massachusetts a “maybe” or “leaning toward Mondale” along with 39 other states based on polling! (Waycross Journal Herald, 10/13/84)

Therefore, it is not without some shock that polling firms are measuring President Obama’s favorability in the Bay State – and neighbors are talking - those programmed calls are reported to go no further if one suggests an unfavorable opinion of the President’s job performance, one is then asked demographic (male-female, age) and summarily thanked and disconnected. Reportedly, if one selects approval (see operation chaos), one is allegedly given the option to enter voters preference. It is odd, is it not, that Massachusetts would be polled at all –

Then again, may be no.

Speaking of polling: reports of the Warren Campaign going negative has hit the bricks -(See Boston Globe – Warren Releases Negative Ad) - and that includes reports of push-polling. Push-polling are phone calls made to voters homes (mostly partisan, Democrats, Independents) and basically lie like crazy about the opposition. Warren is said to be push polling Massachusetts. Apparently not all Democrats and Independent minded folk (the majority) are enamored of Warren and prefer Senator Brown.

The Hill has reported that the Dems are being cautious on Mass Race despite Warren’s Lead”

Of course she has a lead; Martha Coakley had a lead too! Of course, those leads are easy to manufacture if the pollster is selective and samples disproportionate geographic and voter trends.

Of course, there’s always trolling for votes in nursing homes (Personal experience, whereby Democrat operative was aiding my mother, who was in the end stages of Alzheimer, to vote for Al Gore – my mother, an independent, generally voted against my devoutly Democrat father, as a Republican – Needless to say, there were words, and the operative left.) The dead, the dying, and the non-existent are reported to vote in Massachusetts, and yet, Brown won by 5 points in 2009. One has to ask to what lengths the Warren Campaign will go. If they are push-polling, perhaps there aren’t enough dead and missing voters in MA to cover the deficit she actually faces. Perhaps she has internal polls. On the national polling stage, perhaps the Commonwealth that elected him Governor, will side with history and economics and foreign policy and hand the Massachusetts electoral votes to Romney –that’s a big perhaps, considering that Massachusetts never votes for a Republican, and has always been reliability Democrat and all seats, regardless of import, are shown year after year after year as – “safe Democrat”.

On Romney’s 47% remarks on a local scale: Although the media (including the morning and evening local affiliate news) are hammering Romney for the 47% of Obama supporters being dependent on the government, (Romney was speaking of campaign strategy and whom he would focus on during his campaign, which, is not lost on “the masses” – neither is the sentiment that is being portrayed) Apparently, those watching the newscasts are somewhat disgusted with the fact that Romney’s right and their local CBS, NBC affiliates are to use a phrase (So blind they cannot see the forest through the trees). Of course, this is relying on word of mouth, neighbor to neighbor - retirees, the unemployed, the employed but noticing their dollar goes nowhere, regular working class folks in the Bluest corner of the bluest state. The point being the mood has not shifted since 2009, in fact the mood is one that is more urgent in its animosity towards all things that appear to be pushing an “agenda”. Granted this may be a pocket of conservative and conservative leaning Democrats and Independents, but then again, do the 33 to 36% of the Massachusetts electorate that are registered Democrats (the balance are 11-12% Republican, 51% Unenrolleds (i.e. Independent) really win elections 100% of the time in Massachusetts when there is a better choice on the ballot?

ABCNews Poll – Race Remains Tight Between Romney and Obama among Likely, Registered Voters – those removed, Romne has Lead – Reading Between the Lines

Carter and Reagan after October Debate - All Tied in Polls - images newstimes.com

The polls are receiving a good deal of national attention this week, let alone the two men who are the focus of the pollsters. First there is the implications of coercion between the Obama Campaign and Department of Justice against Gallup Polling: See Washington Times Article: “Internal e-mails: Axelrod intimidated Gallup before DOJ lawsuit surfaced against polling company”. Gist: Gallup had an employee who campaigned for President Obama in 08, also was a staffer for the Obama Campaign, who in 2009, suggested that Gallup Polling was overcharging the Federal Government for field sampling. The DOJ sat on this until – Mitt Romney was polling 5 points over the President, Axelrod, the Presidents Mentor, Campaign Manager, White House adviser, etc., got a bit hot under the collar and began to blast the polling agency, Gallup also received an invitation to come to the White House and “explain” it’s methodology. When they did not change their methodology, apparently, the DOJ became very interested in the 2009 charges by the Obama Campaign Staffer and a lawsuit ensued. The Times links to the Daily Caller, who has the emails from Gallup Staffers.

Second, there is the similarity between all pollsters besides Gallup showing a deadlocked national race, with a little movement up or down depending upon the candidate. Both candidates received a nominal “bump” in the polls after each convention, not moving up by any significant margin. Unless one counts Bill Clinton, who was a positive force at the Democrat Convention in Charlotte, and would give a boost to a rock if he were speaking at a quarry. That said, from the right and the left, there are charges that the pollsters are not playing fair – and that is the norm for political pollsters – it’s about who they sample, and with random samples, the game changes in a heartbeat. These same pollsters had Carter and Reagan “too close to call” the eve of the election in 1980, and in 1984, Mondale was leading Reagan at this point in August of 1980, during the deep recline in the U.S. economy Gallup Polling had Reagan and Carter in a tie, (Good News Archives).

One can draw the conclusions that polls can be somewhat mistaken, considering that the methodology does not change, and when one understands that Reagan did not win two elections by swings states or a narrow lead in the electoral college, but by a landslide of popular vote in the majority of states - with both Mondale (1984) and Carter (1980) holding one or a handful of states – all of the polling data to date – makes perfect sense.

In the case of the 1980 election, the economy was in tatters, and it did not improve at all prior to the election. In fact there was a third party independent candidate, John Anderson, who was factored into the polling at an usually higher % than the normal 4 to 6% - yet Reagan won in a landslide. In 1984, one can understand that the economy was rocking, Reagan was extremely popular by that point, and well, Mondale was a weak candidate – yet, polls had Mondale with a lead in August, defying reason and pollster logic.

Therefore, the ups and downs and parsing of polls, especially polls that use smaller samples, have a 50-50 chance of being right – or wrong. There are pollsters that lean right and those that lean left in political ideology – there are pollsters that over sample and there are pollsters that word surveys in order to skew the outcome in one direction or the other. The logic follows that the polls would send a message to both candidate and the public: The race is tight, therefore, get out and vote, and/or donate what you have to your favorite candidate to give them the edge.

There are polls that employ a method that uses responses from registered and unregistered voters, polls that use likely voters only, and polls that use registered and likely voters. In those cases, the title of the poll may indicate a lead or a dead heat, but when one looks at the poll internal marginals, the polls is definitely showing a trend towards one candidate or the other- and that is regardless of whether or not the poll is oversampled! This is especially true of the ABC/Washignton Post Poll which gives President Obama a national convention boost of 50 to 44% over GOP Candidate Mitt Romney, or a win for the President with a 2 percent lead outside the margin of error. However, The Marginal’s (PDF here) are titled Obama Gains a Convention Boost – But Not Among Likely Voters” suggests that when one factors in registered voters who are likely to vote, the race becomes a dead heat. The poll samples: “Thirty-two percent of registered voters in this poll identify themselves as Democrats, 26 percent as Republicans and 37 percent as independents “(ABC News).

This follows the 2008 election model. However, a poll conducted by Pew Research in 2010 suggests that the electorate had shifted slightly. , with the Democrats at a 5% advantage, in voter identification (registration): 34% of registered voters identify as Democrats and 29% as Republicans, a plus 2 for the Republicans and a minus 5 for Democrats. Moreover,” non-partisans now stands at 37%, one of the highest levels in the past 20” and those that do: 40% of independents and other non-partisan voters say they lean more to the Republican Party, with 35% leaning Democrat. This model therefore suggests that as of 2010, there would be a tie mathematically with both parties at 69% support including the base and those Independent who lean towards one party or the other. This poll was taken in August, yet, in November, there was a landslide in the U.S. Congress, with an historical Republican gaining the house, and a narrowing of the Democrat Majority in the Senate. To suggest that in 2012 voter samples for the Presidential race would be comparable to 2008 samples rather than 2010 is somewhat disingenuous, and therefore, the polls are skewed from the get-go. Would that automatically give Romney a lead in the polls, obviously no – even using Pew’s model, there was a tie in August of 2010!

Reasonably, the only accurate polls are those that will never be released: the internal campaign polls, which use a huge sample comparatively (especially in national elections), and allow a candidate and their strategists to make decisions as to how to allocate funds, or which states may already be in the “proverbial bag”, therefore, using funds elsewhere where a deficit in internals would indicate the need for more advertising.

Therefore, if a polling trend makes one nervous about their candidate, they can do two things: donate and get out and vote if they hold the belief that their candidate has done/will do a better job in the office. The results will only be known when the dust settles on the morning after the election (or the night of the election, given fast returns and a pattern reminiscent of the 1980 election – which by the way – stunned the press!!).

One can hazard to guess however, if a candidate is pulling ads (not staffers) out of a state, then that state is showing internal polls that suggest the state is “safe”, rather than the “state is lost”. In total, it is not without a bit of satisfaction when one's chosen candidate is given a "lead" in a poll, no matter if that lead is inflated! It is the psychological boost given to the base and/or the leaning independent that all is "well" with their candidate. Conversely, the base and the leaners whose candidate is not in the lead are more motivated (generally) to get out and canvas, donate and support their preferred politician.

This begs the question - are there any accurate polls? Yes and no, it is the pollster who is closest at the time of the elections, uses the most accurate sample of the most current electorate and a large enough sample who will more accurately predict the outcome - unless of course, that pollster is in court.

Historically Speaking - Polling and Outcomes – Nov. 3, 1980 – Carter-Reagan Polls – Too Close to Call! Result – Reagan takes 49 States in Landslide

Screenshot of Google News Archive, Sarasota Herald Tribune, eve of 1980 Election - Polls too Close to Call

With growing skepticism the public is watching polling data that has depicted the 2012 Presidential Race as too close to call for months. The usual post convention bounce that a candidate receives has not materialized (Obama takes slim post-convention lead over Romney: Reuters/Ipsos poll), and there is much talk about the fact that polling is skewed in favor of one party over another by “over-sampling” Democrats by 8 points (Examiner.com).

The economy remains in tatters with unemployment at remaining at 8.1% heading into September, and a net job creation of 96,000 jobs – nationwide(Associated Press via Yahoo News), which begs the questions, why are poll numbers so close? It may be that polls are skewed; it may be that individuals have not made up their minds (5%) or it may be that polling data, even polling data days before an election, pull random samples that, for whatever reason, are not representative of the general population. Of course, there are those reports of harassment of pollsters who show too large a lead over a challenger (See Daily Caller on Gallup Polling).

History, as “they” say, appears to repeat itself. President Obama as been compared to President Jimmy Carter since the first year of his presidency, based on two principles: his inexperience, and his policies. The almost eerie comparison continued during the 2012 Democrat Convention, with the party platform and call for a second term based on “not enough time to right the economy” the same as the 1980 Democrat Convention and appeal to the nation. The kicker: Polling data in 1980, the day before the general election in November, suggested that the race was “too close to call”, by two major pollsters (Harris and Gallup) Sarasota Herald Tribune: “Final Gallup Harris Poll Shows Reagan with Slim Lead Over Carter”. That’s worth repeating, slim lead, the final Gallup 47-44%, or too close to call.

The results: ”Voters Elect Reagan in Landslide Win” It was billed as too close to call….(Mid-Cities Daily News). In fact, Reagan won 49 of 50 states, the exception being the home state of his running mate Walter Mondale. For years, Carter’s approval ratings from Gallup were below 50%. Comparatively, the past three state by state Gallup Approval ratings show President Obama with a dozen states or less with an approval rating just at 50% or more. The latest gives the President 13: WA, CA, MN, IL, NY(55%), MA (54.7%), CT (53.2%), DE, NJ (53.3), MD (54.5%), DC (82.9%!), and RI(57.8%), HI (high 50’s) , VT (55.5). The states not noted have an approval under 51% (between 50.0 to 50.8). Therefore, all states with the exception of DC, and RI are outside the margin of error. If one were to suggest that there was no connection to the approval rating and the polling data on election match-ups – then one would be – delusional.

Therefore, using this particular model, and giving the 50% plus states to the President, the Electoral College vote count becomes: (CNN Interactive Electoral College Map) –gives the President 185 to Romney’s 353 Electoral College votes. Although still early in the contest, and only projections by pundits both professional and non, one can hardly predict an outcome no matter which data one is using. That said, the comparisons are striking, and, as an Historian, it is not without some interest that this race is shaping up as it has – down to the tiny details.

AP Fact Check’s President Obama’s Speech – AP Defends Romney – Gallup Polling – Attempted Bullying by Obama Campaign’s Axelrod for Romney Lead!

The Obama-Biden Campaign Team Wraps Up the DNC Convention - image bayoubuzz.com


The Associated Presshas Fact Checked President Obama’s closing arguments speech for a second term and here is what they found:

President Barack Obama laid claim to a peace dividend that doesn't exist when he told the nation he wants to use money saved by ending wars to build highways, schools and bridges.
The wars were largely financed by borrowing, so there is no ready pile of cash to be diverted to anything else.
The claim was one of several by Obama in his acceptance speech Thursday at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., and by Vice President Joe Biden in earlier remarks that did not match the facts. A look at some of their assertions:

...THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially "pay down our debt," as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the "extra nation-building" he envisions.

...THE FACTS: Some of the proposals the Obama administration has floated in budget negotiations with Congress would ask Medicare beneficiaries to pay more. Among them: revamping co-payments and deductibles in ways that could raise costs for retirees and increasing premiums for certain beneficiaries.

...THE FACTS: Obama has claimed an increase of some 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 29 months. But this is cherry picking by the president. From the beginning of Obama's term 3 1/2 years ago, manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturing jobs have been on a steady decline for nearly two decades.

...THE FACTS: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's proposal is actually aimed at encouraging investment in the U.S., not overseas.

...THE FACTS: Biden wasn't referring to any Medicare plan of Romney or running mate Paul Ryan, but to the consequences of fully repealing Obama's health care law, which is unpopular with seniors even though it has sweetened Medicare in certain ways. A Medicare plan put forward by Ryan in Congress would have no immediate effect because it would apply only to future retirees.

(The Associated Press)

Well, knock me over with a feather!

In another recent development – The Daily Caller is in possession of emails between Gallup Polling employees and David Axelrod, Sr. Campaign Adviser for the Obama Campaign. These emails apparently are an attempt to bully the polling firm into a more modified methodology – especially as Mitt Romney was leading the President at the time – Gallup declined and has been threatened with a DOJ lawsuit. The DC goes on to suggest that other polling firms may have caved into the Obama Campaign’s strong-arm tactics and the result is more favorable polling for the President in other firms analysis. Read the entire story here at http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters.

Making sense of the polling data showing a dead heat for an extended period of time has been a bit mind-boggling considering that Gallup, which is the most conservative polling institute (and by conservative, the meaning is a-political, suggesting careful in their analysis rather than to the right or left), has taken year by year, state by state Presidential approval polls – all of which show the President with approval ratings breaching 50% in only ten to a dozen or so (in the most recent) states. This would suggest that the polling methodology would match a nation that is far from split or evenly divided – See Analysis on electoral college here here at this blog.

To maintain a 39 state disadvantage in approval ratings for a three year period of time does not bode well for an incumbent President, therefore, polling should suggest that the incumbent would have a disadvantage out of the gate, with any challenger. The polling should suggest the same, and likely voters polled on any given day would give the challenger an advantage an advantage in those states. In using data that projects a model that is not in line with the most recent national elections, either in polling and/or predictions of election outcomes by pundits (i.e. using data from 2008 to project 2012, rather than 2010 or present available models to project 2012) is creating the allusion that one candidate has a lead or is even, when the opposite is more probable. The mood of the nation has not improved since the 2010 Congressional drubbing of the Democrats, rather it has declined. To use older models, instead of current models, as was done in 2010, makes for a shocked nation that consumes the national news outlets when the election results are tallied. National or State “mood” at the moment generally trumps candidate versus candidate polling – the best example of which was the 2009 special election for the Massachusetts Senate Seat won by Scott Brown. The Boston Globe ran a poll days before the election showing Brown’s competitor, Democrat Martha Coakley with a 15 point lead – this poll was produced by the University of New Hampshire – In fact, the Globe was so convinced that on the eve of the election a screen shot of the outcome suggested by the Globe showed Coakley with a sweeping win! That was removed once the “news” of the screenshot went viral. The outcome of that election, with the dead voting and the ballots overstuffed was a 5 point lead for Brown. With the current mood of the nation, and the tone of negativity and divisiveness coming from the Obama Campaign, one would suggest an electoral projection that gives the Republican Candidate, Mitt Romney, a solid advantage at the moment. The fact that the AP was compelled to “Fact Check” the President’s campaign speech and honestly report the facts as have been suggested by the Romney Campaign is also telling. Whether the national news organizations will report this particular gem from the AP is another story entirely – and a screen shot appears below to confirm its very existence.

Finally the fact that the race appears close is favoring the challenger rather than the incumbent, call this assertion crazy if one must, but consider that in fundraising appeals from both sides – the race is a tie! This induces the recipients who favor one candidate over another to send more than the usual donation. In the latest FEC filings, the candidate that brought in the most individual donations under $200 from all areas, including urban areas where they have been weak in previous reporting, is Mitt Romney. Therefore, it appears that those pollsters who intended or were coerced (see Daily Caller) into a more favorable poll for the President have unintentionally helped the Romney Campaign – oh the irony.



AP Fact Check Obama Speech 1


AP Fact Check Obama Speech 2


AP Fact Check Obama Speech 3