Reality check: Things are looking ugly for November

[Marzupialis]

Obama led in the May Reuters poll by 7%. His lead now shrank to 1%; and that's among RV, which judging by the fact that in the last 5 elections or so the likely voter sample has given Republicans a few extra points over Registered Vote samples, you can bet Romney is at least a bit ahead in the preferences. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/reuters_ipsos_0612.pdf

In Florida, Romney is now ahead 0.2%, or we could say things are tied. That's not good. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

The latest Michigan poll has Romney ahead. This poll is only an outlier if subsequent polls again give Obama an edge' so we cannot say whether it's an outlier or the beginning of a new trend; but judging by the trend, I have little doubt things are looking ugly in Michigan as well.

Florida is tied up.

The more realistic we are about the tough situation we're in, the harder we can fight in order to reverse the trend.

[DCBob]

1. I have noticed recently alot of DU newbies "warning" us about how bad things are.

curious.

[cali]

4. well, I'm not a newbie and I think we're in trouble.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. It's remarkable how annoying some of you can get...

Republicans are down almost universally in every poll and they're confident they'll pull it out, or at least not nearly at the point of setting their hair on fire. Obama is up in almost every poll, leads in crucial states like Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, and 'we're in trouble...'



I'm sorry, but the crepehanging we see from the left is excruciatingly annoying. You'd think Obama was down by 15 points and not up, by a narrow margin. If this is what DU is going to be like the next five months, worrying about every little tracking poll, posting bullshit threads about how we're in trouble, count me out.

If Democrats mobilized as much as they worried, we'd never lose an election. But they don't. They sit around and panic - either by insisting we're going to lose, insisting it will be stolen from us or that we are in some BIG FUCKING TROUBLE and SOMETHING, ANYTHING has to be done. I heard it in '08 and I'm hearing it again this time around.

Wake me when Obama actually is losing to Romney.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. And I want to expand on this...2004 must have really mind-fucked Democrats.

I remember DU back in '04. They were in the situation Republicans find themselves in right now. Kerry led in a great deal of polls early, but lost his lead after the Republican Convention. And though the polls were tight, from the GOP Convention until election day, there were only a smattering of national polls that had Kerry ahead.

Yet Democrats were extremely optimistic. They would find that one poll that showed him leading and run it into the ground as proof that Bush was going down. I always felt uneasy late in '04 because of the lack of polls Kerry led in and while the Bush leads were always narrow, they were still leads. You rarely found a poll after August that had Kerry in the lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

Check that out. Kerry led, from September 2nd to election day, in all of seven polls. Based on polling alone, which was often dismissed here at DU as 'wrong' or 'biased', most would have expected Bush to win reelection - he did.

Now, you can get into Ohio and the overall problems there, but the end point is the same: Kerry was the underdog for most of the last few months of the race and couldn't ever overtake Bush consistently. In the end, he lost by a similar result as the average of polls suggested. But Democrats were optimistic. They talked themselves into believing polls like Marist, and even FOX News, which had Kerry up narrowly. Forget that they were the only two polls in the final week of the campaign that showed him leading, and that Bush led in 16, he was going to win.

We're now somehow on the opposite side of this argument. You've got Democrats so concerned Obama is going to lose, so convinced of this, they're ignoring every national poll that shows him leading, all the state polls that show him leading, and focus on the one or two polls that show him losing.

It's just weird how things work, I guess. How I see it: So many Democrats convinced themselves in '04 Kerry would win, even ignoring the mounting evidence that he wouldn't, and when he eventually lost, it ruined their confidence and now they have to look at things from the perspective of doom & gloom.

That's the only reason that makes sense. Obama leads in almost every national poll. He's got leads in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico & Nevada - which give him a comfortable electoral college victory and more importantly, almost every predictor, whether Intrade or Nate Silver, predictions that aren't slanted in one direction or another, still puts him as a favorite.

But yet, it's our side who's in trouble.

I don't get it.

[DCBob]

39. well, people like you will spin it negative no matter what is happening.

It is getting tiresome, as the Drunken Irishman put it so well in a previous post.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Me too...although it would be an odd strategy - tell them Obama's a goner - and maybe

they won't go vote. Unless it's just to take joy in hearing people worry.

I think a lot of what we are seeing is not necessarily a shift from Obama to Romney or undecideds deciding on Romney but a resignation by the Noot and Santorum fans that they have to go with someone they hate just to get rid of Obama.

[DCBob]

40. I think the strategy is simply to kill Democrat enthusiam for the election.

Remember, voter suppression is the GOP's main strategy for winning now.

[Marzupialis]

6. I also noticed that many non-newbies predicted Walker would lose

...in Wisconsin. While this "newbie" in the same poll was part of the 14% in that DU poll (many of them with thousands of posts) who noted that it was unrealistic to believe the recall would somehow prevail. Here's the poll and feel free to see how I voted in it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=762660

Note how many people with thousands of posts predicted, apparently based on nothing but wishful thinking, that all polls conducted on the recall would be wrong somehow.

So I hope it's now clear that 1) number of posts has nothing to do with this, and 2) Some people are so biased that their perception of reality becomes seriously impaired.

[DCBob]

41. So you thought it was "unrealistic" and "wishful thinking" to defeat Walker?

How does that attitude help win an election? That election was close and if not for the tons of cash dumped on WI by Rethug fatcats the result could have been much different.

[Surya Gayatri]

2. Your concern is duly noted...

You, at least, are taking a "realistic" view of the "tough situation".

And I'm sure you'll be "fighting" like the devil "to reverse the trend".

Battle on!

[Pab Sungenis]

3. It is still way too early.

Polls this far out are impossible. Remember that at this point in 1992, Clinton was running third.

Even in 2008, after the GOP convention, McCain was outpolling Obama.

This election will be decided by two series of events: the conventions and the debates. And I think the debates will be Romney's undoing.

[WI_DEM]

7. 2008 isn't a good comparison because this time Obama is the incumbant

Obama has been stuck in the mid 40's head on head with Romney with some polls having him slightly ahead or slightly behind. The thing is that an incumbant under 50% is vulnerable. Undecideds tend to break towards the challenger. The job market isn't good.

This doesn't mean that Obama is going to lose it means that it's going to be a tough fight and we have to do a better job of getting our message out because of late it's been Romney who has been on message and not Obama's campaign.

[FSogol]

24. Agreed. Most Americans will not pay attention until after Labor Day. n/t

[Godhumor]

8. MI is not in play, go look at the RCP poll history for Epic

Epic has consistently shown Romney ahead in Mi and are literally the only pollster to do so. They also do not publicly present the info behind the polls, but I think it is fair to say they're weighting republicans much, much higher than anyone else because they're predicting Romney's history gives him a huge advantage.

Simply put, no other data supports this conclusion.

[Marzupialis]

17. You exaggerated EPIC's record

1) You said EPIC has "consistently" shown Romney ahead, but they had not shown Romney ahead in the only 2 polls conducted so far this year prior to the last one. In those two, Obama was ahead by 4% (March) and 8% (June).

2) You said they do not publicly present their info behind the polls, but they do: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/EPIC_MRA_April2012C.pdf

[Godhumor]

20. I know exactly what I said and I stand by it

The poll pdf does nor include anything about methodology nor unweighted samples. It includes the percentage breakout for each question, but that is the adjusted scores only.

Secondly, you looked at the data on RCP, good. Tell me in the history is there any other pollster for what is listed that had ever shown Romney in the lead? Nope. 4 out of 6 Epic polls have shown Romney in the lead.

So again, iffy polling company out of alignment with other polling firms and has a very demonstrable lean towards Romney.

[demwing]

33. Ouch

Godhumor, I think you were just toasted over an open fire.

But kudos on the size of your testicals, amigo. Marzupialis found the facts to directly contradict your statement, and yet you turn it around and claim the contradiction supports your position .

That's some seriously Romneyesque, shit.

[Godhumor]

37. I would strongly disagree with that assessment, but thanks for the ouch

EPIC has shown Romney in the lead 4 of 6 polls in the RCP history. They're the only company to do so in that entire time period. You can't just say ignore that history by saying the last 2, which were the only two, were the ones with Obama in the lead.

And most polling companies in the big g write-UPS include unadjusted numbers and crosstabs, Epic does not.

Nothing the OP said changes either of those things.

[bemildred]

9. FUD. nt

[cliffordu]

11. Yeppers.

FUD.

[Iceberg Louie]

10. This is in no way heavily tilted in anyone's favor

The parallels to 2004 are legion. A divisive incumbent versus an overprivileged, unrelatable, flip-flopping Massachusetts stiff. Only this time, instead of an incumbent who by any measure of logic was an unequivocally abysmal catastrophe and utter failure as a leader through his first term, we have an incumbent whose legitimate shortcomings and failures are at worst 50-50 with the invented hate-fantasies of the now well-oiled right-wing propaganda mill. Of course, this is not to suggest that the GOP base's alternate choose-your-own-reality has any less weight in influencing votes in the swing states.

So, long and short of it is, yes, we do have to be realistic about this election. Obama may have so far weathered unprecedented volleys of ideological opposition and racism, and he may have (at least for his first year) lived up to some of his promises to try to change the tone of Washington, not to mention going to unprecedented lengths to achieve bipartisan cooperation (read: caving in repeatedly to GOP concessions). But the U.S. suffers from a terminally short attention span. If they did not, the CON-servatives would have been completely marginalized by now.

The good news is that the GOP is desperate at this point if the best they can come up with is rehashing birtherism and Reverend Wright. Plus, when it comes to debate time, Obama's got a LOT of ammo against Romney on everything Mittens would have you believe were his strengths and his opponent's weaknesses. But Obama by no means has this in the bag, and he has his own shortcomings to account for (particularly, his relationship to Wall Street). And the RepubliCAN'Ts have proven they are not above any dirty tactic if it means gloating about another win. After all, these are the same scumbags who turned John Kerry the war hero into John Kerry the French-looking war criminal, while actual war criminal and draft dodger Dubya remained "the guy you'd like to have a beer with". Also, they'll be parading Walker around as proof of their mandate all the way to November.

[DemocratsForProgress]

18. Great post!

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Meh - polls are volatile

Take the same 2 time ranges for the Gallup rolling poll, and you get:
Obama Romney
6/5-11/12 46 45
5/2-8/12 44 47

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

So a 3 point lead for Romney has become a 1 point lead for Obama. Their trend shows Obama overtaking Romney.

[Happydayz]

13. The other day Obama was up by 4 in FL

the point is, polls fluctuate and are irrelevant 5mths before the election. You do know Obama has many paths to 270, unlike Mittens. Obama, doesn't even have to win FL or OH to win the election. I would prefer he win FL or OH, but he has many paths to 270. Furthermore, the electorate pays more attention after the debates and conventions. The polls that come out in the fall are the only ones we need to be concerned about. And that Michigan poll is bs, its about as relevant as those polls showing Obama might win AZ.

[William deB. Mills]

14. Attacking Firemen

I agree that the apparent popularity of Romney is surprising (though somewhat understandable since Obama has not really offered a clearly progressive alternative), and I would like to focus in on a facet of Romney's apparent popularity that I just do not understand - namely, the Republican hostility toward firemen.

I grew up in a small town in the forest and perhaps for that reason have always viewed and thought that everyone viewed firemen as heros. They volunteer (at least in small towns) to risk their lives for everyone else! Yet the Republicans evidently now think that attacking firemen is a good way to get elected, and Wisconsin provides scary evidence that they may be right. I say "scary" because I would contend that if we as a society mistreat firemen, then we have lost all concept of the common good, and that concept is the basis of democracy. I understand why the Republicans criticize teachers, because a well educated population would not vote Republican. But what is the basis for calculating that one can become a successful politician by attacking firemen?

I am not asking what is wrong with Republican politicians. I am asking what is wrong with Americans that so many of them apparently do not believe firemen are their friends?

A democratic society that considers teachers, firemen, and police its enemies is a society that will not long be democratic.

[UrbScotty]

15. I agree. And welcome to DU!

I think it has to do with their overall disgust with all things public sector/government.

They are quick to talk about 9/11, but they forget that nearly 350 firefighters died in the Twin Towers. These firefighters died in the line of duty trying to protect others. To make them into the scapegoat is an outrage!

I agree that Obama does need to take a more aggressive stance in support of public-sector workers. Elizabeth Warren does this better than anyone else I've seen or heard. Hopefully as the election gets closer, he'll ramp up the rhetoric. He has shown signs of that recently.

[kestrel91316]

23. RWers will start liking firemen when they return to their proper duty: book burning.

[AndyA]

31. Great point!

Welcome to DU!

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Oh please. There are many ways for Obama plausibly to reach 270 electoral votes, even

without Florida. Romney essentially has to run the table on the Undecided states to get to 270.

I notice you don't mention Ohio and that's because Obama is wiping the floor with Romney among undecided voters and it's all due to Bain.

The popular vote means little; the electoral vote is all.

[scheming daemons]

19. welcome to DU, and thanks for your concern

[greiner3]

21. I ONLY trust;

Ron Silver a.k.a. FiveThirtyEight;

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/a-guide-to-forecast-model-updates/

This is the URL to a weekly now, daily soon update on his modeling forecasts just for the presidential election.

His current take on the election;

Obama; 61.6% chance of victory!

This prediction is a compilation of many polls and he is the one who has been so right on. He uses REAL scientific methods. He does not not gloss over results if Republicans are leading.

Not scientific, but in the American way, Intrade still has Obama at a 52.8%. Money does speak volumes.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Nate. Ron Silver is dead.

[BamaFanLee]

22. The only poll that matters in in November

And in November President Obama will win in a landslide. It won't even be close. If everyone votes and does not take the win for granted, he should have twice as many electoral votes as Romney has. I don't listen to polls any more. We win big.

But we also need to win the Senate and the House by just as big a margin. We need to pass the legislation needed to get us out of the mess we are in and see to it that it never happens again.

[dennis4868]

28. Michigan...

is going be in Obama's column! Bank it.

[BBGC]

29. We can't really know

Things can turn on a dime. I would not panic right now, nor would I be complacent. No one is sure to win right now.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. Is the GOP sending soothsayers over here?

[RBInMaine]

32. Polls don't mean shit right now. And your doom and gloom OP title is silly.

[a kennedy]

34. Intrade has been going down for the POTUS also.....

it's now at 52.7% http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/ So yah, it's early, and a lot can happen....but my nails are a much shorter length now then they were this time four years ago.

[XemaSab]

38. The more people look at Romney the less they like him

Right now he's the shiny new thing, but there's four more months for Obama to hold down the fort and Romney to make an ass of himself.

[fishwax]

36. it's early, and it could still break either way, but things certainly aren't "looking ugly"