On the polling data: I’ve noticed what I regard as something of an anomoly: while the candidates are currently neck-and-neck in the national poll spread (with Obama having a slight ‘edge’ in the EC projections), the President’s Job Approval rating is currently showng a +2.6% spread, with an approval rating of about 50%. More curious still is that, when Gallup was showing Romeny at +5, it was, on the same day, showing Obama Job Approval at +7 (on 51%).

Maybe I’m missing something here (I’m a simple soul at heart!), but this doesn’t seem to me to ‘match up’.

It’s not so easy just now to tell who is the hare and who is the tortoise! I’ve bought my popcorn!

I should also say at this point how saddened I am by the considerable loss of life, in both the Caribbean and the eastern United States, resulting from Super-storm Sandy. Over here, we were very struck by the fact that, at its zenith, it covered an area the size of western Europe.

Now that all the votes have been counted, Obama comes out at just under +3.7% over Romney, with nearly 5 million more votes for the Democratic ticket. RCP said “Obama +0.7%”; how did the polls get so wrong? (RCP was 3% out in 2008 as well: they said Obama +5.5%; the results gave Obama +8.5%.)

Obama won a whisker under 51% of the popular vote (Romney got 47.3%, others 1.7% between them). The win was not huge, but was decisive.

Now that all the votes have been counted, Obama comes out at just under +3.7% over Romney, with nearly 5 million more votes for the Democratic ticket. RCP said “Obama +0.7%”; how did the polls get so wrong? (RCP was 3% out in 2008 as well: they said Obama +5.5%; the results gave Obama +8.5%.)

Obama won a whisker under 51% of the popular vote (Romney got 47.3%, others 1.7% between them). The win was not huge, but was decisive.

I do understand that the Electoral College system was perhaps designed for another era (when the Federal Government had fewer responsibilities than it does today in what is, amongst other things, a ‘nuclear age’ with high-speed systems of communication), and can see why many Americans might prefer a national, straightforward and clear ‘popular vote’ system. I also understand that, under the present system, ‘swing states’ get much more attention from the candidates than ‘safe’ or ‘likely’ ones. This seems rather unjust to residents of Texas, California, North Dakota, New York … : their issues are just as important as those of Floridians or North Carolinians (or even those living in Ohio – no disrespect, Warren!). On the other hand, a simple and national ‘popular vote’ system might compromise the influence of those living in small states, and could call possibly into question the genuinely federal nature of the Union.

Maybe the solution would be to keep the Electoral College, but have ‘national standards’ on the conduct of general elections, plus – possibly – a small number of ‘federal electors’ that would cast their votes for the candidate with a majority / plurality of the national popular vote. But, in order to ‘honour’ the federal principal, the States would surely have to agree on how this might be done. Tricky?!

1) they only poll landlines, while about one third of Americans only have cell phones, and they are disproportionately young,

2) they only poll during a four hour window each day and make no attempt to reach people who do not answer the first call, which has the effect of excluding people who work at that time or are driving their kids around, who again tend to be younger.

3) he adjust his results so a predetermined proportion identify themselves as R, D or I, which is a dubious practice that skews the results

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussens-2012-polling-has-had-a-republican-bias-all-year/

By the way, analysts suspect that Rasmussen has started to artificially increase Obama’s popularity in the last couple of days to make Rasmussen’s polls match competing polls (which are much more professional), so that Rasmussen won’t look so bad after the election. If this is true, it would be a tacit admission that they don’t believe their own polls.

The credibilty of all polls is reduced by the fact that fewer and fewer people now agree to give their opinion to pollsters, and they are unrepresentative. At best, only one tenth of people give their opinion; in many cases, it is more like 2 to 5%. This election may well decide whether electoral polling can even survive. If the polls are largely and unpredictably wrong (ie only a minuscule and unrepresentative sample of voters are willing to be polled; the inability to predict who will actually vote), the whole industry could disapear.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct29.html#item-5

Don’t be distracted by popular opinion. The media loves to hype how close national popular opinion is since it creates suspense and gives the illusion that all Americans can influence the election, which stimulates viewer and reader interest. In fact, the election will be decided only by swing voters who show up to vote in swing states, especially Ohio and Florida, and, I fear, by vote suppression and electoral fraud.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Nov02.html#item-7

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct25.html#item-5

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct31.html#item-3

There are reports that Obama has about 5000 lawyers lined up in Florida for election day, and 2500 in Ohio, to advocate on behalf of citizens who are obstructed at polling stations. Hundreds of lawyers will be flown in for recounts. Romney is apparently doing the same.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Nov02.html#item-6

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct29.html#item-4

The American electoral system is badly broken. It is outrageously penny wise and dollar foolish, and as corrupt as a third-world banana republic. If America invested in a uniform, professional system, it would be more credible, less corrupt and much cheaper to run when both internal and external costs are included.

I do understand that the Electoral College system was perhaps designed for another era (when the Federal Government had fewer responsibilities than it does today in what is, amongst other things, a ‘nuclear age’ with high-speed systems of communication), and can see why many Americans might prefer a national, straightforward and clear ‘popular vote’ system. I also understand that, under the present system, ‘swing states’ get much more attention from the candidates than ‘safe’ or ‘likely’ ones. This seems rather unjust to residents of Texas, California, North Dakota, New York … : their issues are just as important as those of Floridians or North Carolinians (or even those living in Ohio – no disrespect, Warren!). On the other hand, a simple and national ‘popular vote’ system might compromise the influence of those living in small states, and could call possibly into question the genuinely federal nature of the Union.

Maybe the solution would be to keep the Electoral College, but have ‘national standards’ on the conduct of general elections, plus – possibly – a small number of ‘federal electors’ that would cast their votes for the candidate with a majority / plurality of the national popular vote. But, in order to ‘honour’ the federal principal, the States would surely have to agree on how this might be done. Tricky?!

1) they only poll landlines, while about one third of Americans only have cell phones, and they are disproportionately young,

2) they only poll during a four hour window each day and make no attempt to reach people who do not answer the first call, which has the effect of excluding people who work at that time or are driving their kids around, who again tend to be younger.

3) he adjust his results so a predetermined proportion identify themselves as R, D or I, which is a dubious practice that skews the results

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussens-2012-polling-has-had-a-republican-bias-all-year/

By the way, analysts suspect that Rasmussen has started to artificially increase Obama’s popularity in the last couple of days to make Rasmussen’s polls match competing polls (which are much more professional), so that Rasmussen won’t look so bad after the election. If this is true, it would be a tacit admission that they don’t believe their own polls.

The credibilty of all polls is reduced by the fact that fewer and fewer people now agree to give their opinion to pollsters, and they are unrepresentative. At best, only one tenth of people give their opinion; in many cases, it is more like 2 to 5%. This election may well decide whether electoral polling can even survive. If the polls are largely and unpredictably wrong (ie only a minuscule and unrepresentative sample of voters are willing to be polled; the inability to predict who will actually vote), the whole industry could disapear.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct29.html#item-5

Don’t be distracted by popular opinion. The media loves to hype how close national popular opinion is since it creates suspense and gives the illusion that all Americans can influence the election, which stimulates viewer and reader interest. In fact, the election will be decided only by swing voters who show up to vote in swing states, especially Ohio and Florida, and, I fear, by vote suppression and electoral fraud.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Nov02.html#item-7

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct25.html#item-5

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct31.html#item-3

There are reports that Obama has about 5000 lawyers lined up in Florida for election day, and 2500 in Ohio, to advocate on behalf of citizens who are obstructed at polling stations. Hundreds of lawyers will be flown in for recounts. Romney is apparently doing the same.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Nov02.html#item-6

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct29.html#item-4

The American electoral system is badly broken. It is outrageously penny wise and dollar foolish, and as corrupt as a third-world banana republic. If America invested in a uniform, professional system, it would be more credible, less corrupt and much cheaper to run when both internal and external costs are included.

My gut feeling is that this may well be about right, and for two reasons:-

1. Rasmussen does much of its polling via the Internet, meaning that those without easy Internet access are under-represented. Hence, when Rasmussen says ‘Tie’ (which it has done for the last three days), ‘Obama +2’ might be nearer to the reality.

2. The ‘Gallup dissonance’ between ‘head-to-head’ and ‘Obama job approval’ amounts to about ‘Obama +2’ (Romney +5 cf. Obama +7).

@ F Young

Does that sound pretty much ‘on the mark’ to you? (Obviously, I’m talking strictly numbers here; I have my own ‘preference’ when it comes to the winner, but feel that it would not be appropriate for me, as a Briton, albeit with American ancestry and connections, to go into that just now!) Looking at the numbers, that’s still IMHO ‘close’, but, given the state-by-state demographics, it looks like a second term for the President, ‘all other things being equal’.