IBD/TIPP Presidential Daily Tracking Poll: O47/R44 (D+7)

IBD ^ | 10/24 | IBD

[tatown]

Obama maintained a lead over Romney in our poll for a sixth straight day.

Though Romney actually improved his lead among male voters to 7 points from 4 a day earlier, Obama’s lead among women is now 12 points, the biggest ever.

Obama continues to beat Romney among both urban and suburban dwellers, holding 34-point and 6-point advantages with those two voting groups, respectively.

Romney has maintained his solid lead among independents, standing 9 points ahead.

But the GOP challenger remains well behind with those voters who call themselves “moderates”, with a 27-point deficit in that group.

[Longbow1969]

I find it almost impossible to believe that Romney has ANY chance of losing if he is really up by ~9 points among indies, regardless of what the top line number says.

You realize it is possible that more conservatives simply identify themselves as independent these days. The Republican brand took a beating in the last few years of the Bush administration. More right leaning folks (such as Tea Party supporters) self identifying as independent now would explain why polling shows so many more Democrats than Republicans, AND it explains why Romney is winning the independent vote in so many polls. It makes pretty good sense if you think about it.

I'm going by the RCP average which has been very accurate the last 2 presidential cycles (basically since it started). It has Romney up .6 at this moment in time. I'd bet the election will be within 1 percentage point of the final RCP average (as it was in 2004 and 2008).

[tatown]

According to Rasmussen, R’s are a much higher percentage (~36.8%) than they were in 2010 (33.0%), and 2008 (33.4%). This would suggest that most of the Independent gains have come from the democrat ranks.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation

[Alas Babylon!]

Maybe we need to win independents by 11%.

40 % dem

40% GOP

20 % Ind

=100%

40% GOP + 9% is only 49%, 40% GOP + 11% Ind = 51% and the WIN!

[Joe27]

The real question there is will FReepers and the Tea Party accept that idea even if it’s “proven correct” via victory in the first scenario described?

Trying to step outside of my own conservative leaning and just predict the future, I don’t think Romney winning will convince the conservative wing that we need independents.

I’m going to say it was because he finally got tough with Obama and added Paul Ryan so that even the media is starting to say “Mitt has a plan (WHICH WE HATE), but Obama doesn’t have a 2nd term plan”.

And if Mitt loses, well, that’s obvious.

[Personal Responsibility]

I don’t think Romney winning will convince the conservative wing that we need independents.

---

It shouldn’t because that does not logically follow from the inference.

Using pure if/then/and kind of logic:

If the argument is:

Givens:
40% of the electorate votes R
40% of the electorate votes D
20% of the electorate is independent

Theory:
elections are decided by how the 20% of independents are divided
and
Republicans win independents by 9% (i.e 14.5 to 5.5%)

then the logical inference is that Republicans have to win.

If Republicans win independents by 9% (i.e. 14.5% to 5.5%)
and
Republicans lose the election

then the logical inferences is that one of the givens is wrong:
Republicans comprise less than 40% of the electorate or Democrats comprise more than 40% of the electorate or Independents comprise less than 20% of the electorate AND the percentage difference between that 20% and the actual percentage breakdown Independents is > 9%.

Any of those would logically follow. What it would also prove is that winning independents is not required in order to win the election, since Democrats will have lost independents but won the election.

[Personal Responsibility]

Watch the terminology, grasshopper!

If:
40% of electorate votes R and
40% of the electorate votes D then
We need to win 10.000001% to win the popular vote (electoral college is another matter!)

The polls are not saying “Romney attracts votes of 9% of independents” (i.e. Romney 9% of Independents, Obama 91%)

The pills DO say “Romney 9% AHEAD of Obama among independents” (i.e Romney 54.5% of independents, Obama 44.5%)

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, Morpheus, the Pills are either blue or red, right?

Which one will the Independents take?

;-)

[rikkir]

I don’t think that exists any longer. I still believe much of what the pollsters are doing is following turnout trends from 2008, so they are oversampling dems. Also I still think there are people out there answering these polls from the white guilt position again. They are still afraid to appear racist by saying they are voting against Obozo. Many of these people, once in the privacy of the booth will vote to bring the country back from the brink of disaster.
I am in the Dick Morris camp on this. I think it’s not going to be as close as the media is portraying. It’s the way to keep us tuned in as well as try to keep their messiah propped up.
RCP lets you draw your own EV map, my best scenario map is R/R 381 to O/B 157. Fingers crossed, working for the campaign, and am going to work the polls and watch for sneaky stuff. Though I can’t imagine too many shenanigans in rural KY.

[Friendofgeorge]

They ALL have an agenda as far as I am concerned.

We have Gallup under enormous pressure, they seem to have caved.

There are financial business reasons why they have to tow the line in polling industry

[DAC21]

IBD Editorials seem to be pretty pro Romney / Conservative, why the are hooked up with such a $hitty polling outfit is beyond me.

[Fred]

It is IBD, do yourself a favor, read their op-eds. Hardly liberal.

Keep in mind, each poll, with all its flaws, is merely a snapshot for that day. It is important to note the sample size and the error. So many of these polls have such small samples sizes of 600 to 800. it increase the error rate badly.

[tallyhoe]

This firm got a D in accuracy in 2008!!!!

[RedMDer]

Support Free Republic