If Romney sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada

[Procrustes Stretched]

day old poll
'
Polls: Obama, Romney tied in Colo., incumbent has narrow Nev. edge - First Read

Polls: Obama, Romney tied in Colo., incumbent has narrow Nev. edge

---\\


Posted at 11:35 AM ET, 10/26/2012
Romney still trying to close the deal in Colorado
By Jamelle Bouie
Romney still trying to close the deal in Colorado - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


these are news stories and polls without a full context of trends, odds, and analysis

this election stuff on USMB is devolving quickly into opposing polls with little meaning and value

 

[del]

day old poll
'
Polls: Obama, Romney tied in Colo., incumbent has narrow Nev. edge - First Read

Polls: Obama, Romney tied in Colo., incumbent has narrow Nev. edge

---\\


Posted at 11:35 AM ET, 10/26/2012
Romney still trying to close the deal in Colorado
By Jamelle Bouie
Romney still trying to close the deal in Colorado - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


these are news stories and polls without a full context of trends, odds, and analysis

this election stuff on USMB is devolving quickly into opposing polls with little meaning and value

right idea, wrong tense

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

day old poll
'
Polls: Obama, Romney tied in Colo., incumbent has narrow Nev. edge - First Read

Polls: Obama, Romney tied in Colo., incumbent has narrow Nev. edge

---\\


Posted at 11:35 AM ET, 10/26/2012
Romney still trying to close the deal in Colorado
By Jamelle Bouie
Romney still trying to close the deal in Colorado - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


these are news stories and polls without a full context of trends, odds, and analysis

this election stuff on USMB is devolving quickly into opposing polls with little meaning and value

right idea, wrong tense

Dante has devolved into a USMB loon after too many consecutive hours online

time for a break

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204005004578081022306153986.html

 

[Rinata]

Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney’s Momentum Seems to Have Stopped

By NATE SILVER

The term “momentum” is used very often in political coverage — but reporters and analysts seldom pause to consider what it means.

Let me tell you what I think it ought to mean: that a body in motion tends to stay in motion. That is, it ought to imply that a candidate is gaining ground in the race — and, furthermore, that he is likely to continue to gain ground.


As a thesis or prediction about how polls behave, this notion is a bit dubious, especially in general elections. In races for the United States Senate, for instance, my research suggests that a candidate who gains ground in the polls in one month (say, from August to September) is no more likely to do so during the next one (from September to October). If anything, the candidate who gains ground in the polls in one month may be more likely to lose ground the next time around.

(Where might there be clearer evidence for momentum, as I’ve defined it? In primaries, especially when there are multiple candidates in the race and voters are behaving tactically in choosing among them. But there is little evidence of it in general elections.)

The way the term “momentum” is applied in practice by the news media, however, it usually refers only to the first part of the clause — meaning simply that a candidate has been gaining ground in the polls, whether or not he might continue to do so. (I’ve used this phrasing plenty of times myself, so I have no real basis to complain about it.)

But there are other times when the notion of momentum is behind the curve — as it probably now is if applied to Mitt Romney’s polling.

Mr. Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate, putting himself in a much stronger overall position in the race. However, it seems that he is no longer doing so.

Take Wednesday’s national tracking polls, for instance. (There are now eight of them published each day.) Mr. Romney gained ground in just one of the polls, an online poll conducted for Reuters by the polling organization Ipsos. He lost ground in five others, with President Obama improving his standing instead in those surveys. On average, Mr. Obama gained about one point between the eight polls.

Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney's Momentum Seems to Have Stopped - NYTimes.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney’s Momentum Seems to Have Stopped

By NATE SILVER

The term “momentum” is used very often in political coverage — but reporters and analysts seldom pause to consider what it means.

Let me tell you what I think it ought to mean: that a body in motion tends to stay in motion. That is, it ought to imply that a candidate is gaining ground in the race — and, furthermore, that he is likely to continue to gain ground.


As a thesis or prediction about how polls behave, this notion is a bit dubious, especially in general elections. In races for the United States Senate, for instance, my research suggests that a candidate who gains ground in the polls in one month (say, from August to September) is no more likely to do so during the next one (from September to October). If anything, the candidate who gains ground in the polls in one month may be more likely to lose ground the next time around.

(Where might there be clearer evidence for momentum, as I’ve defined it? In primaries, especially when there are multiple candidates in the race and voters are behaving tactically in choosing among them. But there is little evidence of it in general elections.)

The way the term “momentum” is applied in practice by the news media, however, it usually refers only to the first part of the clause — meaning simply that a candidate has been gaining ground in the polls, whether or not he might continue to do so. (I’ve used this phrasing plenty of times myself, so I have no real basis to complain about it.)

But there are other times when the notion of momentum is behind the curve — as it probably now is if applied to Mitt Romney’s polling.

Mr. Romney clearly gained ground in the polls in the week or two after the Denver debate, putting himself in a much stronger overall position in the race. However, it seems that he is no longer doing so.

Take Wednesday’s national tracking polls, for instance. (There are now eight of them published each day.) Mr. Romney gained ground in just one of the polls, an online poll conducted for Reuters by the polling organization Ipsos. He lost ground in five others, with President Obama improving his standing instead in those surveys. On average, Mr. Obama gained about one point between the eight polls.

Oct. 24: In Polls, Romney's Momentum Seems to Have Stopped - NYTimes.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If Romney sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada then he will get 273 electoral votes and win the election and he won't even need to win Ohio, Penn, Wisc, Michigan.

My analysis is based on Romney winning the so-called toss-up states Virginia, NC, Florida and Colorado.

I'm not convinced Romney will sweep those three states as they're all allegedly close. So, I think it is likely that Romney will have to win one of those four big prize states and it explains his major ground game in a state like Ohio.

what map were you using?

You say 'the so-called toss-up states Virginia, NC, Florida and Colorado' yet people like Cassidy already have NC and Florida as leaning to Romney's column.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If Romney sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada then he will get 273 electoral votes and win the election and he won't even need to win Ohio, Penn, Wisc, Michigan.

My analysis is based on Romney winning the so-called toss-up states Virginia, NC, Florida and Colorado.

I'm not convinced Romney will sweep those three states as they're all allegedly close. So, I think it is likely that Romney will have to win one of those four big prize states and it explains his major ground game in a state like Ohio.

Your math sucks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If Romney sweeps Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada then he will get 273 electoral votes and win the election and he won't even need to win Ohio, Penn, Wisc, Michigan.

My analysis is based on Romney winning the so-called toss-up states Virginia, NC, Florida and Colorado.

I'm not convinced Romney will sweep those three states as they're all allegedly close. So, I think it is likely that Romney will have to win one of those four big prize states and it explains his major ground game in a state like Ohio.

Your math sucks.

 

[Rinata]

not in any poll taken in the past few days

there isn't a single current poll that is being used in the rcp average that shows romney ahead.


RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama

What are you smoking? The Rassmussen poll released today has it 48-48.

you do know what ahead means, right?

 

[Rinata]

I really don't see how Romney can win those 3 states. Obama is ahead in all of them. Granted, not by huge margins. But he is ahead.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I really don't see how Romney can win those 3 states. Obama is ahead in all of them. Granted, not by huge margins. But he is ahead.

fairy dust and magical undergarments?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I really don't see how Romney can win those 3 states. Obama is ahead in all of them. Granted, not by huge margins. But he is ahead.

There's a reason it's called 'margin of error.' Not only that, things can change in 10 days.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I really don't see how Romney can win those 3 states. Obama is ahead in all of them. Granted, not by huge margins. But he is ahead.

...things can change in 10 days.

not Romney's magical and sacred undergarments