• Obama continues to widen poll lead, as job approval and economic confidence surges
    19 replies, posted
[t]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iifzcgfvok2epfbvpyebfq.gif[/t] [t]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/0el0y_9i2kec3hjqpk47xa.gif[/t] [t]http://puu.sh/14bqN[/t] [t]http://puu.sh/14buy[/t] [t]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/romney_vs_obama/september_2012/romney_vs_obama_september_11_2012/794014-1-eng-US/romney_vs_obama_september_11_2012.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/157406/obama-gets-three-point-convention-bounce.aspx[/url] [quote=Gallup]President Barack Obama got a modest bump in support immediately after last week's Democratic National Convention, with 50% of registered voters now saying they would vote for him if the election were held today, up from 47% before the convention. With the concomitant two-point drop in Mitt Romney's support, Obama's advantage has expanded from one percentage point to six points. [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/4odj7jyyfuyfvuwi6h7pua.gif[/img] These results are based on a comparison of Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 3 and Sept. 7-10. The Democratic convention was held Sept. 4-6 in Charlotte, N.C. Obama's three-point gain in voter support after his party's nominating convention is below the historical average of five points, and similar to his four-point bounce in 2008. However, it was a better showing than Romney had this year, as the Republican nominee received no increase in support after the GOP convention. [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ifk5uss21ksmhsoftlu_gw.gif[/img] The pattern of lackluster convention bounces this year is reminiscent of the 2004 campaign, when John Kerry challenged incumbent George W. Bush for the presidency. Bush had approval ratings similar to Obama's, near 50%. Kerry and Bush were essentially tied for much of the campaign. Kerry received no bounce from his convention, while Bush got a small bounce, which propelled Bush into a lead after the two had been essentially even during most of the campaign. More generally, convention bounces have been smaller in recent years, averaging 3.8 points per candidate since 1996 after averaging 6.2 points from 1964-1992. And in the five elections since 1996, two candidates (Romney and Kerry) got no convention bounce, and all but three of the 10 candidates (Bush and Gore in 2000 and McCain in 2008) received bounces that were no greater than the historical average of five points. [B]Obama Builds a Lead Over Romney[/B] As a result of the changes in voter support after the 2012 Democratic convention, Obama has moved ahead of Romney. Obama's current six-point lead in Gallup's reported seven-day rolling average (including the three days of the Democratic convention and the four days afterward) is one point below his high of seven points in late April. Romney has led by as many as five points, shortly after he clinched the nomination in mid-April. The race has been close for most of the time since Romney clinched the Republican nomination, with Obama and Romney each averaging 46% support since then. [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iifzcgfvok2epfbvpyebfq.gif[/img] [B]Obama Approval Also Up[/B] Obama's job approval average, based on Gallup's three-day rolling averages, also increased following the convention to 50%, after being at 45% just before the convention. Obama's approval rating reached as high as 52% during the convention, the highest it had been since May 2011, after the death of Osama bin Laden. [B]Implications[/B] Although Obama's convention bounce was modest, the fact that Romney got no bounce certainly means the president came out ahead after the back-to-back party conventions. For now, Obama has established a lead among registered voters. Differences in voter turnout among Obama and Romney supporters, which usually work to the benefit of the Republican nominee, could cut into Obama's lead. In the last three presidential elections, voter turnout has reduced the Democratic advantage in Gallup's final pre-election poll by two to four percentage points. Thus, if Obama maintains a five- to six-point lead among registered voters, he would be in a strong position to win, barring some unusual surge in Republican turnout this year.[/quote] [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html]RCP: General election polls[/url] [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html]RCP: Job approval[/url] [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] Obama has also [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19546521]raised more money than Romney[/url] for the first time in several months
I thought we had a megathread in general for this
[QUOTE=smurfy;37631274] Obama has also [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19546521]raised more money than Romney[/url] for the first time in several months[/QUOTE] What a biased as fuck article. Good going, BBC.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631388]What a biased as fuck article. Good going, BBC.[/QUOTE] What? How?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631388]What a biased as fuck article. Good going, BBC.[/QUOTE] So reporting facts about campaign finances is biased now?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631388]What a biased as fuck article. Good going, BBC.[/QUOTE] Obama has raised more money in the past few months but Romney has raised more money all together
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631388]What a biased as fuck article. Good going, BBC.[/QUOTE] Would you have preferred "Mitt Romney doesn't raise as much funding as Obama in August"?
[QUOTE=smurfy;37631424]What? How?[/QUOTE] I just hate how it's saying "$34m of Romney's donations are less than $250", and doesn't give an equivalent figure for Obama. It also uses negative language, "barrage", versus positive language, "advertising" to describe both campaign tactics. Maybe I'm seeing more bias than there really is, but the numbers thing really irks me. Why put that in if you aren't going to do the same with the other candidate?
[QUOTE][IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ifk5uss21ksmhsoftlu_gw.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Wow, Clinton must've [I]nailed[/I] his '92 DNC speech.
[QUOTE=mac338;37631503]Wow, Clinton must've [I]nailed[/I] his '92 DNC speech.[/QUOTE] Not the only thing he nailed.
As for the question of "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most Americans say, yep! [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/woye1mo830wkl54iufkw1w.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=smurfy;37634462]As for the question of "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most Americans say, yep! [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/woye1mo830wkl54iufkw1w.gif[/img][/QUOTE] And yet that bottom one is only 45%. Da fuck?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631488]I just hate how it's saying "$34m of Romney's donations are less than $250", and doesn't give an equivalent figure for Obama. It also uses negative language, "barrage", versus positive language, "advertising" to describe both campaign tactics. Maybe I'm seeing more bias than there really is, but the numbers thing really irks me. Why put that in if you aren't going to do the same with the other candidate?[/QUOTE] The BBC is one of the least bias news organisations in the world. And why would they be biased about an American election? I think you're reading into it a bit much.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;37634528]And yet that bottom one is only 45%. Da fuck?[/QUOTE] It's 50% now, but still
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631488]It also uses negative language, "barrage", versus positive language, "advertising" to describe both campaign tactics.[/QUOTE] Barrage is more fitting anyway, what with the political attack ads both sides run in place of actually arguing their sides of the points.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631388]What a biased as fuck article. Good going, BBC.[/QUOTE] The only bias the BBC could possibly have about US affairs is "damn those americans are dumb shits" And in the case of our government and politics, they'd be right.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37631488]I just hate how it's saying "$34m of Romney's donations are less than $250", and doesn't give an equivalent figure for Obama. It also uses negative language, "barrage", versus positive language, "advertising" to describe both campaign tactics. Maybe I'm seeing more bias than there really is, but the numbers thing really irks me. Why put that in if you aren't going to do the same with the other candidate?[/QUOTE] that's just the British cynicism coming through text you should see the BBC during the elections, each side is slagged off and since everyone thinks the political parties are trash at the end the consensus about BBC's equal-ness is reached. in fact there was a controversy where the BBC was not slagging the BNP enough
[QUOTE=smurfy;37634462]As for the question of "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most Americans say, yep! [img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/woye1mo830wkl54iufkw1w.gif[/img][/QUOTE] David Simon had a really good point on bill maher when he said "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" is a very destructive phrase when it comes to political discourse in america. The issues that america is dealing with today did not start 4 years ago, they started 10 to 20 years ago.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;37634548]The BBC is one of the least bias news organisations in the world. And why would they be biased about an American election? I think you're reading into it a bit much.[/QUOTE] Well the fact that they would say how much of Romney's donations are under $250 while not mentioning Obama's is un-arguably biased, whether conscious or unconscious. The rest might be exaggerated due to that initial bias. It's also quite possible for a writer to take an interest in a foreign election and bias themselves to one side or another.
I added the link to the Megathread, right after saying that Obama was the ultimate pimpmaster. Also, I hope this bounce of his sustains itself. 538 says that influence from the RNC and DNC will not go away until October 1st ish. [editline]11th September 2012[/editline] And by Convention influence, I mean the DNC, since the RNC was underwhelming.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.