Silver writes: "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."
Mitt Romney only gained ground in one of eight national polls taken on Wednesday. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Romney's Momentum Seems to Have Stopped
25 October 12
he 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.

This is the closest that we've come in a week or so to one candidate clearly having "won" the day in the tracking polls - and it was Mr. Obama.
The trend could also be spurious. If the race is steady, it's not that hard for one candidate to gain ground in five of six polls (excluding the two that showed no movement on Wednesday) just based on chance alone.
What isn't very likely, however, is for one candidate to lose ground in five of six polls if the race is still moving toward him. In other words, we can debate whether Mr. Obama has a pinch of momentum or whether the race is instead flat, but it's improbable that Mr. Romney would have a day like this if he still had momentum.
The FiveThirtyEight model looks at a broader array of polls - including state polls - in order to gauge the overall trend in the race.
Our "now-cast" also finds a slightly favorable trend for Mr. Obama over the course of the past 10 days or so. Mr. Romney's position peaked in the "now-cast" on Friday, Oct. 12, at which point it estimated a virtual tie in the popular vote (Mr. Obama was the projected "winner" by 0.3 percentage points). As of Wednesday, however, Mr. Obama was 1.4 percentage points ahead in the "now-cast", meaning that he may have regained about 1 percentage point of the 4 points or so that he lost after Denver. Mr. Obama's chances of winning the Electoral College were up in the FiveThirtyEight forecast to 71 percent on Wednesday from 68.1 percent on Tuesday.
It's not yet clear how much of this, if any, has to do with the final presidential debate in Florida this Monday, which instant polls regarded Mr. Obama as having won. Instead, it's been more of a slow and unsteady trajectory for him, with Mr. Obama often taking two steps forward but then one step back. It's also not out of the question that the apparent trend just represents statistical noise.
At the same time, there is more reason to take a potential change in the polls seriously if it is precipitated by a news event like the debate. The tracking polls that were released on Wednesday contained only one full day of interviews that postdated the Florida debate. If the debate moved the needle toward Mr. Obama, it should become more apparent in the coming days.
The battleground state polls that came in on Wednesday were generally very close to our model's current projections. For instance, there were three Ohio polls published on Wednesday; one showed a tied race there, while the other two showed Mr. Obama ahead by margins of two and five points.That's pretty much what you'd expect to see out of a trio of Ohio polls if Mr. Obama's lead there were about two points, which is where our model now has it.
Some of the polls, especially the Time Magazine poll which had Mr. Obama five points ahead in Ohio, seemed to set off a lot of discussion on Twitter, as though people were surprised that Mr. Obama still held the lead there.
But these polls are really nothing new. Since the Denver debate, Mr. Obama has held the lead in 16 Ohio polls against 6 for Mr. Romney. In Nevada, Mr. Obama has had the lead in 11 polls, to Mr. Romney's 1. Mr. Obama has led in all polls of Wisconsin since the Denver debate, and he has had five poll leads in Iowa to one for Mr. Romney.
Part of the confusion (and part of the reason behind the perception that Mr. Romney is still gaining ground in the race) may be because of the headlines that accompany polls.
We're still getting some polls trickling in where the most recent comparison is to a poll conducted before the Denver debate. We should expect Mr. Romney to gain ground relative to a poll conducted before Denver. (Mr. Romney may have lost a point or so off his bounce, but he has clearly not lost all of it). But it isn't news when he does; Mr. Romney's Denver gains had long ago become apparent, and priced into the various polling averages and forecast models.
The question, rather, is whether Mr. Romney is gaining ground relative to the post-Denver polls - or if, as Wednesday's polls seemed to imply, the race instead may have ticked back slightly toward Mr. Obama.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
When Willard was speaking to his wealthy base monitored by video and audio, we found Emerson was not just smoking weed.
I will leave it the Nate Silvers to calculate how many of those people would have not voted if the President more forcefully called out Romney's chicanery in the first debate.
But what was left behind was the true undecided. And their last memory of the debates was Barack Obama cleaning Mitt Romney's clock on both performance and on mastery of the facts.
I am pretty sure (blindly optimistic?) that this is where the momentum shift is coming from and if I am correct the shift will accelerate over the next week.
CAVEAT: If either candidate launches a successful October surprise, all bets are off.
But if facts don't matter, as you say, "all bets are off".
Obama/Biden 2012
The alternative is Liars, Crooks, and Thieves, and shown that over and over.
I was never even dreaming about voting for Romney, but what made me dead certain that he should NEVER BE PRESIDENT, is the fact that he sends his money to several other countries.
He is betting AGAINST our country. If he REALLY loved it as he says he does, he would INVEST in one of a myriad of projects that need capital in order to move the country FORWARD. THAT might convince people that he really means all the lofty declaration of love for the country.
Instead he is not lifting A FINGER to keep Sensata (in Illinois) here. ( They are owned by Bain) The company is making great profits and 170 families depend on the work.....
I know he will say his money is in a blind trust, but....when he was running against Ted Kennedy, he smirked that you could easily circumvent that. He will make a bundle on the China move.
And he wants us to believe that HE will create 12 million jobs????....YEA H IN CHINA
Continued
Since the countries we usually export our goods to, are not able to spend money right now. They are working at recovering from the mess we largely caused.
So what we SHOULD do is work hard to rebuild and expand our infrastructure, so we will be ready to pick up speed, when our customers are ready to buy from us again. It is ELEMENTARY WATSON.
There is SO MUCH to do. AND it would help the economy and get many off the list of the unemployed.
If Romney had invested in some big important project, he would have been a hero and probably a shoe in for president!! So I am glad he didn't. He stayed jerk.
The man if that's what you want to call him, scares the "shit" out of me, please pardon may language.
that says a lot....
We will never get the racist vote but I hope the women they are beating..vote OB or I hate to see that person ever have a leg to stand on in court
I hope Pa stands tall. If Ohio doesn't, I would certainly be looking at the Voting Machines. in fact I would start NOW that goes for Libs, and Independents... your votes will not show either.
Now there's a solid, logical and typically Reactionary statement in the name of debate for you!
I don't mind a bit of back and forth with somebody from the other side -that's healthy and sometimes revelatory- but it has to have substance and not be just a bit of infantile name-calling declamation.
RSN moderators take note; I've occasionally had a post omitted for a lot less than this; I may have been a bit strident or even pungent, as I tend to be sometimes but at least I was making valid argument in the process.
Remember a wise Frenchman who said "I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it"!
Come up with a valid response, discussion point or BELT UP!
I know exactly what reiverpacific is talking about and I feel the same.
I'm wondering if his numbers will "suddenly" appear to shoot up in Monday's or Tuesday's headlines. We'll see.
Another thing that's pretty clear is that, once again, Rasmussen is the outlier. Their polls have averaged almost 2% lower for Obama than the average of all the other polls. By far, this sets them apart as the most different. Maybe Rasmussen is adjusting its polling procedures to account for the fact that a few percentage points are being stolen by destroyed voter registrations, voter intimidation, misleading billboards, and romney affiliated electronic voting machines.
I am waiting to hear how we can get our proof of vote. AFL-CIO says that legally we have the right to know how our vote is registered under the Right to Know Act Have any of you questioned your election board? Start today.
I see no Nittens like previously.
Nit so far refuses to go to Letterman. I sure wish he would. Heck Trump was on last night...
"After the second debate, won by Obama on most scorecards, the incumbent's price was moved up to -$250, or 2-to-5.
The left-leaning media again declared Obama the winner of the third and final debate, which focused on foreign policy, but his odds remained the same. Romney is now 15-to-7, or +188 (bet $100 to win $188), to become the next president."
What "Left-leaning media" would that be?
Although this isn't a horse-race (I'm an old turf betting type from UK days, quite successfully actually); it's of global concern, not just US but sadly, the reduction of the debates to two parties tied to Corporate interests makes it rather like a low-stakes bottom of the race card canter to a winning post without the stimulus of other horses to make the race more relevant and diverse.
But the "Liberal Press", or "Left-leaning media", as you so tritely put it, led I suppose by Rupert Muck-doc's Wall Street Tabloid, won't touch anything but the pre-scripted subject matter massaged by the participants in the "Beltway's got Talent" spectacles called debates.
You must be kiddin'!
Man, tap below the kneecap with that little rubber thing and boing! up goes the leg!
Eh?????? -Your point?
I live in Sarasota Florida, a wealthy community full of Baggers & I swear when Obama is granted 4 more years by we who are sane enough to vote for the man, I am going to make a sandwich board with "4 more years of sanity" & parade up & down Main Street just to watch & enjoy all the exploding heads.
I love it. Do you know what I am looking forward to?? It is seeing the ugly mug of Adelson. He is spending close to 100 million dollars to beat Obama. I love to see him loose it and that almost goes double for Rove and the Koch bros.
I sure hope and pray that, that will happen.
People in Massachusetts know how Mitt Romney governs and most will not vote again him. Mitt Romney is consistently behind by a wide margin in Massachusetts polling. They even rejected him after he was governor for a few years.
Massachusetts voters reject their former governor for President
Polling reveals Massachusetts voters prefer Mr. Obama to Mr. Romney, 56% to 41%. http://electoral-vote.com/
62 percent of likely Massachusetts voters view Mr. Obama favorably and only 35% view Mr. Romney favorably. http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/president_barack_obama_holds_3.html
Rejection of Romney started while he was still governor
Early in his tenure as governor, Mr. Romney’s highest approval rating as governor was 66% (November 2003). Three years later, Mr. Romney’s approval rating dropped in half to only 34% (November 2006). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney
“A March 2005 poll found that only 32 percent felt Romney should be re-elected if he ran for a second term as governor.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney
At the park today a man commented on my bumper stickers. He'd been playing frizbe golf. He had no idea who Reed and Obama were. Said he'd "have to start paying attention." Climbed into a nice truck. Too busy making a living and playing? That describes most of my neighbors....sl eep walking.
It's all Happy Meals and reality TV -- bread and circuses for the masses who don't even bother to vote, and Kool-Aid for those who do...
Too special to go to war to fight for his country a la Cheney, too special to be required to help build an economy domestically and too important, like Leona Helmsley, to have to pay taxes on all his earnings.
How are people not insulted to the fiber of their beings by Romney's arrogance and disdain for Americans and America?
Not so much in the shiftless men who want women demeaned but that women would allow such a person to say such things. Then the Nit says he doesnot agree with the Senator's Statement but he his not pulling his endorsement.
The split tongue, jumping the circle I think Nit has to be removed as not mentally capable of running a flea circus not less the USA. How he got to be Gov of Mass still amazes me.
I believe an Independent test should be done esp in Ohio, of all Diebold's I want a receipt of my vote, we have that right...Right to Know ACT. If they cannot do that for us, then we have the right to a write in ....Stop deception now.
But so is Obama.
Tar sand pipeline: game over for the planet.
Kill list: game over for justice.
Indefinite detention: game over for
democracy.
And if you press the thumbs-down button
please inform me where I´m wrong.
Make this election a moral manifestation
and vote Green/Jill Stein and be able
to look your grandchildren in their eyes.
and vote Green/Jill Stein and be able
to look your grandchildren in their eyes.
So, grandpa/ma, what did you do in 2012?
I was unable to distinguish between moral and strategic considerations and therefore I voted for a candidate which didn't stand any chance. Romney became president, the USA ended-up in a double dip-recession and became a fascist state.
But I have nothing to do with that.
Think a bit will you??
‘Stein’ seems to a be a phonetic - some word which constitutes the flip side to uninformed cynicism
- utopia. Since the 80s, pol. sci. research has shown that there is actually a big potential for the green parties to grow electorally in Europe - you can think of the reasons for that yourself. The thing is, this never crystallised and right now there is not one single country in the whole of Europe where the Greens remain a relevant political force. They have been, literally, decimated. This happened because, also a bit everywhere, at some point or another, the Greens decided to become a part of government (we typically have governments of 2, 3, 4 parties here). They all started with a long list of revindications - none of which they were able to translate into actual policy. The Greens have been supporting the most neo-liberal measures imaginable - under the motto ‘we are not left and we are not right, we are modern’ they have been fuctional to the elites, again a bit everywhere, to break down social rights and whatever you can name which is destructive for what Americans call the ‘middle class’ (everyone not homeless nor a filthy plutocratic). And everywhere the Greens have been flatly refusing to say anything remotely intelligent about the economy - it may not be their thing, but it’s the thing we can’t do without.
Get it? He had NO mandate to do anything, but just because he was the guy in the White House, he acted as though he did. And you know what? He pretty much got his way for an entire 8 years.
There's no incentive or requirement for the winner in an election to share ANYTHING with ANYBODY in our system. If there are 10 viable parties and the nazi party wins with just 15% of the vote, guess what? We will have a 100% nazi regime in the White House.
Republicans know this, so they don't split their vote. What they do is challenge their "moderate" incumbents HARD from the far right. Occassionally, the righty gets nominated. Other than rant paul, they usually go on to lose the general election, because people THINK they want someone in the so called "center" in office.
You're the livin' proof of the "don't get anything" theorem mate!
Poll's-schmolls!
At this point they are ALL fund-raising and/or alarmist fluff (I'm personally tired of getting multiple daily email messages from the Dem's, having identified my wife and I as minimal but still bleed-able contacts to "give a little") and I'm sure it's a barrage on the other side too.
If the money raised and spent on enriching the corporate owner-media to finance the blackmailing of the populace by careful and expensively-orc hestrated fear-mongering of "The other", were spread around the needy and the general well-being a bit, we might just have the beginnings of a sane social safety net by now.
But of course that wouldn't interest the likes of you!
RSS feed for comments to this post