Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[Alien Space Bats]

On topic - ASB, FiveThirtyEight is showing Obama at a 67.9% chance of winning, and 293 Electoral Votes. This seems remarkable from a single debate performance - is this sort of decline in the polls common after a debate loss, and why is it that we're not seeing any huge decline in the post-debate "bounce"?

Larry Sabato addressed this issue in a recent blog post. Since the data Sabato presents is not as clear as it might be, here's a modified version of his table:

Election	1st Debate	Poll Before	Poll After	Winner	Net Gain
1960	Sept. 26	Nixon 47-46 (Sept. 14)	Kennedy 49-46 (Oct. 2)	Kennedy	+4
1976	Sept. 23	Carter 51-36 (Aug. 30)	Carter 51-40 (Sept. 27)	Tie	N/A
1980	Oct. 28	Carter 45-39-9 (Oct. 27)	Reagan 46-43-7 (Nov. 2)	Reagan	+9
1984	Oct. 7	Reagan 55-39 (Oct. 1)	Reagan 58-38 (Oct. 17)	Mondale	-4
1988	Sept. 25	Bush 49-41 (Sept. 11)	Bush 47-42 (Sept. 28)	Tie	N/A
1992	Oct. 11	Clinton 51-33-10 (Oct. 10)	Clinton 47-32-15 (Oct. 14)	Perot	+9
1996	Oct. 6	Clinton 54-35-5 (Oct. 5)	Clinton 51-37-6 (Oct. 14)	Tie	N/A
2000	Oct. 3	Gore 47-39-3 (Oct. 2)	Tie 43-43-4 (Oct. 6)	Bush	+8
2004	Sept. 30	Bush 53-42 (Sept. 26)	Bush 49-47 (Oct. 3)	Kerry	+9
2008	Sept. 26	Obama 48-45 (Sept. 25)	Obama 49-43 (Sept. 29)	Obama	+3

Judging from the historical record, the winner of the first Presidential debate has usually (85.7% of the time) enjoyed a "bounce" of between 3-9%, with 5.4% as the average gain.

That said, I'd like you to notice the following:

Election	1st Debate	Poll Before	Poll After	Pre-Debate Leader	Net Change
1960	Sept. 26	Nixon 47-46 (Sept. 14)	Kennedy 49-46 (Oct. 2)	Nixon	-4
1976	Sept. 23	Carter 51-36 (Aug. 30)	Carter 51-40 (Sept. 27)	Carter	-4
1980	Oct. 28	Carter 45-39-9 (Oct. 27)	Reagan 46-43-7 (Nov. 2)	Carter	-9
1984	Oct. 7	Reagan 55-39 (Oct. 1)	Reagan 58-38 (Oct. 17)	Reagan	+4
1988	Sept. 25	Bush 49-41 (Sept. 11)	Bush 47-42 (Sept. 28)	Bush	-3
1992	Oct. 11	Clinton 51-33-10 (Oct. 10)	Clinton 47-32-15 (Oct. 14)	Clinton	-3
1996	Oct. 6	Clinton 54-35-5 (Oct. 5)	Clinton 51-37-6 (Oct. 14)	Clinton	-5
2000	Oct. 3	Gore 47-39-3 (Oct. 2)	Tie 43-43-4 (Oct. 6)	Gore	-8
2004	Sept. 30	Bush 53-42 (Sept. 26)	Bush 49-47 (Oct. 3)	Bush	-9
2008	Sept. 26	Obama 48-45 (Sept. 25)	Obama 49-43 (Sept. 29)	Obama	+3

That's right: 80% of the time, the candidate when first debate took place lost ground in the polls; the average effect was a loss of 3.8% for whomever was leading in the polls at the time of said first debate - an effect that seems pretty consistent with what we've seen this year.

What's still more interesting, though, is that even debates which ended in a tie worked to the benefit of the trailing candidate: In 1976, President Ford gained 4% on Jimmy Carter even though their first debate was considered even; in 1988, Mike Dukakis picked up 3% from his initial tied debate with Vice-President Bush; and Bob Dole picked up 5% on President Clinton in 1996 even though their first debate ended in a tie.

As for the duration of these post-debate bounces, it's really hard to say. Conventions don't have the viewership of a debate, and historically are held several weeks before the fall campaign season; the last two years are really atypical in having both conventions literally bracket the Labor Day holiday that has - in the past - marked the traditional start of the Presidential race's home stretch. Debates, OTOH, tend to occur in clumps, with anywhere from 4-10 days between each meeting; this means that there isn't really enough time for each debate's "bounce" to fade before the next one hits.

The real test will come after the last debate; two weeks will remain from that point on, and those two weeks could see the winning candidate's edge drop away - although it should be kept in mind that the debates - unlike the conventions - are capable of making a permanent change in the public's perception of one or both candidates; in that sense, at least some of the winning candidate's post-debate "bounce" might endure.

[MadAnthonyWayne]

Hey, ASB- Netanyahu just called early elections. Think this'll have any effect on the race back home?

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

I just saw a patient from Israel. He works at one of those dead sea salt skin care places at the mall. Anyway, he told me he was heading back to Israel next week because the military had re-activated him in anticipation of war.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

I just saw a patient from Israel. He works at one of those dead sea salt skin care places at the mall. Anyway, he told me he was heading back to Israel next week because the military had re-activated him in anticipation of war.

Anecdotal fallacy. You fail.

[The Emerald Dawn]

May I remind everybody that this is not a political debate thread.

You can come in here and say that your favorite candidate ought to win. You can come in here and say that your favorite candidate will win. You can come in here and cry that the world is going to come to an end if your candidate doesn't win. But if you do any of those things, it should accompany and/or support a statement and/or argument involving at least one or more of the following:

• An analysis of the race.
  
  
• A suggested strategy that one or both candidates and/or campaigns ought to take and/or a suggested set of tactics one or both candidates and/or campaigns ought to use.
  
  
• A comment of Presidential politics in general, preferably accompanied by some kind of general historical, demographic, and/or statistical analysis.

That's what makes this thread different from the general campaign thread. The campaign thread is where you try to persuade people that your guy should win. That's where Miami Shores should have posted his comment, because while it may make a case for distrusting the unemployment numbers, it does not do so in a way that helps us better understand the Presidential race as a race and not as a choice.

Now, Miami Shores could have argued that the Romney campaign should attack the numbers as inaccurate based on Jack Welch's comments, and that would have made this thread the right place for him to have posted his remarks. He could have posted Jack Welch's comments and said that most people understand (or merely think) that the government cooks its unemployment figures all the time to help the boss, and used that as a statement in support of the argument that the October 5th BLS jobs report will not help Obama, and that would have made this thread the right place for him to have posted his remarks as well.

But he didn't do either of these things, and so his remarks don't belong here. It's important that we recognize this, so we avoid sidetracking the thread.

I am TG'ing Miami Shores and pointing him to this post, so that he will understand the reasons why such posts don't belong in this thread.

[Salandriagado]

Only in one way: I think it pretty much precludes the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran before November 6th.

I just saw a patient from Israel. He works at one of those dead sea salt skin care places at the mall. Anyway, he told me he was heading back to Israel next week because the military had re-activated him in anticipation of war.

PROTIP: If you're about to initiate war with a potentially nuclear power (or indeed, anybody else), you do not, under any circumstances, let them know about it first. This means you don't tell anybody that absolutely doesn't need to know, and you certainly don't tell some random reservist living overseas about it.

More to the point, you don't even recall them. You leave them wherever they are, so that if you do get hit by something big, you've still got a military somewhere safe. Similarly, you might want to start shipping out or duplicating vital administrative facilities and roles somewhere safe, so you've still got something to work with.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I just saw a patient from Israel. He works at one of those dead sea salt skin care places at the mall. Anyway, he told me he was heading back to Israel next week because the military had re-activated him in anticipation of war.

PROTIP: If you're about to initiate war with a potentially nuclear power (or indeed, anybody else), you do not, under any circumstances, let them know about it first. This means you don't tell anybody that absolutely doesn't need to know, and you certainly don't tell some random reservist living overseas about it.

More to the point, you don't even recall them. You leave them wherever they are, so that if you do get hit by something big, you've still got a military somewhere safe. Similarly, you might want to start shipping out or duplicating vital administrative facilities and roles somewhere safe, so you've still got something to work with.

So basically... your anecdote trumps his because... you said yours and he said his? Right.

[Salandriagado]

PROTIP: If you're about to initiate war with a potentially nuclear power (or indeed, anybody else), you do not, under any circumstances, let them know about it first. This means you don't tell anybody that absolutely doesn't need to know, and you certainly don't tell some random reservist living overseas about it.

More to the point, you don't even recall them. You leave them wherever they are, so that if you do get hit by something big, you've still got a military somewhere safe. Similarly, you might want to start shipping out or duplicating vital administrative facilities and roles somewhere safe, so you've still got something to work with.

So basically... your anecdote trumps his because... you said yours and he said his? Right.

Please, point out exactly where in my post I made an anecdote. Go on, highlight it.

[New England and The Maritimes]

So basically... your anecdote trumps his because... you said yours and he said his? Right.

Please, point out exactly where in my post I made an anecdote. Go on, highlight it.

An anecdote is a story. Your post is you telling stories. Unless you'd like to link everyone to your credentials as an expert? A list of published works on the subject would be appropriate.

[Salandriagado]

Please, point out exactly where in my post I made an anecdote. Go on, highlight it.

An anecdote is a story. Your post is you telling stories. Unless you'd like to link everyone to your credentials as an expert? A list of published works on the subject would be appropriate.

Definition of anecdote
noun
a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person:
he told anecdotes about his job
an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay:
[mass noun]:
his wife’s death has long been the subject of rumour and anecdote
[mass noun] the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting:
the use of inversions of hierarchy, anecdote, and paradox by Magritte, Dali, and others

It's not an anecdote any more than ASB's essays on political strategy are. He hasn't posted his credentials either.

[Zaras]

Please, point out exactly where in my post I made an anecdote. Go on, highlight it.

An anecdote is a story. Your post is you telling stories. Unless you'd like to link everyone to your credentials as an expert? A list of published works on the subject would be appropriate.

Do you need published works to point out how stupid recalling people in advance of a war is, and how it's relevant to the thread?

[Ardchoille]

Enough with the threadjack, guys. Please read ASB's post above for what this thread's about.

Your formal qualifications are not an issue. Your ability to relate your posts to the nuts 'n' bolts of how the campaigns are run, is. If you want to discuss the proper conduct of a war, or the multi-layered meaning of "anecdote", take it to TGs or to a new thread.

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 11th, 2012)



Obama 323, Romney 206 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

Eleven new polls are out today:

• In Florida (29 EV's), a new poll by the University of North Florida dated October 9th shows Obama up by 4%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen, Marist College, and Suffolk University) leaves the President with a net lead of 2%. The Sunshine State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), a new Zogby poll dated October 9th shows Obama leading by 4%; averaging this poll with four others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen, ARG, SurveyUSA, and ORC International) leaves the President with a net lead of 3%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 9th shows Obama up by 2%; this confirms the results of PPP's poll from October 6th. The Badger State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Nevada (6 EV's), two new polls (one by SurveyUSA, dated October 8th, and one by PPP, dated October 10th) show Obama up by an average of 2%; adding in Rasmussen's poll from October 8th leaves the President with a net lead of 2%. The Silver State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Hampshire (4 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 9th shows Obama and Romney tied at 48%; averaging this poll with the University of New Hampshire poll taken on October 6th gives the President a net lead of 3%. The Granite State swings back to "Barely Democratic" from "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), a new poll by Rasnussen dated October 9th shows Obama leading by 5%; averaging this poll with Siena College's poll taken on October 5th gives the President a net lead of 4%. The Keystone State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Mexico (5 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 8th shows Obama up by 11%; averaging this poll with PPP's poll taken on October 3rd gives the President a net lead of 10%. The Land of Enchantment remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Montana (3 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 10th shows Romney up by 12%. Big Sky Country shifts from "Likely Republican" to "Strongly Republican".
  
  
• In Maine (4 EV's), a new poll by Pan Atlantic SMS dated September 28th shows Obama leading by 14%; averaging this with Rasmussen's poll from September 25th leaves the President with a net lead of 13%. The Pine Tree State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Rhode Island (4 EV's), a new poll by Brown University dated October 5th shows Obama up by 26%; averaging this with the Fleming and Associates poll of September 29th leaves the President with a net lead of 25%. The OceanState remains "Strongly Democratic".

As has been the case ever since last Wednesday's first Presidential debate, the polls in most "swing" States continue to tighten, showing Governor Romney now trailing President Obama by just a couple of percentage points almost everywhere among the so-called "battleground" States, but unable to take the lead and alter the fundamental character of this race in the Electoral College - and this in spite of his now having a net 1.5% lead in the Real Clear Politics average of National polls.

If I were a part of "Team Romney", I'd be worried: Tbe continuing "stickiness" of the "swing" States - the fact that they still lean Democratic regardless of what happens with the National polls - combined with the fact that each side's core States (with a few notable exceptions) continue to remain (or even grow further) out of reach from the other side means that Mitt Romney's window for victory remains exceedingly narrow; indeed, the great fear in Boston must be that Romney's window for victory may well be too narrow for him to effectively negotiate.

---

I'm going to sleep on the debate before scoring it; that's what I did last week, and it worked well, so I'm going to give that tactic a second shot tonight. Expect my next major update in another 5-8 hours.

[Alien Space Bats]

Has Barack Obama already won the State of Ohio?

Marist College's newest poll - dated October 11th - shows that 18% of those surveyed have already voted, and that these voters have cast their ballots for Barack Obama by a 63-37 margin.

If that's the case, then - assuming that all of those polled by Marist College will actually vote, Romney will need to carry the remaining 82% of those surveyed by a 53-47 margin just to break even in the State. Worse, if it turns out that some of those sampled won't vote, then Romney's performance will have to be better still: If only 80% of Marist's sample end up voting, then Romney may well have to win those who vote on Election Day by something like a 54-46 or even a 55-45 margin.

Right now, Obama leads among those who expect to vote on Election Day by just 2%; but when you account for those who have already voted, Obama's expected margin of victory in Ohio rises to 6%. With each passing day and with every added early voter - given the way Democrats are pushing early voting - It may not be long before it becomes almost statistically impossible for the GOP to win Ohio.

This is the advantage of early voting: Every day "Team Obama" leads in an early voting State is a day on which he banks more votes, thereby essentially locking in their win.

[Free South Califas]

Forgive my lazy ignorance, but what does pale shaded red mean? That the state will go Republican, but split its electoral votes? That's the best I can figure, having lived in a "blue" part of Arizona. (ETA: I never got the chance to vote for President while living there.)

[Gauntleted Fist]

Hey, ASB, what do you think about the "Rasmussen free" polls of Arizona? They seem to be pushing the state out into only 'barely Republican'. Is it a sign of the emerging demographic changes in the area?

Forgive my lazy ignorance, but what does pale shaded red mean? That the state will go Republican, but split its electoral votes? That's the best I can figure, having lived in a "blue" part of Arizona. (ETA: I never got the chance to vote for President while living there.)

It means they are likely to vote Republican. The dark red states are almost 100% certain to vote Republican. Same for blue but with Democrat votes.

[The Tofu Islands]

Forgive my lazy ignorance, but what does pale shaded red mean? That the state will go Republican, but split its electoral votes? That's the best I can figure, having lived in a "blue" part of Arizona. (ETA: I never got the chance to vote for President while living there.)

Pale shade is 5-10% lead for that candidate (which means that the lead is outside the margin of error on most polls, and generally means they're likely to win). Most states don't split electoral votes (I think it's Nebraska and Maine that do?), so margin of victory generally doesn't matter much.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Forgive my lazy ignorance, but what does pale shaded red mean? That the state will go Republican, but split its electoral votes? That's the best I can figure, having lived in a "blue" part of Arizona. (ETA: I never got the chance to vote for President while living there.)

Pale shade is 5-10% lead for that candidate (which means that the lead is outside the margin of error on most polls, and generally means they're likely to win). Most states don't split electoral votes (I think it's Nebraska and Maine that do?), so margin of victory generally doesn't matter much.

Nope. Nebraska used to, then Obama won a single EV from them and the state shut that down.

[The Tofu Islands]

Nope. Nebraska used to, then Obama won a single EV from them and the state shut that down.

Ah, my mistake.

[TomKirk]

Pale shade is 5-10% lead for that candidate (which means that the lead is outside the margin of error on most polls, and generally means they're likely to win). Most states don't split electoral votes (I think it's Nebraska and Maine that do?), so margin of victory generally doesn't matter much.

Nope. Nebraska used to, then Obama won a single EV from them and the state shut that down.

Nebraska hasn't changed, although Obama has not much chance of picking off Omaha's vote again (much as Romney is not likely to pick of Bangor).

[Alien Space Bats]

Electoral-vote.com Map (as of October 12th, 2012)



Obama 294, Romney 235 (9 Undecided)

---

PLEASE NOTE: NEW POLLS DO NOT YET REFLECT REACTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

---

A whopping eighteen new polls are out today:

• In Florida (29 EV's), two new polls (one by Marist College, dated October 9th, and one by Mason Dixon, dated October 10th) show Romney leading by an average of 3%; combining these two polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and the University of North Florida) leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 1%. The Sunshine State swings from "Barely Democratic" to "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In North Carolina (15 EV's), a new poll by Rasmussen dated October 9th shows Romney up by 3%. The Tarheel State remains "Barely Republican".
  
  
• In Ohio (18 EV's), two new polls (one by Marist College, dated October 9th, and one by Rasmussen, dated October 10th) show Obama leading by an average of 3%; combining these two polls with five others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen, ARG, SurveyUSA, Zogby, and ORC International) leaves the President with a net lead of 2%. The Buckeye State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Virginia (13 EV's), three new polls (one by Pulse Opinion Research, dated October 8th, one by Quinnipiac University, dated October 9th, and one Marist College, also dated October 9th) show Obama leading by an average of 1%; combining these two polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and the PPP) leaves the President with a net lead of 2%. Old Dominion remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Colorado (9 EV's), a new poll by Quinnipiac University dated October 9th shows Romney up by 1%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by ARG, Rasmussen, and Selzer) leaves the two candidates in a dead heat. The Centennial State remains "Exactly Tied".
  
  
• In Wisconsin (10 EV's), two new polls (one by Pulse Opinion Research, dated October 8th, and one by Quinnipiac University, dated October 9th) show Obama up by an average of 3%; further averaging these two polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and the PPP) confirms the President's 3% lead. The Badger State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Nevada (6 EV's), a new poll by Suffolk University dated October 9th shows Obama leading by 2%; averaging this poll with three others taken within a one-week look-back window (by PPP, Rasmussen, and SurveyUSA) confirms the President's 2% lead. The Silver State remains "Barely Democratic".
  
  
• In Pennsylvania (20 EV's), two new polls (one by Pulse Opinion Research and one by Global Strategy, both dated October 8th) show Obama leading by an average of 5%; further averaging these two polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and Siena College) confirms the President's 5% lead. The Keystone State slides from "Barely Democratic" to "Likely Democratic".
  
  
• In New Jersey (14 EV's), a new poll by Global Strategy dated October 8th shows Obama up by 11%. The Garden State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Massachusetts (11 EV's), a new poll by PPP dated October 11th shows Obama up by 14%; averaging this poll with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by MassINC and the University of Massachusetts) leaves the President with a net lead of 17%. The Bay State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In California (55 EV's), a new poll by SurveyUSA dated October 9th shows Obama leading by 14%. The Golden State remains "Strongly Democratic".
  
  
• In Illinois (4 EV's), a new poll by Market Shares dated October 8th shows Obama up by 19%. The Land of Lincoln remains "Strongly Democratic".

Sear this map in your brain, because it's the last map whose polls will be entirely unaffected by last night's Vice Presidential debate, just as October 3rd's map represented the last snapshot of the Nation's opinion before that evening's first Presidential debate. I'll lay the October 11th and October 3rd maps side by side in a future post to talk about the total effect of Mitt Romney's victory in that first debate (against the backdrop of the September jobs report, of course), but for now I simply want you to think in terms of what each debate did to the state of the race.

Specifically, just as that October 3rd map held nothing but dread for "Team Romney", the October 11th map shows how far things slipped for "Team Obama" in the eight days following that debate. Of course, it also shows that, however strong Governor Romney's performance in that debate may have been, it wasn't enough to get the Romney campaign entirely out of the bad position it found itself in at the start of October; Obama's position on the eve of the Vice Presidential debate was still the better one. It just wasn't a dominant one it had been eight days earlier (with the word "dominant" in this case meaning "one more calamity and this thing is over").

Yet there is a certain sense of drama in this map, all the same. It's a map one step away from 2012 being a different race than it's been all year, and in that sense last night's debate mattered greatly, because it represented "Team Romney's" best chance for a true "game change" - and "Team Obama's" best chance to put a lid on "Team Romney" before the alarm bells started going off.

In that sense, to use a baseball metaphor (because we are, of course, now in the playoffs - and baseball is, in fact, America's sport), Joe Biden was coming in as the Democrats' "fireman" to face Paul Ryan, the Republican P30X wünderkind from Janesville, WA, come to bat with runners on base and in scoring position. Biden's job was to strike the kid out, while Ryan's job was to keep the rally going.

Which is why I think - whatever the CW ends up being on last night's debate - that Biden won it hands down. He brought heat, brought it straight over the plate, and struck the young puppy out just as he had to.

---

The Beltway press is all over the map with regards to last night's debate; it will take a few days for one narrative or another to take hold and become "the" agreed-upon story of what happened. This Steve Benen quote, in reference to the first Presidential debate, sums the matter up best.

First up, let's reflect for a moment on the first debate. Dave Weigel, reporting from New Mexico, shared an anecdote that resonated with me.

After spending a weekend talking to voters in a close state that's no longer really "swinging," the first presidential debate has come to remind me of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Democrats walked out of the theater/turned off the TV saying "huh, well, I wanted it to be better." After a few days of talking to friends, it changes from a disappointment into the worst piece of crap in human history.

Let's not forget, focus groups last Wednesday showed Romney winning the debate, but not necessarily wining votes. That changed after the post-debate hysteria/groupthink kicked in.

Indeed, there was a feeding frenzy that (forgive the mixed metaphor) led to a snowball effect -- the conventional wisdom went from "Obama had an off night" to "Obama was awful" to "Obama humiliated himself" to "Obama drooled on himself before stripping naked and singing the Soviet national anthem." This evolution in perceptions, it's worth noting, happened with incredible speed.

Just as we're going to need to wait a few days to see what effect this debate has on the polls, we're going to need to wait a few days to see what the Beltway "Commentariat" ends up deciding we actually saw last night, and then feeds our ears so full of it that we end up agreeing that we saw what they tell us we saw and not what we actually saw.

In that sense, this thread (and others here on NSG) may serve a useful purpose; in essence, we'll be journaling, and I rather bet we'll look back next week on what we wrote with some surprise, even the the point of wondering what we were thinking. Politicians call this "winning the spin", and both sides will be trying their damnedest to do it between now and next Tuesday night.

My take on last night's debate was that Joe Biden mopped the floor with Paul Ryan; he rebutted him effectively at every opportunity, refused to allow him to reinvent himself or his running mate, refused to allow him to insert "false facts" into the public narrative, and continued to remind those of us who have come to know him as a champion of the working class why he got that reputation. Ryan was ineffective - and worse, he was forgettable.

You know what, I think that's what my point above. Ryan whole tone is just..soft, blending, and lacks any kind of true emphasis or force behind his tone. His words just sorta mentally blend in my head. I can't really hold on to what he's saying.

Joe Biden's "smirks", laughs, negative interjections, head shakes, and dismissive gestures were a necessary and effective reaction to the impact of the split-screen on the debates. Eight days ago, Barack Obama spent half of the debate with his eyes pointed down at his notes - yet the audience, not seeing his pen scratching out comments on the note pad in front of him, took his downcast gaze as tacit admission that every attack Mitt Romney aimed at him was entirely justified and right on the mark, in much the same way a guilty person casts down his eyes when being upbraided. The split-screen created a lie ("OMG! Obama knows in his heart that Romney's right!!!") that did more than advance a false narrative; that lie advanced the many other lies Mitt Romney told that same evening, as each visual image of Romeny lying and Obama appearing to tacitly accept those lies as true inverted reality and made those lies accepted "truth" in the world of non-verbal communication.

Biden had to be certain not to let Paul Ryan use the same tactic; had the GOP gotten away with its widespread redefinition of reality, the campaign might have been over right then and there. Instead, Biden understood - correctly and properly - that split-screen televised debates involve simultaneous communication by both candidates with the public, and that verbal rebuttal of his opponent's remarks in his own time was simply not enough. Biden had to rebut Ryan's statements in real time, non-verbally, as they were issued - lest his effective failure to do so make them true by default and thus irrefutable.

Joe Biden did this, and did it so effectively as to anger and outrage Ryan's GOP handlers. They thought they'd be able to use the split-screen to score a massive second victory, only to find it turned against them. Every word Ryan said was challenged, forcing him to defend those words himself; required to carry their own freight, Paul Ryan's arguments collapsed of their own weight. In my eyes, it was a stunning defeat of the seven-term Wisconsin Congressman, possibly to the point of it being career-ending. At this stage, if Ryan doesn't become the Nation's next Vice President, he is effectively toast.

---

The GOP will fight back to try and re-spin the debate over the course of this weekend, and it's quite possible they will succeed. If by Monday, Joe Biden was a rabid, out-of-control maniac who savaged a nice, sweet, upright young devoted public servant, then we will know that we have at last arrived in an era where truth - and indeed, quite possibly the debates themselves - no longer matters.

For now, all we can do is wait and watch.

[Sdaeriji]

ASB, do you think the pre-first-debate map was unrealistically high for Obama? Wasn't a regression more or less expected? Romney may be a weak candidate, but was he ever really 200-electoral-vote-blowout weak?

[Zaras]

In Florida (29 EV's), two new polls (one by Marist College, dated October 9th, and one by Mason Dixon, dated October 10th) show Romney leading by an average of 3%; combining these two polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and the University of North Florida) leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 1%. The Sunshine State swings from "Barely Democratic" to "Barely Republican".

Took forever, but is Florida going to stay barely Republican?

[Khadgar]

In Florida (29 EV's), two new polls (one by Marist College, dated October 9th, and one by Mason Dixon, dated October 10th) show Romney leading by an average of 3%; combining these two polls with two others taken within a one-week look-back window (by Rasmussen and the University of North Florida) leaves the former Massachusetts Governor with a net lead of 1%. The Sunshine State swings from "Barely Democratic" to "Barely Republican".

Took forever, but is Florida going to stay barely Republican?

Not likely I don't think. This is the tail end of Romney's debate bounce, now things should start to swing back given Biden's performance. If Obama does a good job it should swing back completely and undo Romney's bounce completely.

[Zaras]

Took forever, but is Florida going to stay barely Republican?

Not likely I don't think. This is the tail end of Romney's debate bounce, now things should start to swing back given Biden's performance. If Obama does a good job it should swing back completely and undo Romney's bounce completely.

NC is more likely to stay narrowly Republican - I think it was mentioned way too many pages ago that for this election, the Research Triangle area isn't large enough in population to out-vote the rest of the state.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Not likely I don't think. This is the tail end of Romney's debate bounce, now things should start to swing back given Biden's performance. If Obama does a good job it should swing back completely and undo Romney's bounce completely.

NC is more likely to stay narrowly Republican - I think it was mentioned way too many pages ago that for this election, the Research Triangle area isn't large enough in population to out-vote the rest of the state.

But how would you explain President Obama winning the state in 2008, then? Population change in other areas of the state?