... This isn’t the first time the R-J, which uses Washington-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, has published polls that ran far afield of Election Day results. And, the results always seem to skew Republican.

In 2008, the R-J’s final poll had Barack Obama beating John McCain in Nevada by 4 percentage points. Obama won by 12.5. A late poll in 2004 had President George W. Bush beating Sen. John Kerry by 10. Bush won by 3.

The R-J and its pollster were criticized in October 2008 when it polled in two of Nevada’s congressional races, using fewer than 300 respondents in each race. A polling expert with Pew Research Center said he had never seen published polls with such small sample sizes. Polls with fewer respondents are cheaper to conduct, but also mean a greater margin of error.

These polls can matter because, as one Democratic operative complained, they can have the effect of self-fulfilling prophecy, depressing campaign donors and volunteers and infusing Democratic voters with apathy.

...Republican operatives snicker with some glee at the R-J polls, which can provide a lift by energizing donors and volunteers.

As for the polls’ accuracy, however, one Republican operative was blunt. Campaigns pay good money for good data. As for Mason-Dixon polling, he said: “I wouldn’t pay for them.”

Gallup started tracking likely voters' preferences on Oct. 1 and will continue to report daily both registered voter and likely voter results in seven-day rolling averages leading up to the election.

Obama Coming Back Among Registered Voters

Obama's slight 49% to 46% seven-day lead among registered voters is just about where it was in the seven days prior to the debate. This trend suggests that Romney's impressive debate performance -- 72% of debate watchers said he did the better job -- may not have a lasting impact. Additionally, Friday's generally positive jobs report from the government, showing that unemployment fell below 8% for the first time since January 2009, may have helped Obama's standing.

Although Gallup's main focus is on seven-day rolling averages, a breakdown of interviewing over shorter periods can be helpful in understanding the short-term impact of events like conventions and debates. As Gallup reported Monday, Romney gained ground among registered voters in the immediate aftermath of his Oct. 3 debate, moving from a five-point deficit prior to the debate to a tie in the immediate three days that followed. Most of that gain was driven by substantial Romney leads in the Thursday and Friday tracking.

Since Saturday, however, Obama has regained a 50% to 45% edge among registered voters in interviewing conducted Sunday and Monday -- the same as his margin in the three days prior to the debate. Although these two days of interviewing involve relatively small sample sizes, they suggest that Romney's debate "bounce" may be fading.



More at - http://www.gallup.com/poll/157955/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx

The dramatic Romney surge in the latest Pew poll may have less to do with besting Obama in the first debate than with some dramatic shift in party identification in Pew polls. According to numbers reported by Pew, Democrats fell from 37 percent in the September poll to 32 percent in October while Republicans rose from 28 to 33 percent among registered voters. With such numbers and high support for the nominee among partisans, it's no surprise that Romney leads Obama. With the same partisan breakdown in October as in September, Obama would still be leading, even among likely voters.

So what's behind the Republican surge in party identification? As far as I can tell, the September-October shift is the largest recorded by the Pew trend line. But is it a real surge? If so, Republicans would have scored a partisan realignment of sorts, all in the wake of a terrific debate performance. That seems far-fetched. More likely, the sample for the October poll just ended up with more Republicans and fewer Democrats than before. ...

ECONOMIC ISSUES

State spending increased at well over rate of inflation under Romney’s watch, estimated at 24% - more than $5 billion – over Romney’s final three years.

Under Romney, Massachusetts dramatically underperformed the rest of the nation in terms of job growth.

Romney has been criticized by experts for failing to deliver on issues of business development and economic growth after selling himself as the “CEO governor.”

2006 report issued by quasi-public Massachusetts Technology Collaborative warned the state was losing its grip as leader in “innovation economy” and that tech job was alarmingly slow.

Romney left his successor to fill a budget deficit exceeding $1 billion.

They raised state fees and taxes more than $700 million per year, according to independent experts.

Romney raised fees by roughly $500 million in his first year alone, a figure that was highest in the nation.

Romney quadrupled gun licensing fees and raised fees on first responders, real estate transactions, the blind, golfers and many others.

Massachusetts’ state and local tax burden rose more than 7% during Romney’s administration.

Romney refused to endorse the Bush tax cuts in 2003, telling the state’s all-Democrat congressional delegation he wouldn’t be a cheerleader for the plan.

Romney implemented three rounds of tax changes (which he referred to as “closing loopholes”) which increased business taxes by an estimated $400 million per year.

Massachusetts’ corporate tax climate now ranks 47th in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation.

Romney proposed – then backed away from – a new internet tourism tax that would levy higher taxes onusers of sites like Orbitz and Travelocity.

Romney enrolled Massachusetts in multistate compact aiming to end moratorium on internet sales taxes.

Romney took no position on estate tax issue in 2002 and signed 50% increase in state cremation fee, which observers called “hidden tax on the dead.”

Everyone was calling the President’s performance in Wednesday’s debate lackluster. It turns out, even the president himself agrees. After some grumbling reported by staff, the next day presented a President who had shifted gears.

His staff reported finding the President studying his own debate performance, with him commenting on his dark, grim demeanor.

...

After a conference with his inner circle — David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Ron Klain and Jim Messina — a strategy was laid out before them: they would go after Romney’s blatant lies, his distortions, and his mitt-flops. Romney had put himself into a position where he revealed himself as a two-faced liar who would say anything to win, and the President will be using that image to his advantage.

The change in focus for the President only means storm clouds on the horizon for the revitalized Romney campaign. If the former Governor goes into the next debate assuming that he will find it as much a cakewalk as the first, he is likely to find himself in for a very severe shock.

By SUSAN SAULNY

WORTHINGTON, Ohio — Theater seats? Check. Shrimp cocktails and crudités? Check. Flat-screen television with the volume low just waiting for the big show to start? Check.

People who have been un-friended on Facebook by relatives because of their political views? Oh, yes.

The first night of truly must-see TV this fall season for the Gardner and Jernigan families in this suburb of Columbus was the first presidential debate Wednesday evening between President Obama and Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger.

...

“I want to see an actual plan from Romney,” Mr. Jernigan said. “I’d like to see Obama be very forceful in defending his own actions as president. And I wouldn’t be opposed to a highly entertaining moment from Romney, something like, ‘I can see Russia from my house!’ ”

After the debate, the group did not shift their views. “I don’t know the specifics of these things, so some of it didn’t mean a lot to me,” said Mr. Gardner, the host. “Like I said before we started, I hate the ‘I’m going to repeal what you did and do something that’s better!’ Who doesn’t want to hear that? Basically nothing changed for me.”

Those are the headlines we’re seeing across the country. The latest poll shows that Michele Bachmann has fallen well below 50% and we are within just five points, 43-48.

Voters got to see Rep. Bachmann’s true colors when she ran for president – and the more they saw, the less they liked. Her extreme ideology has crippled Washington, and working families have paid the price.

If we’ve ever had a chance to defeat Bachmann, this is it. Minnesotans understand that Bachmann abandoned the middle class. And there’s no third party in the race this time to pad Bachmann’s numbers.

But she’ll fight. She’s well-funded and close with the Koch Brothers, who will attack me aggressively.

We can win this race. We can defeat Michele Bachmann. But we can’t do it without your support. ...