Ipsos MORI’s monthly political monitor has now been published. Topline figures with changes from their last poll in mid-September, before conference season, are CON 33%(+3), LAB 43%(+2), LDEM 9%(-4), UKIP 6%. The Labour lead remains pretty steady at around ten points, again roughly the same sort of Labour leads MORI have been showing since May.

Part leader satisfaction ratings are Cameron minus 29 (from minus 24 last month), Miliband minus 12 (from minus 9 last month), Clegg minus 45 (from minus 43 last month).

309 Responses to “Ipsos MORI/Standard – CON 33, LAB 43, LD 9, UKIP 6”

1 4 5 6 7
  1. RiN

    Yes-I remember reading your thoughts on the Wage Curve the other day.

    I don’t believe for one moment that Central Banks “target” unemployment.

    BoE’s brief is to control inflation ( a task it has signally failed to accomplish for some considerable time).
    Labour cost increases are a component in inflation-so I guess Central Banks are bound to keep an eye on them.

    ( Just reading Sandbrook’s histories of the 60s & 70s , and Wilson’s & Heath’s struggle with Labour costs & inflation )

    A pool of unemployed is inevitable in an open economy which is not managed by the State isn’t it? – If only to facilitate movement between jobs, skill mix changes related to maturing/emerging sectors , maintenance of competitiveness etc -let alone the cyclical changes in demand for labour in the economy.

    Callaghan understood this .

  2. Colin

    There is a difference between a pool and a lake, in the 50s 60s and early 70s we had a pool, since then we have had a lake most of the time and an ocean frequently.

  3. AMBER STAR and Croftee
    Thanks for your generous posts.

  4. @Anthony

    I always wondered what Betty Boothroyd was doing these days and having just alighted on another one of your Mature Dating ads, I now know!!

    Just off to check out the website for further details. I’m afraid UKPR will have to take a back seat for a while. lol

  5. RiN

    @”There is a difference between a pool and a lake, in the 50s 60s and early 70s we had a pool, since then we have had a lake most of the time and an ocean frequently.”

    UK politicians , after W11 thought that sort of employment level would last for ever.

    The result was that whilst Germany & the rest improved their productivity & competitiveness, UK steadily lost competitiveness. Complacent management, and hopeless politicians like Wilson , Ben & Heath failed utterly to understand that State “Planning”, “Merger Mania” & paying whatever the unions demanded was not the road to a socialist nirvana-but the road to decline & fall.

    During the 1970s Britain’s inflation rate was 13%, it’s unemployment rate was 4%, and it’s productivity growth under 1%.

    The figures for West Germany were-respectively-5%, 2%, and over 3% .

    I note that the country where I believe you live & work-a small country with a long term Socialist Government , having the advantage of virtually 100% hydro electricity supply, PLUS it’s own oil & gas supply, has a long term unemployment level of 3% to 4%.

  6. COLIN.
    Good Evening.
    I think it was the Churchill and Macmillan and Home Governments in the thirteen years after 1951 that began the rot.

  7. “Top Spanish official tells me Madrid will veto any automatic Scottish EU entry if UK breaks up. “Impossible not to veto” he says.”
    Dennis McShane-Twitter.

    Sod it .

  8. Incidently. I’ve been doing some playing with the electoral college interactive map in the US based on latest state polls on PPP, and I can’t see how anybody but Obama is going to be president after Nov 6.

  9. NickP,

    PPP is just one polling company, but looking at data from many others combined the conclusion is the same.

    Obama absolutely will win 237 ECVs.

    He will almost certainly get 34 more from Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio.

    He is likely to get another 10 from New Hampshire and Iowa.

    There is a good chance that he will get a further 22 from Colorado and Virginia.

    There is an outside (or better, depending on who you believe) chance of a large but by this time fairly irrelevant 44 from Florida and North Carolina.

    270 will be a doddle. Over 300 is likely. Getting towards 350 isn’t out of the question. But the press are still banging on about how close it is. Anyone would think that they had their own agendas…

  10. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20112404

    Wouldn’t want him running my country, and not a fan of his policies but as someone from the outside looking in, gotta say I love Berlusconi. Get’s found guilty of fraud, threatens to bring down the government in retaliation the next day!

    Politics is obviously something serious, but I do love these sort of clown leaders. Bush, Berlusconi, Gaddaffi (before he became a murderer) and even GBrown!

  11. Mitz

    The shift you were talking about in Colorado is being factored into RCP, they’ve now moved it to a dead even tie, so the momentum is clearly with Obama there, a day or 2 more and he will probably be in the lead again there.

    Also you talk about RCP being a bit biased to the right win, they got 49 states correct last time, and actually leant more to Obama very slightly, they overestimated his win margin by 0.4% otherwise they were spot on. They said he’d get 7.6% and he got 7.2% I think they’re quite reliable.

  12. I follow quite closely what the Lamestream Media are blathering on about in the US, and this ‘horserace’ narrative they’re pushing is laughable. It’s based on BS polls like the biased Rasmussen and Gallup, who have a ridiculously restrictive LV screen, have been all over the place in past elections and are basically just trading on name recognition.

    Even the likes of BBC and the Guardian, who really ought to know better, have been parrotting a similar line.

    The state polls are what we should be looking at. They show Obama with a modest but decisive lead. He leads by around 3-4 in Ohio, which Nate Silver ranks as the likely tipping point state. With every day I grow more confident of an Obama victory.

    If, as I expect, Obama wins, the reaction of the wingnuts will be something to behold. I genuinely fear the safety of liberals who live in red areas.

  13. I should add that they were exactly the same four years ago. Everything was greeted by ‘this is great news for John McCain’ because they were desperate for a close race that would be good ratings and profits.

  14. I don’t think anyone thought 2008 was a close race did they? McCain was behind from start to finish, his support picked up when he picked Palin (contrary to what you would think) because she rallied the base, probably kept states like Arizona, Missouri and Montana from going Blue as well. But in 08 the real contest was whoever won the Democratic nomination, because whoever won that was pretty much guaranteed the presidency over McCain.

  15. MitM
    Which clownish characteristics did you think Bush, Berlusconi, Gaddafi and Brown had in common?

  16. Add Alaska to that list too, Obama was winning there before McCain picked Palin.

  17. John, not much in common per se. Just a sort of oafish, clownish buffoonishness. Whether it was Bush and his Bushisms, Gaddaffi setting up his tent on central park, or his comments about paying a man wages for his work is no different to slavery, Brown and his numerous gaffes and mis steps and. So they don’t really have anything in common, I just find politics is more interesting when you’ve got whacky leaders. If Boris ever made it to #10 you could probably add him to that list too.

  18. 2008 was actually close for most of the way. Obama only led narrowly during the summer, and trailed for a couple of weeks after the GOP convention. Obama surged in September thanks to a combination of the GOP’s convention bounce wearing off and the financial crash, but there was genuine uncertainty about the outcome until just a few weeks out.

    It was only a few weeks out when I realised Obama had in the bag. I knew because he had clear leads in Bush states such as Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, as well as being competitive in Indiana and North Carolina. McCain therefore needed to pull off the unlikely feat of defending most or all of them, as well as picking off Pennsylvania. It was obvious that he had no chance of doing so, and therefore his goose was cooked.

    Even if it’s not as clear cut this time, I’m still confident, as Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Iowa make up Obama’s firewall, and the polls look cautiously optimistic in those states. We can safely ingore Florida and North Carolina, as they won’t be tipping point states. If Obama wins them they’ll be simply a consequence of him winning comfortably nationwide; they’ll be the icing on the cake.

  19. Drunkenscouser I’d agree broadly with that, I’m becoming more confident each day that Obama will win the electoral vote, and the presidency overall (as each day passes a turnaround for Romney gets less likely) but I’m becoming more sceptical about him winning the national vote. The momentum nationally seems to be behind Romney. I know you discount Gallup and Rasmussen, but whatever their choice of method, RCP got it incredibly accurate in 08, they got 1 state wrong and OVERestimated Obama by 0.4%, not bad I’d say. They’re currently showing Obama winning the electoral college with 290 votes (if you break the tie in Colorado to Obama’s favour) but Romney’s national lead is increasing, from 0.5% to 0.9% now to 1% exactly.

    Romney’s problem is that he’s averaging 12/13% leads over Obama in Indiana which is already in his column, when he really needs some of that support to shift over into neighbouring Ohio.

    Ohio will go for Obama because of the auto industry bailout, Romney pretty much admitted himself that he would have let it go bankrupt, he won’t be winning Ohio for sure, so his chances of winning the presidency are becoming extremely remote.

  20. Around 45% supporting the parties in government isn’t bad for mid-term. You’d hardly expect them to polling 50%.

  21. I had money on both the French Presidential and London Mayoral elections, because courtesy of this boards (and Virgilio) I knew d**n well who was going to win. But the US presidential is too close to call: I ain’t touching it until a clear favourite emerges.

    Regards, Martyn

  22. MITM,

    Willard winning the EC remains a possibility, although my gut instinct is Obama by about 2 points, due to the overly restrictive LV screens some of the national trackers are using, plus the effect of early voting.

    Martyn, I would strongly advise you to pile your money on Obama. The prediction markets, Intrade especially, are lowballing him. A 2-3 point lead in the swing states is big at this stage.

    I’d like to finish by saying that in the time I’ve been following politics, Willard Mittens Romney is perhaps the vilest character I’ve ever come across. Everything about him, from his history of bullying at school, to his screwing people at Bain, to his lubricious lying and flip-flopping in front-line politics, screams the words ‘diagnosable sociopath’ at me.

  23. Martyn

    I feel more confident predicting an Obama win, than I would about predicting Hollande’s win. I wasn’t sure at all, Sarkozy lost the first round by 1% then the final by 3% I was never ready to call it. Equally Boris’ win in London was a lot narrower than expected.

    Plus in those votes it was a straight out, whoevers most popular wins, so it really depended on who got the most votes on polling day. But in America the electoral college is a major factor, it robbed Gore of his win in 2000, but it looks as though it favours Obama this time, as even if Romney added another 1% nationally, on a uniform swing he still wouldn’t take Ohio. Plus there is no uniform swing as it’s a state by state issue, and Ohioans aren’t going to give their electoral college votes to Romney because of his stance on the auto bailout. If Romney had supported the auto industry bailout, it’s more than likely that Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania would all be in his column by now and he’d be President. He’s within 2-4% in all of them, it’s not hard to believe that supporting the bankruptcy of an electorates major industry would have cost Romney 4% or more in those individual electorates.

    Plus it’s predicted that almost 45% of Ohians have voted early, during a period which Obama has led all the way. So the race will be narrow in terms of actual numbers, but I’m confident that Ohio won’t budge and Obama will win.

  24. @ Martyn

    President Obama will win a second term. I speak to ‘ordinary’ people in America; they are confused & uncertain about who to vote for. To oust a sitting president, there needs to be a real groundswell either against him or in favour of the new guy. There isn’t; so the President will win.

  25. @DrunkenScouser

    You said “…Martyn, I would strongly advise you to pile your money on Obama…”

    If the French and London elections had both gone pearshaped, I would have been looking at a 4-figure loss (it’s a very good cure for constipation). Be careful what you recommend…


    You said “…I feel more confident predicting an Obama win, than I would about predicting Hollande’s win. I wasn’t sure at all, Sarkozy lost the first round by 1% then the final by 3% I was never ready to call it. Equally Boris’ win in London was a lot narrower than expected….”

    I wasn’t betting on Hollande and Johnson: I was betting against François Bayrou, Marine Le Pen, Nicolas Sarkozy and Ken Livingstone, Since none had shown a consistent lead, I felt confident in doing so. Prior to the first debate, Romney had been consistently behind. Now things are jumping all over the place. Not good.


    You said “…President Obama will win a second term…To oust a sitting president, there needs to be a real groundswell either against him or in favour of the new guy…”

    I agree. And if I had the time I’d be going thru the 92, 96, and 04 elections to see what the polls looked like (that’s whyI paid such close attention to Silver’s blog) to see if it’s borne out by data. But I don’t have that time, so, although I appreciate the anecdotal, I’ll have to sit this one out.

    Regards, Martyn

  26. Martyn, in 2004 Bush was up by about the same amount Obama is up by now. He was up about 2% nationwide and about 2% in Ohio.

    The 2004 US election was the first major election where I was old enough to understand and give an Eartha Kitt about what was going on. I thought it was 50-50 and was gutted when Kerry lost, but looking back at the polling data I reckon had Nate Silver been forecasting that election he probably would have had Bush as about an 80-20 favourite on the day.

  27. There is an interesting piece from Nate Silver regardng state polls – at this point before an election whoever is leading by more than 1.3% will win that state. So there is very few real toss-up states:

    Only Colorado and Virginia and possibly New Hampshire (1.4 Obama). This is from RCP.

    So the money should go on Obama.

    IMO Gallup and Ramussen are playing games and will bring their Romney leads down over the next week so the Obama win will be within the MOE (as they have done in the past esp Ramussen)

    Peter Kelner is right Obama is ahead by 1-2% and probably has been all campaign (IMO)

  28. @ Amber Star

    You’ll be proud of me. I went out and spent several hours canvassing this afternoon. It was a great You could tell some people were bothered having been overly contacted. Some people were very nice though and happy to see some Obama canvassers for a change. I was in a group of three and I canvassed with one of the other canvassers first before doing my own doors. I was glad though that our little group was able to knock on every single door we were assigned and actually had a good percentage of actual conversations.

    Canvassing is something that is not always pleasant but it is neccessary. Now everyone who’s door we were knocking on today was an identified supporter. It’s still important because it’s a reminder to vote and really does encourage supporters to actually vote. It can also be helpful. Probably managed to get a solid Obama voter to vote for Dem in Senate race (a race she was largely unaware of). Knocked on one nice mom’s door and she didn’t know (though her daughters did) where she was supposed to vote. I thought about it. She explained she’d be voting late next Tuesday. I thought about it. She gets off work at 5 pm, picks up her kids from after school programs at 5:30 and heads home at 6. She’s tired, she’s hungry, she’s thinking about what she’s going to pick up for dinner for her and the kids. If she doesn’t know where she’s supposed to go and vote, she might well just throw up her hands and not vote. But since the young canvasser took his time to neatly write out the polling place address for her, she’s probably going to do it.

    In one case, reality kicks in. We knocked on the door of an identified 85 year old female supporter. I heard someone inside the house but no one came to the door. I turned to my companion and we both agreed that no 85 year old woman (possibly living alone) would answer the door for two men who she’d never seen before.

    Btw, this is purely anecdotal. A good friend of mine who has moved to Maryland (suburban DC) went to vote early today as today was the first day of early voting in Maryland. She waited in line for almost 4 hours, maybe longer in order to vote. Turnout is apparently massive. In Georgia, African American turnout in the early voting is at record highs.

  29. @ SoCal

    Well done on the canvassing! :-)

    I mentioned in an earlier post, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty amongst floating voters. A 1-2-1 chat could be the nudge which convinces them to vote for your candidate.

    When you canvass a street, you may feel as if you don’t speak to many voters. But they all have family, friends & co-workers. It can create a ripple that adds up to a lot of votes for the President.

  30. The reality of 1992 was that by the early fall (at the latest) voters had decided they wanted a change, Clinton had passed the presidential threshold test with swing voters, and they had made an uneasy peace with his personal foibles. Absent a bombshell in the last month, more character attacks were not going to get Bush the win in a one on one race with Clinton. The Clinton people had it right, it was the economy; he got that the country was unhappy, and the swing voters got that he got it. Those who spin the argument that campaign process or dynamics would have changed the outcome in 1992 ignore the much bigger picture of voter discontent that was in play.

  31. @ Martyn


    Link to the full article from whence the above quote came.

  32. @ Peter Cairns

    “My view of American politics these days is that it’s a bit like Ancient Rome.

    Most of the time Caesar can’t actually do anything because senate thwarted his every action to limit his power over them and to protect themselves or their faction often against their fellow senators.

    I’d like Obama to win but I doubt if he does the system will let him achieve anything of worth and I doubt Romney would either.

    I have a notion, nothing more, that Democratic Presidents have better ideas but get less through because the Republicans are so partisan and Republican Presidents fewer good policies but probably get more past the Democrats.

    A generalisation, but one that means it really doesn’t make that much difference who is in the Whitehouse and regardless of who it is I’ve more or less given up on America giving any kind of International leadership.

    I am not anti American and think Americans in general are great people but most of the ones I know, Republicans and Democrats all but dispair of their own political system.”

    I think that it’s easy to despair and be unhappy. It’s hard work to actually come up with solutions and work towards implementing them. I think that we’re capable of working towards common solutions. We’ve hit rough patches before.

    I don’t think we’re like the Ancient Romans in that we have a more true (albeit imperfect) representative democracy. The Roman Republic held vast lands but only actual citizens of Rome could vote in their elections and those elections were limited to a select few. People don’t realize this but as limited as voting was in early American elections by today’s standards…..it was pretty damn radical at the time.

    What will complicate things is the make up of Congress in the next term (and things are changing in the Senate with Indiana looking more solidly Democratic and Bob Kerrey suddenly surging in Nebraska, once thought to be a solid GOP pickup). But if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker again and the Democrats retain a majority in the Senate, Obama will do what Bush did and force through legislation through reconcilation. He’ll also continue to issue executive orders.

    Our system is designed to be different from a Parliamentary system. It’s designed to require cooperation and broad coalition building (even within the current two-party scheme). It’s designed to protect people from the excesses of government. What’s occurring now is that some of those levers of government are being intentionally used to thwart Obama simply out of a desire to have political gain (and in some small part, outright racism).

    The one thing I do worry about is some of the recent public outbursts (including some things that don’t belong in judicial opinions) by some right wing judges who seem to think they are political actors. That’s discouraging. Also discouraging when some of them get into ego spats with one another becuase they’re just harming their own reputation. But John Roberts (as much as I hate him) has reaffirmed my faith in the role of the federal courts this year.

  33. @ Martyn

    Here’s what I don’t get about the French Election. I saw all these Socialists (presumably the party faithful, the party workers, the campaign staffers, etc) standing around on television right near the Place Bastille, all waiting for the countdown to the close of polling, literally counting down the seconds as if it was New Year’s Eve and they were watching the ball drop. Then they all went and celebrated and partied. I must tell you my dear friend, I don’t get it.

    Granted, the U.S. is different because our polls don’t all close at once but our election night celebrations (winning or losing) usually don’t fill up until well after polls have closed. We’re usually all out hunting down the very last votes we possibly can. I’ll give you an example of my two election days in 2008.

    February 5th, 2008: I woke up at 5 am, was in the office at 6 am. Polls opened at 7 am sharp and we were ready (I’d already voted). People came in and we had a steady phone bank all day with volunteers coming in all day (the landlord having pizzas and ice cold beverages delivered for lunch to all our hardworking volunteers, most of whom were on the phones for several hours, some for most of the day). I got on the phones myself at one point, when we had a lull in volunteers. The only break I took was around 4 pm when I left and rushed over to open up an evening office and start a phone bank there. I was there with my last phonebankers until literally 8 pm Pacific when the polls in California shut. I was on the phone with one woman (who barely spoke English)at 7:57 pm trying to get her to walk across the street to her polling station to go and vote. And then, I had to clean up the office too before I left (it was a high powered real estate brokerage firm who’s boss, a supporter of the campaign, was lending to us).

    November 4th, 2008. I got up at 4:30 am (probably should have gotten up at 4 am). Was at my assigned polling precinct at 5 am. There were already people waiting in line to vote (some had decided to camp out overnight). The polls opened up at 6 am (by that time, there was a line that was 800-900 people long). We worked the entire day, literally until the Virginia polls shut at 7 pm. At 6:58 pm, after a long lull in voters turning out and the precinct elections officer starting to get his ticker ready to shut the polls, a middle class black family in a large SUV pulled up in a hurry. They got out and we yelled for them to run. They did and got into the station just as the election officer shut the doors.. Now had there been a line of 1000 people at 7 pm, all of us (whether we were voter protection or poll greeters or local Democratic Party precinct captain or whoever) were prepared to stay until every vote was cast. But even then, we were wrapping up every loose end. Then we all went are separate ways and partied. But I find it bizarre to see people standing around at a party before the election has even closed. I mean, that’s like something the Human Rights campaign would do.

    In conclusion, what’s up with the French?

  34. @ Amber Star

    “Well done on the canvassing! :)”

    Thanks. I had fun. I felt like it was good for me to push aside some of my own fears and anxiety. I’ll be volunteering at the local OFA office for voter protection this week. So I’ll see how my energy levels are but I may decide to go out and do some more canvassing next weekend. If I could find the right group. I’ve signed up for the 14 hour election day shift for voter protection and today, recruited one of my fellow canvassers for it. Made me happy.

    “I mentioned in an earlier post, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty amongst floating voters. A 1-2-1 chat could be the nudge which convinces them to vote for your candidate.”

    Well at this point, we’re not looking to nudge anyone who is a swing or undecided voter (though we could come across them…..for example, we may have a middle aged woman on our strong supporter list, when we knock on her door though, her husband or son shows up who’s not).

    At this point really, you’re not going to persuade anyone. But you can make a big difference anyway. For example, a new citizen who’s voting for the first time and doesn’t speak much English wants to know if what he can take to the polls with him in order to vote and you help him. Someone doesn’t know where they’re supposed to vote. Someone wants tovote early and doesn’t know how to. We can take in absentee ballots for people. We can ask people (helpful if they’re disabled or elderly) if they need a ride to the polls. Those of us who are extremely political forget that not every voter is in tune with the inner workings of elections. They know they want to vote and they know who they’re supporting but they need help with things that might seem second nature to some of us. Also, it’s important to push downballot races.

    And canvassing does help more than we’d otherwise realize. Voters who get canvassed are far more likely to turn out and vote, ironically enough (I forget the number).

    Now in terms of actually persuading anyone, when I was out registering voters for a few hours a few weeks ago, I did wind up talking a nice, slightly older Republican lady (an African American female Republican no less). She was already registered and wanted to know where she could go to vote early. She told me she was going to vote for Romney even though she really didn’t like him and did not want to vote for a Mormon. I told her I couldn’t hand her one of our helpful voter information cards since we were running low on them but very nicely wrote out all the information from it on a peice of scractch paper directing her to how she could find a polling place. She told me that I was so nice to her that she was considering changing her mind. I doubt she did. Still, it was one effort of persuasion. Of the combined 22 registered at that subway station that afternoon, I think all were planning to vote for Obama.

    “When you canvass a street, you may feel as if you don’t speak to many voters. But they all have family, friends & co-workers. It can create a ripple that adds up to a lot of votes for the President.”

    Well in many cases, people are not home or people refuse to talk to you. Most people are out doing things on a Saturday afternoon and so you’re not going to reach everyone, especially out in some sprawling suburbs. That’s why you only are able to make so many contacts when you do this. I think we had something like a 36% response rate which far outpaced those of other canvassers out in the field today.

  35. MttM
    “a sort of oafish, clownish buffoonishness” I certainly see Bush, Berlusconi and Gaddafi as buffonis but not Brown, who is deeply serious man, prone to a bad temper, but time was when we gave our PMs the respect and leeway for stressed reactions that go with the job: “that bigoted woman” doesn’t compare with the DofE’s “the next one’s a gorilla”. Brown’s gravitas and sense of economic forces outweighs his oddities, in my book, and he was rightly slated for heading the IMF but for Cameron’s objections, based on idealogical prejudice rather than judgement of his capacity; watch that or similar space, however, when Labour are in power.
    I am more seriously concerned regarding your opposition to aid and the immigration; there are a lot of you there in the middle, for whom the facts aren’t – if I may say – readily available and may appear of no great concern, in the face of what you describe as unemployment and poverty caused by the presence of immigrants and by a charitable basis of aid. Aid is not planned as charity but as the basis of economic strengthening in countries whose stability and purchasing or supply power are important to us; and, most worrying wrong, IMHO, in your argument, immigrants are us, – we repeat the history of two World Wars if they are not.

  36. Good early Morning All.

    Very cold here, and the Lab lead is 7%

  37. @ Martyn

    “I agree. And if I had the time I’d be going thru the 92, 96, and 04 elections to see what the polls looked like (that’s whyI paid such close attention to Silver’s blog) to see if it’s borne out by data. But I don’t have that time, so, although I appreciate the anecdotal, I’ll have to sit this one out.”

    Is there a place I can bet money on the outcomes in individual states? I may do that this time. But I need directions on how to participate.

    Also, I worry about this election too. The biggest question though at the moment is which electorate shows up to vote.

    If there is turnout like that in 08′, perhaps turnout that exceeds it, Obama not only wins, he wins decisively. If the turnout is as likely voter polls project, it’s a close race that could easily flip one way or the other. This also includes whether there is large Latino turnout. Those national polling attributes actually will atually tell you whether Obama has a chance at succeeding.

    Anyway, not much we can do to actually change or affect polls. Best to take each one with appropriate grain of salt.


  38. The tables won’t come up for this morning’s YG Poll.

    Net Approval is -25 , from -35!!

    Seems too big a shift in one go ? Q3 GDP can’t have caused that surely?

  39. Con 35, Lab 42, Lib 9, UKIP 7
    Approval -25 (massive jump from -34)

    Net Approval:
    Cameron -16 (+3)
    Miliband -16 (+2)
    Clegg -53 (+3)

    Pure Approval
    Cameron 39 (+2)
    Miliband 36 (+3)
    Clegg 19 (+2)

    Coalition managing the economy well?
    Well – 36 (+5)
    Badly – 55 (-3)

    State of the economy?
    Good – 9 (+4)
    Bad – 71 (-7)

    How much confidence, in any, do you have in David Cameron and the coalition government to steer the country out of the current economic crisis?
    Confident – 37 (+4)
    Not confident – 57 (-5)

    So, unsurprisingly, big improvement on economic figures for the government.

  40. Got the tables up now.

    Net Approval -35 to -25
    Managing economy -27 to -19
    Economy good /bad?-66 to -55
    Confidence , Govt will steer out of crisis -29 to -20

    These look distinctly like the effects of economic news-and outside MoE.

    But what do I know?

    Await AW’s analysis with interest.

  41. I’ll do AW’s analysis for him:

    “There may have been a GDP bounce…but how big or whether we have had one at all, we will have to wait for a few more polls to make a judgement…”

  42. COLIN and NICK P.
    I think there are dangers and opportunities here.

    If the economic bounce stops or slows down badly it will be worse news for the Cons and Lib Dems. Peoples’ expectations will have been raised and then dashed.

    If the recovery is sustained, it should be good news for the Governing Parties. James Lansdale pointed out, however, that the post ERM recovery did not help John Major.

    Against that argument, nevertheless, is the point that Labour was led by a man called Tonyy Blair who had powerful electoral appeal. What happened to him?

  43. Socal & others

    I don’t quite understand the confidence of you and others that Obama will win. Until the first debate, he did look like doing so, but his performance then was so bad that support for Romney has now surged.

    According to the RCP website, the latest opinion polls in the US presidential election suggest that it is too close to call. Romney’s 1% lead in the national vote gives the impression to undecided voters that he has a good chance of wlnning (even though this is not the way the election is decided). The electoral college is divided 201 Obama/Biden, 191 Romney/Ryan and “Toss Ups” 146 – these are states where the candidates’ projected vote share differs by less than 5%. Various commentators on this site assume that Obama will win many of these states, but RCP is not committing itself, and the leads are well within the MOE. With the winning target being 270, it seems to me that everything is still to play for.

    Domestically, I guess that Romney would be a breath of fresh air, as he ticks the 3 Rs (right, radical, republican), but as a non-US national, I am concerned about his more interventionist approach to foreign policy, which differs from traditional GOP values.

    By the way, I wonder how many voters subconsciously note the similarity between Obama/Biden and Osama bin Laden! This may have a subliminal effect on how they eventually vote.

  44. “By the way, I wonder how many voters subconsciously note the similarity between Obama/Biden and Osama bin Laden! This may have a subliminal effect on how they eventually vote.”
    Didn’t hurt him in 2008?

    Also, is there a reason you pretty much copied and pasted your post from 10am yesterday?

  45. The problem with RCP and Gallup and Rasmussen polls is that, are far as I can see, they fail to correct properly for biases amongst their sampling.

    538 and ppp and YouGov do a better job of it and they seem to have Obama slightly ahead…not a huge margin but consistent and in comfortable territory.

    If you believe PCP and Gallup Romney is going to win. I don’t.

  46. David Rothschild has some comments about how YouGov research with xbox users may help to understand recent shifts in robopolls:


    In this article he looks at the “bandwagon effect”:


  47. @ Tinged Fringe

    In 2008, there was no real contest – Obama was going to win all along and had massive support from certain groups. His supporters are likely to have been disappointed by his lack of achievement in office and are less likely to vote for him this time.

    Apologies to those who had read much of it before, but I partly repeated my post as some commentators have been continuing to over-interpret polling results that are within the MOE.

  48. daodao

    I don’t see nuch of a contest on the 538 site. There will be a contest in Florida and Romney may well take it, but that won’t be nearly enough.

  49. @daodao – “Romney’s 1% lead in the national vote gives the impression to undecided voters that he has a good chance of wlnning…”

    John Sides has a piece about that:


1 4 5 6 7