The US elections are over, so back to domestic concerns. The weekly TNS BMRB voting intention poll is out and shows very little movement from last week, topline figures are CON 31%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 8%. Meanwhile the daily YouGov poll for the Sun this morning had topline voting intentions of CON 35%, LAB 42%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 7%. The Labour lead is at the bottom end of YouGov’s normal range, but it is probably just normal sample variation.

183 Responses to “New YouGov and TNS BMRB polls”

1 2 3 4
  1. But what does Rassmussen say?

  2. rasmussen says tories with 20% lead and going to win 2015 election by a landslide lol

  3. Going over the results and from last night and realising very little has changed.

    Barack has kept the Presidency, and I am £20 better off thank you Barack.
    But the Democrats extended their grip on the Senate and the Republicans secured their grip on the House. So Obama is going to have trouble passing legislation.

    It’s good to see that Maine and Maryland have voted to allow Gay Marriage, it really puts an end to the homophobes argument that it never wins at the ballot box.

    Slightly more worrying was 2 states voting to legalise recreational cannabis. I know the Republicans are opposed to the legalisation, but are Democrats in favour? I’m really not in favour of the legalisation of any drugs.

  4. AW

    Forgive me, I am quite pleased this morning, and so perhaps that exuberance caused me to use the words “good to see” when observing that a candidate advocating increasing taxes on the very well off had won. Clearly a capital offence. However, as it’s very relevant as a critique of Peter Kellner’s recent interpretation of YouGov’s poll for Progress, which IMO couldn’t have been wider of the mark, I think the point is relevant to this site.

    I’m afraid that I can’t be bothered now to repeat any of the other comments on the polling performance of 538, Gallup and constituency/marginal/regional polling.

  5. AW

    Apologies – I mistakenly thought for a moment that you had deleted that comment on the previous thread.

  6. Rassmussen presumably are known for getting predictions wrong, as I couldn’t see any comments of theirs about the Tories.

    On a separate subject, it is funny that when Nick Clegg gets his turn at PMQ’s, Labour ask him about Lib Dem issues or issues where he would be supporting Tory policy changes. I suppose it makes sense for Labour electorally/polling, as it shows where Labour differ from the Lib Dems and also questions the divisions in the coalition.

    Not sure it works in terms of polling, unless Labour score a goal by getting PMQ’s onto the news channels.

  7. I was surprised how well clegg did after a very poor start, but it sounds like he has a sore throat.

  8. RiN

    I agree.

    He did

  9. yes r huckle i was making a sarcastic point about rasmussen who consistently have a conservative bias in their polling,at one stage predicting a romney landslide

  10. @Phil

    I agree with your criticism of the usual line trotted out by Kellner/Progress. As I said at the time, the questions to me in that poll weren’t wide-ranging enough (and I’m suspicious that was done purposely) to give a true reflection of people’s opinions. Just seemed like an exercise in finding that working-class voters weren’t that favourable on immigration, foreign aid at a time of crippling austerity, and higher taxes on them. Oh and the middle-class were equally as supportive in nationalising trains, so the working class must be more right-wing and unlikely to support traditional Labour policies.

  11. “The US elections are over, so back to domestic concerns”


    What about the Chinese appointing a new leader? ;)

    Anyway back to domestic concerns, I see the libs are on 14% in the Scottish sub sample but of course sub samples are best ignored anyway. :)

  12. So, the winners were
    * Nate Silver
    * Peter Kellner/YouGov
    * CNN
    * RCP
    * UKPollingReport

    The losers were
    * Karl Rove
    * Tim Stanley
    * Rasmussen/Gallup
    * BBC.

    And a special prize of the box-set of Season 5 of “South Park” goes to
    Rob S… :-)

    Regards, Martyn

  13. Did the BBC really say they thought Romney would win? I thought the BBC was very Pro Obama, a lot of the negative stories about Obama we didn’t really here about.

  14. I do find the BBC have a lot of factual errors when reporting the American election.

    For example

    They weren’t booing because they were losing, they were booing because of Candy Crowley being on screen and she was the debate moderator who inserted herself into the debate and sided with Obama.

  15. 3rd Yougov poll in a row to give Con’s 35%. A trend forming?

  16. No. I wasn’t saying the BBC was inaccurate or biased. My point was that the BBC was slow, had the ludicrous Jeremy Vine, and had a televised presentation consisting of self-appointed experts speaking words you had to listen to, wheras I increasingly find myself consuming news via online presentations consisting of enthusiasts writing sentences you have to read.

    Although the BBC web design, graphic design and graphic technologies are really world-class, and I find its commentators interesting to listen to, I’m beginning to think that its news delivery model is out of date. In ten years time, will we still be watching 4 people and a Dimbleby/Wheeler/Snow nepotist sitting around a table reacting poorly to the events as they unfold?

    Regards, Martyn

  17. Before Anthony administers his usual admonition, the only excerpt of PMQ on the news was the question about Madnads and her rumble in the jungle.

    So I doubt whether that will have any VI effect. :-)

  18. To be fair I got the impression the BBC were trying to make it look like a tight race. (Getting excited about Indiana going Republican for example).

    But really, as most of us already knew – thanks to sites like 528 – it was going to be an Obama win.

    And at no time during the night did it look otherwise.

  19. @Martyn

    Agreed, the BBC were rubbish. Just a bunch of talking heads doing their best to ignore the implications of the data as it came in, in favour of their own opinions of not very much in particular and generally irrelevant interviews with all and sundry. CNN were very good – their focus on comparative county level results leading for example to an early conclusion that Florida would eventually go to Obama, even though they didn’t call it (once bitten?).

    I’m jealous of those who could watch the unfolding disbelief on Fox – that must have been priceless.

  20. @Martyn
    Good points. I thought BBC coverage was boring and I wondered if I was watching Question Time or similar. Yawn. Made me long for the old-fashioned swingometer and simple number crunching.

  21. @SoCalLiberal

    Thanks for breaking the news. I’d like to see all the votes counted, but according to the Desert Sun:

    “Bono Mack early this morning said based on historic voting trends, she expected Ruiz to prevail.”

    Bono Mack, a Republican from Palm Springs who has served the Coachella Valley in Congress since 1998, called the night “somewhat surreal.”

    “There’s no Republican wave,” she said as results worsened nationally for the GOP Tuesday. “I think we thought there would be.”

    I have to say I was far from confident about this particular race after they flew an ex-FBI guy in to rubbish Ruiz, and a bunch of law enforcement associations followed suit. But then again Bono Mack was also getting heat… this time from Indian Country (as one blogger put it).

    I guess many Republicans believed the hype about how close it was, and are feeling a bit shell-shocked today – not least Mary and Connie, a double helping of defeat for them today. I’m kind of hoping a friend of theirs throws a party for them. ;)

  22. Does anyone know if Nate Silver is in a relationship? Because I’m thinking of proposing to him.

  23. @ Martyn

    “So, the winners were
    * Nate Silver
    * Peter Kellner/YouGov
    * CNN
    * RCP
    * UKPollingReport

    The losers were
    * Karl Rove
    * Tim Stanley
    * Rasmussen/Gallup
    * BBC.

    And a special prize of the box-set of Season 5 of “South Park” goes to
    Rob S…

    Regards, Martyn”

    Lol. I needed that this morning. Yes, I love going to bed already wiped out at 3 am only to have the maintenance man ring my doorbell at 8:45 am and then not be able to get back to sleep despite bein extremely tired. But not to worry, I’m still going to be late for work and miss some good payable hours. Fun times.

    Yes, UK Polling Report was a winner. Makes me glad that I’m spending time on a site with such smart people (for the most part anyway). I think any discussions about the popular vote are premature btw since a good deal of the popular vote remains uncounted though it’s fairly clear that Obama has won over 50% of the vote for a second time in a row, a feat only accomplished by FDR. He won the electoral college decisively. This wasn’t a nailbiter.

    The winners are also the pathetic news media. You know, their pathetic political analysis was always something that seemed like incompetence. Now I think it was intentional; just designed to push ratings and they probably got them.


    @ Billy Bob and Howard

    Don’t know if you saw my comment on the last thread. Ruiz won. I sent him a congratulatory text message this morning.

    Waxman won too btw. I thought he was going to lose early on, was quite frightened when I saw him down with 25% of precincts reporting. I decided to go to bed (rare for me) when I learned that there was a fog-in over Santa Monica preventing ballots from being flown to Norwalk (delaying vote totals from the westside). Woke up and Henry has won.

    Wow, the wealthiest Congressional District in the United States just voted to reelect one of the most liberal (and economically progressive) members of the House. Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt would be proud.

  24. “3rd Yougov poll in a row to give Con’s 35%. A trend forming?”

    Yes Stan I’m starting to think this could be more than just a sampling error. The Corby by-election isn’t going to help, and we’re likely to have a battering next May, but recovery could be on the way long term.

  25. @Ozwald

    “I thought BBC coverage was boring and I wondered if I was watching Question Time or similar. Yawn. ”

    Yes, I agree and surely it’s time they shuffled old David Dimbleby off into the long grass, isn’t it? He’s well past his sell-by date now and presents these election night shows as if he’s still expecting Harold MacMillan to drop in for an interview with Robin Day. Ditto Question Time where he’s making an already dated format seem even more obsolete than it is. He’s been a good old boy, and I know that the Dimbleby dynasty is akin to Royalty within BBC corridors, but it’s time to go now.

  26. Very interesting theories about what Obama does to break the gridlock. Here’s a theory from this site:

    Here is how it will happen. On the morning of November 7, a reelected President Obama will do ? nothing. For the next 53 days, nothing. And then, on January 1, 2013, we will all awake to a different, substantially more liberal country. The Bush tax cuts will have disappeared, restoring Clinton-era tax rates and flooding government coffers with revenue to fund its current operations for years to come. The military will be facing dire budget cuts that shake the military-industrial complex to its core. It will be a real-world approximation of the old liberal bumper-sticker fantasy in which schools have all the money they require and the Pentagon needs to hold a bake sale.

    All this can come to pass because, while Obama has spent the last two years surrendering short-term policy concessions, he has been quietly hoarding a fortune in the equivalent of a political trust fund that comes due on the first of the year. At that point, he will reside in a political world he finds at most mildly uncomfortable and the Republicans consider a hellish dystopia. Then he’ll be ready to make a deal.

  27. @ Billy Bob

    This news makes me happy. Republican obstructionism in California has harmed our state economically for 20 years. They’re now irrelevant. They’re going the way of Scottish Tories. Now the state can actually properly balance its books and pass budgets on time and fund programs. Unbelievable.

    I’m most happy about the end of the Three Strikes Law. Praise the lord, praise the lord, praise the lord! Well not the end, but the reform of it (violent offenders still need to be locked up). Great night for criminal justice!

    @ Old Nat

    The proposition to end the death penalty failed. But not by much. Right now, it’s 52.8% opposed and 47.2% in favor. I’m kinda glad it lost but I’m satisfied that I voted with the 47.2%. I think that it will come back and be done properly. I think that the best steps actually are to start limiting the application of the death penalty further. For example, let’s limit it only to those offenders above the age of 25 or 26. Also, perhaps we should start implementing a tighter burden of proof for such cases. That’s a more gradualist way to go but probably will be more successful (and I know you’re a gradualist).

  28. NickP I think you are engaged in a bit of wishful thinking there. The Fiscal Cliff will hurt both Democrats and Republicans, if it was easy as you say then why would Obama not have done it sooner?

    Also to allocate all these extra funds to the schools, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) they need to pass a budget, something which hasn’t been accomplished in all 4 of Obama’s years. (I don’t think Executive Orders can push through budgets.)

    Similar to the EU budget. Both US and EU budgets are in deadlock because both sides of the debate have vetoes and are unwilling to budge.

    The Republican leader, Speaker Boehner has said that he is going to stay firm and not allow for any Tax rises, how do you negotiate with that, when Democrats say there will have to be some tax rises?

    Both sides blamed each other for the debt ceiling fiasco, but now looking at 2012, that doesn’t seem to have had any impact, the Republicans got voted back in the House, and the Democrats got back in on the Senate.

  29. Maninmiddle

    What happens is the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and “automatic” spending cuts come in…including massive defence cuts. Of Obama holds his nerve he will be collecting more tax from the rich to pay for programmes for the poor…but the stuff the republicans love will be starved of cash.

    They do a deal his way or they get the blame…again.

  30. In fact, winning the election takes every trump or court card away from teh Republicans, and most of their stake money.

    They gambled all-in on kicking him out in one hand and the voters gave Obama an extra deal.

    He can just buy the pot now.

  31. NickP

    You say they get the blame again? But they weren’t really harmed the first time. They’re still there in control of the House. If they’ve all just been voted back in, why would they feel the need to succumb to the President. And as I said, in order to spend this extra money they need to pass a budget, which requires House approval. As far as I’m aware, Executive Orders don’t cover budget measures.

    There is spending cuts in there that the Democrats will hate as well, it was done on balance, by both sides to try and force a deal, as both sides will suffer under the cuts that go through. Social Security is part of the instant cuts that go into effect.

    That’s what was confusing about the elections last night. The country seems to have narrowly back Obama by 2%, but decided that the Democrats should keep the Senate and Republicans keep the House. Not so much a plague on either house, but a continuation of the gridlocked status quo.

  32. But Nick, Republicans won an election too, the country is divided.

    Think of it this way, Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister and Labour has a majority in the Lords but all the MP’s are Tories.

  33. Guys, I have to get going and head to work now but I’ll be back on later to respond to your comments and discuss this further with you.

    You know, the Republicans maintaining control of the House last night was pretty sad news to me. But it may be good news for the economy and the United States electorate may wind up validating Gordon Brown’s theory of economics as a result. Now is not the time for massive tax increases and massive spending cuts. Had Mitt Romney won and brought in a GOP Senate, we might have seen Cameron/Osborne level stupidity and massive cuts. I love Nancy Pelosi but had she become Speaker again, she would have pushed for soaking the rich in taxes. Neither is a good option. Neither will happen now. We need government spending focused on stimulating economic growth and creating private sector jobs. Not a whole lot is going to get done over the next 2 years but we will have better economic policy.

    Btw, it’s now official. Democrats will gain Senate seats. That’s pretty astounding considering what happenned in this cycle. I think we did gain in the House but don’t know how much yet. Still a lot of races to call. Obviously John Boehner will be back (a good thing as he’s generally incompetent).

    Also, more IMPORTANTLY. I just want to thank so many of you here for being so kind to me through this very difficult election cycle. I appreciated your well wishes and supportive comments throughought and many of you were truly insightful (far more than angst ridden or angry American Liberals).

    So even though it is sadly now too big on me, I’m going to wear my Turnbull and Asser shirt today to work in a tribute to you lovely, wonderful British bloggers (who teach me so much and put up with a foreigner making clueless comments about their politics). Thanks. :)

  34. You didn’t read the article, did you, MiM?

    If no deal is done, the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire and spending cuts become automatic…but the President can keep paying for the Poor programmes as the Defence budget evaporates.

    Nothing further has to happen. The fiscal cliff ain’t a cliff, a few months will sort out the republicans.

  35. Nick

    I saw Howard dean saying about the same thing last night, I think he said that the best way of dealing with the fiscal cliff was to just let it happen. But there is nervousness among the left that Obama will do a grand bargain which will include social security cuts

  36. We’ll see.

    Obama has nothing to lose now, has he?

  37. Vaguely glad Obama won although I don’t really see what the fuss was about,, it’s not that he will be able to bring in any mayor reforms in the next four years it may have been a more dynamic presidency if the democrats had won the whole thing but they didn’t.
    On top of that the tax bill’s will begin to rise next year with the real likely hood of rising unemployment and a slide back into recession, and that trillions of dollars of debt will need to be paid down so no new brave world just yet, my guess is that in fairly short order he will be another lame duck president seeing out his time as is the fate of most second term presidents who don’t control the house. Oh well there’s always the golf course.

  38. Rin I’m sure Social Security Cuts are in the automatic cuts.

    The automatic cuts were designed to be offensive to both parties to try and force them to a compromise.

    And as for “pay for Poor programmes as the Defence budget evaporates.He can’t give anything extra to them than is already enshrined in law without congress approval.

    If what you are saying were true Nick, then why are the Democrats afraid of the cliff as well?

    It is one of the blessings of our system that whoever wins, usually has the numbers to get stuff done. America sent a mixed message last night, it had 2 nationwide elections, in one they voted for the Democrat Obama, in the other they voted for the Republican House of Representatives.

  39. The Democrats are afraid of the fiscal stimulus stopping and going back into recession.

    But the recovery proceeds anyway, and QE proceeds afoot.

  40. NickP

    I think Obama will use the 2nd term to build more of a legacy. He has auto/bailout, Obamacare, DADT, and Osama under his belt in the first 2 years. But I think he will want to accomplish more over the 4 years.

    I am actually slightly hopeful that the Republicans won’t be so obstructionist because they are no longer trying to make him a 1 term President, and he will be more accomodating in return as he no longer has to worry about re-election.

    That’s me being very optimistic though. I wouldn’t be surprised if the deadlock continued until 2014, with Dems shouting “Reps are blocking us” and Reps shouting “Dems are blocking us”

  41. Next time out (2014?) Obama will have the House of Representatives.

    it’s a game of chicken. Who blinks first? And now Obama can let deals fail and blame the republicans because he offered them everything they wanted last time and everybody “knows” them tea party republicans are stubborn. If they go to the wall supporting tax cuts for the rich and raised defence spending while chopping everything else, that ain’t going to win many seats.

    They have given the whole deck to Obama now.

  42. If I’m being honest I would had voted Republican if I lived in the US but as an outsider I prefer the Democrats. They are not as hawkish as the Republicans and world leaders tend to get on with them better.

    Putin must be swinging fae the Kremlin rafters!!

  43. @SoCalLiberal

    That is good news about Henry Waxman, and Julia Brownley. When I was looking earlier today I could only really be sure about sweet-voiced jammin’ Jared Huffman.

    You received a lot of thank-yous on the previous thread – your participation on this board is a real boon, immeasurably increasing our sense of how US politics opperates with your conscientious replies to every query. I also think you were carrying the hopes and fears of a fair few of us here when you set out with your knapsack early Tuesdsay to protect the vote.

  44. MiM

    I don’t know enough about it but as I understand it the cuts to military spending are huge and the tax increases very painful. With the reps only having the house it would seem that the dems have got them over a barrel, of course if they had picked up senate seats instead of losing them the reps would have had more clout, even worse for the reps is that the new intake of senators is much more partisan that before. For instance Joe lebierman often voted with the reps but has been replaced with a harder line rookie and of course miss warren will be in the senate providing much needed backbone to the democratic cause.

  45. “Obama can let deals fail and blame the republicans because he offered them everything they wanted last time and everybody “knows” them tea party republicans are stubborn. If they go to the wall supporting tax cuts for the rich and raised defence spending while chopping everything else, that ain’t going to win many seats.”

    That sounds exactly like what happened in the last congress. I’ll be honest I can’t really make sense of why some Americans voted as they did, but they did and that’s what matters.

    The way the numbers stack up means a sizeable number of voters said I back Obama’s stance I want him in the Whitehouse, I back the Republicans stance I want them in the House of Representatives. It just makes no sense. Surely with things becoming more and more polarized you are one or the other?

    For example Colorado, President Obama won, but in the House of Representatives, Republicans won. I know Colorado just legalised Pot, but even if you’re high you shouldn’t make a decision like that.

  46. MinM

    Nice to see you’re on first name terms with President Obama.

  47. Numbers don’t matter where a Veto is concerned. The Senate races were bad for Republicans but they can argue they only reflect 1/3 of the country.

    The UK has an EU budget veto among 27 states, even if all 26 want a budget increase, as long as we stay firm and say no, then it just rolls over with inflation.

    Similar to The Us System, to pass anything, you need all 3 branches to agree. Representatives, Senate, President, think of it as a circuit, you can’t make it work unless all 3 components are in together.

    The fact that nothing really changed last night means that no side really has a mandate over the other. At the moment Republicans may have lost between 0-9 seats out of 435 in the House. Hardly a shift in mandate. Equally, they would argue that small loss is offset by Obama’s electoral college small losses.

    Both have retained power, both a little less so than they did last time. Picking up a Net of 2 Senate seats doesn’t really give either side a mandate especially as when 2 of those pick ups were big shocks when they went Red, and have just returned to Blue. Whether there’s 47 Republicans in the Senate or 45 I don’t think there will be a big difference.

  48. Yes Paulcroft, Barack, Hillary, John, Sarah, Bill, Mitt and I all go way back.

  49. Heard nothing so far today from Janet Daley. It would have been interesting for her to write about why she was so wrong, but journalists never do own up to their mistakes.

    On the BBC coverage, it was very poor (like all UK networks) and they are still getting it wrong today by reporting that the winning margin was greater than expected – it wasn’t, as most pollsters seemed to get it about right.

    I wrote a half serious post about why US election night is so boring compared to our own a couple of threads ago, but after I switched to CNN it became a good old fashioned election experience.

    Where I think the UK networks really fall down is that they don’t do the numbers. This is the first US election I’ve seen where I have digital TV and laptop, so I could easily pick up reports of individual precincts, counts, exit polls and turnout. BBC missed most of that, and as that is the point of election night coverage, no wonder it was dull.

    If the BBC are listening, I suggest you negotiate a tie up with CNN or some other network next time so you can actually give us some coverage.

  50. MinM

    I take it they all just refer to you as “Man” also?

    Tres informal

1 2 3 4