Many forecasted that Mitt Romney would defeat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election. They were wrong. Some of those who were incorrect took it in stride and admitted as much. Others, such as Twitter sensation and National Review blogger Josh Jordan (akaNumbersMuncher), decided that their logic was sound, and it was only because of Superstorm Sandy that Obama won.
At first glance, their logic seems to makes some sense. Obama got good Sandy press, highlighted by nice photos with and words from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Polls indicated that Americans approved of Obama's Sandy response. The national polls were biased against Obama, and even some of the state polls were too pro-Obama compared to the final results.
The question is whether the polls indicate that Obama gained in the final days. We can figure this out by comparing pre- and post-Sandy pre-election surveys.
Examining the data in that manner finds that the Sandy theory for Obama's rise is fatally flawed. The majority of polls did not show great movement to the president after Sandy.
The two most accurate national polls were consistent in pegging Obama at a mid single-digit victory. Ten days before Sandy, Democracy Corps had Obama leading by 3 points. In the days after Sandy, Obama gained a statistically insignificant 1pt after Sandy, to be up by 4pt. Rand actually had Obama's lead falling from 5.1pt just prior to Sandy, to 3.3pt in their final tracking poll.
No comments:
Post a Comment