Nate Silver says it's too soon to see if rmoney got a bump in the polls.

[mucifer]

My gut feeling is President's Obama's numbers will take a dive. Anyway, here is what Nate said:

Oct. 4: Too Soon to Gauge Impact of Debate on Polls
By NATE SILVER
This might be bad for business — but you probably ought not to pay too much attention to the numbers you see in the right-hand column of this blog over the next day or two.

It’s just too soon answer the question of what impact Wednesday night’s debate in Denver, which instant-reaction polls judged to be a clear win for Mitt Romney, will have on the head-to-head polls.

The Gallup and Rasmussen Reports national tracking polls as they were published on Thursday, for instance, reveal nothing at all about the debate, since only a tiny fraction of their interviews were conducted after its conclusion.

To the extent there was a tempting nugget of information, it was from the Ipsos online tracking poll. That survey broke out results from interviews that it conducted after the debate, and found Mr. Romney trailing Mr. Obama, 43 percent to 48 percent, among those voters.
Read more… http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/oct-4-too-soon-to-gauge-impact-of-debate-on-polls/

[vi5]

1. I think he'll take a hit as well

And I'd say if he loses the election, that will be the moment he lost it. He had a commanding and solid lead and all anyone was talking about was Romney's incompetent campaign and how unlikeable he is. I think O can still recover and I don't necessarily think that this is going to be the end. But if he doesn't recover it would be hard to find a clearer cut moment to pinpoint when he lost what most people agreed was in the bag.

Again, not saying I think this is going to be the case but if it is, it won't be hard to determine when it was lost.

[TroyD]

3. Isn't it over for Mitt Romney this morning?

Unemployment is down to 7.8%

If Obama was winning all year when it was above 8%, how does he lose when it falls to this level?

[vi5]

4. That number is too vague...

People need tangibles. Yeah, it's good news no doubt about it. And I hope it's what was needed to recover from the bad debate. But I'm skeptical that will be enough to do it for enough people.

Again...I hope. Just not entirely sure or confident in the American voting public.

[TroyD]

5. Obama was WINNING when it was above 8%

So doesn't he win if it falls below that?

[vi5]

6. You make it sound as though...

voters, particularly the "undecideds" who determine these close races actually use reason and clear cut issues to base their votes on. It would be nice if they did. But it's not a one to one thing that they can tie directly to Obama the way they can these idiotic personality things and popularity contest bullshit that decides it.

[TroyD]

7. Obama has been ahead all along with an 8% number over his head

It doesn't make sense that Obama wouldn't get re-elected when things are now getting even better.

Yes, I know there are some illogical voters.

But this is the best news of the year so far. How can it have anything but a positive impact?

[vi5]

8. It should have a positive impact....

But will it outweigh all the other bullshit that gets slung around in elections.

Again, I'm on your side and I hope it does. But I still worry about all the other noise going on and the crap that does influence people's votes and views.

[a kennedy]

2. Screw the numbers from the debate.....

the POTUS just knocked Mitwit off the stage.....

[courseofhistory]

9. ?

How?

[a kennedy]

13. I guess by the imporving employment numbers and the 7.8 unemployment numbers.....

"knocked him off the stage" as in no one cares now about the debate. My bad.....didn't go over as well as I thought.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. This whole thread is ridiculously bad...

No president has ever lost reelection because of a bad debate performance. It just hasn't happened. Some have taken hits, but none have lost because of the debates ... it just doesn't happen that way. Even Ford was behind in the polls when he made the gaffe and so was Carter in '80 and Bush in '92.

So, stop with the hysterics already. This debate isn't going to decide shit.

[CitizenPatriot]

11. not to mention that historically

challengers get a bump from just standing next to the President. Romney isn't going to win because he lied his way through one debate and appeared to win. Plus the prevailing "moment" to come out of that debate is the big bird moment per media tracking. That doesn't bode well for Romney either.

[Doctor Jack]

14. Absolutely

I posted two threads a day before the debate. One talking about how there is no evidence that the debates have any impact on the election and one saying that Romney was likely to have a significant, short term bump around this time but that it would fade quickly. Of course when things play out exactly like that, the sky is falling and the last 18 months of this election no longer matter.

The people here need to grab a drink and get a grip. No one has ever lost the presidency because they lost one debate. That just isn't how this works and the highly predictable bump that the challenger gets post debate is completely meaningless.

Just ignore the polls and the talking heads for the next week or so if you can't handle it.

[pbrower2a]

12. Win the debate on Wednesday night, but the material bites back

Mitt Romney bullied the moderator, and he left copious material for the Obama campaign.

President Obama is a trained attorney, and he knows not to shout "liar" when the liar is compounding his lies.