Polls: it's all about inertia

[andym]

Whenever a major political event impacts, then the movable portion of the electorate responds and continues to move in that direction until another event occurs or the "friction" of decided voters stops the movement. This is political inertia, American style. The polls lag by 3-7 days behind the event. So you can safely ignore polls for the next few days.

The first big movement came after the Democratic convention, a perfectly executed political event that explained how much good the President's policies have done, that pushed the movable electorate toward the President and the Democrats. It's effect lasted for days and then stabilized as the friction of decided and "not ready to decide yet" voters kicked in.

The second big movement came after Romney's debate performance, where he managed to convince enough of the movable electorate that he was a "strong leader" (according to the polls) who was "not as bad" for the middle class as he been previously effectively painted by the Obama campaign (and his own words in the video tape). Have no doubt that he was trying to channel Reagan just as Michael Moore tweeted. That's intentional for many reasons, since he is trying to make this election Reagan-Carter II. The inertia from that event had lasted until the VP debate.

If we're lucky, it means that the polls before the first debate are indicative of what a Democratic victory looks like, and the current polls (which are almost tied, but still leaning Democratic) are indicative of the best that Romney can do. Although, it is unclear what role the good jobs report is playing to prevent Romney from getting his maximum movement. Certainly the jobs report is increasing consumer confidence, and it should have some positive impact on the numbers as well, helping the President.

Biden's strong showing in the VP debate should stop Romney's momentum (if it wasn't already stopping by "friction&quot , especially in the likely voter category as enthusiasm for the President will increase. By Tuesday we should have a good sense of where the election stands.

Then it's time for the next major impact. I expect the President will show off his leadership abilities and contrast the real differences between his policies and Romney's severe conservatism. He will take credit for what he's accomplished and promise a brighter future. Romney will be evading everything that appears immoderate and trying to act Reaganesque. Expect Obama to tell him that he is full of it in a humorous way. The polls should then respond and we'll see we really stand as this new impact takes hold.

[Dawson Leery]

1. Mondale cut Reagan's lead by 7 points only to lose those gains in the end.

The same may very well occur with Obama.

[andym]

2. I am hoping that Romney is like Mondale of 1984

if that's what you're saying. And what cost Reagan those 7% points was that he was terrible in that first debate. Reagan couldn't seem to remember anything and he was very passive. Probably the worst debate performance ever.

One thing though is that Mondale was terrific in all the debates, far better than Romney was in the first debate this year. It was just that Reagan was too popular for Mondale to prevail.

[Dawson Leery]

3. A 5 point win would be excellent at this point.

If the pre-debate numbers are what we return to, of course.

[bemildred]

4. Unfalsifiable bullshit.

There is no such thing as "momentum" or inertia in politics, this is not physics, and it's not anything like physics. In politics things crystallize, emerge, unexpectedly, like in Tunisia or Egypt, or 2008, a phase change, not steering a car. People see the sequential correlation of events in quiet times and think that's how it is, but they are wrong, that is not how it is.

But in this case the notion is pure bullshit, a theory based on the idea that future will be like the present, which is both wrong and useless as a predicter of something you might need to know..

[Cosmocat]

5. OP is spot on

I have run for office and have been a witness to politics, and there absolutely is a momentum to the collective public opinion, and the explanation of this race is accurate, too.

BO had a slow, growing momentum from the conventions and including the 47% tape that was building toward a pretty marked win.

I hate it, I hate having to admit it to myself, but the debate clearly has altered the current trajectory of the race.

HOPEFULLY the good economic numbers and Joe Biden's efforts two nights ago have stemmed that.

But, this race is very likely to be decided on Tuesday.

[bemildred]

6. Ah, you have faith, how nice. nt

[Cosmocat]

7. Not sure what good sticking your head in the sand does

condescending tone does not change reality.

[bemildred]

8. Bald assertions of onmiscience deserve bald assertions of error.

You have a lot of chutzpah to talk about condescending tones.

[Cosmocat]

9. Says

the person whose reply title was ...

unfalsiable bullshit ...

[bemildred]

10. Please see post #8. nt

[andym]

11. It's not physics, but the inertial hypothesis is quite falsifiable in specific cases

like the Presidential election and it can be even be tested using $$$ on prediction sites like Intrade. If one believes an event will produce a delayed inertial response, then one can make some money using that information, given that traders on Intrade use current polls to handicap their bets. So, using the inertial principle one can take advantage of the several day delay in assessing the election and for a consensus to be form in the polls, which eventually translate into price changes at Intrade. For example, given the snap polls and media response to the first debate, one could bet that in about 7 days, the polls would look differently than they did before, and that would effect the price of Romney and Obama shares on the Intrade market in the obvious way. Then, after the VP debate one may decide to alter one's prediction accordingly after allowing the 3-5 days for the event to take hold.

It's falsifiable in that if the inertial hypothesis is incorrect or "bs" as you say, you will not make any money, and likely lose $$$. Of course, one needs multiple events to prove this idea right-- but there is plenty of historical data to look at, and that's why the inertial hypothesis is essentially just conventional wisdom, and not at all original or deep.

[geek tragedy]

12. The bandwagon effect and horse race coverage is a self-sustaining cycle.

Campaigns that are winning get described as winning. If you're winning, that improves your press coverage, people's estimation of you, etc. everyone loves a winner, and people want to be on the winning team.

In contrast, if you're losing, you get questions like "why are you losing" and "what are you going to change, given that what you're doing doesn't work.". In campaigns, then donations dry up, supporters get demoralized, etc.

That's the really awful thing about that debate---Romney was on the ropes, and we could have knocked him out. Instead, our guy hit the canvas.

[bemildred]

13. Right, like a twig in the current.

"Ooooh, it went that way, that way is winning, oooooh, it went the other way, the other way is winning."

The fact that you eventually get some outcomes does not mean that whatever it was you were reading as tea leaves is actually the cause of the outcome that happened, or a good predicter of what will happen. If you pay any attention, you see that it shifts back and forth like a weathervane, but nobody says the weathervane determines where the wind will blow next.

[geek tragedy]

14. Some races are like that. Others get away. nt

[bemildred]

15. Right, but how do you know until it happens?

Answer: you really don't.