PDA

View Full Version : General Politics National Tracking Polls: Romney +6 in Last Week


RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 12:21 PM
Strange. I thought all of these Romney gaffes had killed his campaign.

Rasmussen Last Week: Obama: 50, Romney: 46
Rasmussen This Week: Obama: 45, Romney: 47

Gallup Last Week: Obama: 50, Romney: 43
Gallup This Week: Obama: 47, Romney: 46

Given the huge pick-ups Romney makes when Likely Voter filters are applied, I'd say the Gallup and Rasmussen numbers are probably close to, if not exactly, the same.

Let's see if Obama gets another bounce from the 47% remark (doubt it, but we'll see) and how quickly that one fades...

BucEyedPea
09-18-2012, 12:52 PM
Yeah, but what about electoral votes by state—national tracking isn't enough. Does show a trend though.

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 12:57 PM
State polls show something complete different. Like the one today with Obama up by 8 in Virginia.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 01:05 PM
State polls show something complete different. Like the one today with Obama up by 8 in Virginia.

Did you see the party ID breakdown?

As for state polls you have Romney up 1 in Florida and up 2 in Colorado just today.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 01:06 PM
Yeah, but what about electoral votes by state—national tracking isn't enough. Does show a trend though.

Also, the candidate that wins the national vote wins the election 97.5% of the time.

suzzer99
09-18-2012, 02:03 PM
You are either some kind of shill or a very very confused person.

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 02:10 PM
Did you see the party ID breakdown?

As for state polls you have Romney up 1 in Florida and up 2 in Colorado just today.

Lol Rasmussen


United Press International (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/16/UPI-Poll-Obama-holds-lead-over-Romney/UPI-69521347819340/): Obama 49%, Romney 45%.

Reuters/Ipsos (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-campaign-poll-idINBRE88G1BV20120917): Obama 48%, Romney 43%.

Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx): Obama 47%, Romney 46%

SurveyUSA/Braun (http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/84/159/2147483694/31a5695e-db0d-4272-b292-b9640f4ff7fb.pdf): Obama 48%, Romney 45%

DailyKos/SEIU/PPP (http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends): Obama 50%, Romney 46%

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll): Romney 47%, Obama 45%

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll will be out tonight at 6:30 pm ET.

qabbaan
09-18-2012, 02:23 PM
The traditional pollsters are oversampling democrats and using optimistic turnout models for democrat voters. Unless you look at the sampling model you can't interpret a survey anymore.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 02:24 PM
Lol Rasmussen


United Press International (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/09/16/UPI-Poll-Obama-holds-lead-over-Romney/UPI-69521347819340/): Obama 49%, Romney 45%.

Reuters/Ipsos (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-campaign-poll-idINBRE88G1BV20120917): Obama 48%, Romney 43%.

Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx): Obama 47%, Romney 46%

SurveyUSA/Braun (http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/84/159/2147483694/31a5695e-db0d-4272-b292-b9640f4ff7fb.pdf): Obama 48%, Romney 45%

DailyKos/SEIU/PPP (http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends): Obama 50%, Romney 46%

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll): Romney 47%, Obama 45%

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll will be out tonight at 6:30 pm ET.

These are tracking polls with results from yesterday?

And yes, Rasmussen, the pollster who once again is on the leading edge of Gallup's daily tracking numbers (which, being a 7-day rolling average of registered voters, lagged behind a couple days).

Let's see if NBC/WSJ uses the 2010 model, the 2008 model, or the 2004 model for voter participation.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 02:25 PM
You are either some kind of shill or a very very confused person.

I thought you were ignoring me...

LMAO

But if you are confused by this post, please feel free to correct the facts that I got wrong...

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 02:30 PM
These are tracking polls with results from yesterday?

And yes, Rasmussen, the pollster who once again is on the leading edge of Gallup's daily tracking numbers (which, being a 7-day rolling average of registered voters, lagged behind a couple days).

Let's see if NBC/WSJ uses the 2010 model, the 2008 model, or the 2004 model for voter participation.

Latest polls from this weekend. Reuters for example was taken between Sept 12-17 and was likely voters.

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 02:34 PM
There is a reason why people don't use Rasmussen except conservative partisans.

The Wall Street Journal ranked PPP as one of the top swing state pollsters in the country during the last Presidential election.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/images/graphs/PPP_WSJ-graphic.jpg

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 02:37 PM
Latest polls from this weekend. Reuters for example was taken between Sept 12-17 and was likely voters.

Right. Don't disagree. But if you look at the movement in Rasmussen and Gallup the fall-off started at the end of the week.

Weighting obviously can be tinkered to make any poll have any results you want - just saying that Romney gained 6 points in the daily polls and the majority of that movement has come in the last three days, which is true.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 02:38 PM
There is a reason why people don't use Rasmussen except conservative partisans.

The Wall Street Journal ranked PPP as one of the top swing state pollsters in the country during the last Presidential election.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/images/graphs/PPP_WSJ-graphic.jpg

OK. Do you think their +10 GOP Akin poll is accurate?

qabbaan
09-18-2012, 02:44 PM
These are tracking polls with results from yesterday?

And yes, Rasmussen, the pollster who once again is on the leading edge of Gallup's daily tracking numbers (which, being a 7-day rolling average of registered voters, lagged behind a couple days).

Let's see if NBC/WSJ uses the 2010 model, the 2008 model, or the 2004 model for voter participation.

The fact that Gallup is trumpeting "registered voters" polls after the conventions speaks for itself.

Hoover
09-18-2012, 02:49 PM
I'm a Republican and I'm not one to get too high based off of Gallup and Rassmussen polls.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 02:58 PM
The traditional pollsters are oversampling democrats and using optimistic turnout models for democrat voters. Unless you look at the sampling model you can't interpret a survey anymore.

Historically, the Democrats have a higher party ID in the exit polls (usually 3%-5%), although those norms were altered in 2004 (37 DEM - 37 GOP - 26 IND) and 2010 (36 DEM - 36 GOP - 28 IND) and in 2008 in the other direction (39 DEM - 32 GOP - 29 IND).

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 03:01 PM
I'm a Republican and I'm not one to get too high based off of Gallup and Rassmussen polls.

I'm not going to get high off of any numbers, but the movement towards Romney in two daily tracking polls is just as significant as the 6-point bounce Obama got from his convention. The only things that have happened are that convention is further in the rear-view mirror and the Middle East. Now we'll see if Romney's statements move the meter in the next week back to Obama's favor.

qabbaan
09-18-2012, 03:04 PM
Historically, the Democrats have a higher party ID in the exit polls (usually 3%-5%), although those norms were altered in 2004 (37 DEM - 37 GOP - 26 IND) and 2010 (36 DEM - 36 GOP - 28 IND) and in 2008 in the other direction (39 DEM - 32 GOP - 29 IND).

I think that, given the unprecedented turnout for Obama in '08 and the unprecedented disappointment with him now, we might be in uncharted territory. No one can predict what turnout will be like.

Certainly he can't pull what he did in 2008 with his numbers among independents and whites and his personal favorability numbers having plunged. So how can we judge polls when the turnout models aren't presented? We can't. If they are presented we can only guess what will happen on election day.

This race is probably the hardest one to handicap in modern history.

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 03:08 PM
OK. Do you think their +10 GOP Akin poll is accurate?

PPP or Rasmussen?

J Diddy
09-18-2012, 03:10 PM
Also, the candidate that wins the national vote wins the election 97.5% of the time.

[Al]Yeah don't remind me.[/Gore]

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 03:12 PM
PPP or Rasmussen?

PPP

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 03:14 PM
PPP

The only poll I saw from them was on Aug 30 where they had Claire up by one.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 03:22 PM
The only poll I saw from them was on Aug 30 where they had Claire up by one.

Right, that had GOP +9 in the weighting. Three times what it was in 2010. [Actually, I'm looking at the poll from the day after he made his statement when everyone was trying to get him to exit]

That's all I'm saying -- anyone can manipulate poll numbers and Rasmussen on their own doesn't matter much. Our discussion on the other thread was that Rasmussen has pre-dated other polls in the trend and Gallup is reflecting the trend that Rasmussen picked up a few days ago.

I personally think this is going to be something akin to 2000 or 2004, probably closer to 2004 without the GOP parity. But I also don't think the Dems are going to turn out +6 or +7 like they did in 2008 either, nor is Obama going to win independents, but that's just a guess.

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 03:35 PM
Right, that had GOP +9 in the weighting. Three times what it was in 2010. [Actually, I'm looking at the poll from the day after he made his statement when everyone was trying to get him to exit]

That's all I'm saying -- anyone can manipulate poll numbers and Rasmussen on their own doesn't matter much. Our discussion on the other thread was that Rasmussen has pre-dated other polls in the trend and Gallup is reflecting the trend that Rasmussen picked up a few days ago.

I personally think this is going to be something akin to 2000 or 2004, probably closer to 2004 without the GOP parity. But I also don't think the Dems are going to turn out +6 or +7 like they did in 2008 either, nor is Obama going to win independents, but that's just a guess.

I guess I don't see they +9. Looking at the poll it was 35% R, 33% D, 32% Independent.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MO_830925.pdf

Also Obama is down 10 points here in MO so it doesn't surprise me that the race with Akin will be close.

I agree with you on the turnout the race is going to be fairly close probably with Obama winning by 2-3% overall.

BucEyedPea
09-18-2012, 04:33 PM
Also, the candidate that wins the national vote wins the election 97.5% of the time.

Yeah, well, I only said that because I read Obama had the edge in the EC vote. If it's a close election, the electoral college will decide it.

suzzer99
09-18-2012, 04:41 PM
Rasmussen always leans republican until a week or two before the election. Then they adjust right before the election and use that # to claim accuracy.

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 04:46 PM
Yeah, well, I only said that because I read Obama had the edge in the EC vote. If it's a close election, the electoral college will decide it.

Of course!

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 04:47 PM
Rasmussen always leans republican until a week or two before the election. Then they adjust right before the election and use that # to claim accuracy.

Really? Is that what Gallup does too?

cosmo20002
09-18-2012, 04:54 PM
Yeah, well, I only said that because I read Obama had the edge in the EC vote. If it's a close election, the electoral college will decide it.

No way! Link?

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 05:53 PM
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13944838-nbcwsj-poll-obama-leads-romney-nationally-by-5-points?lite) finds President Obama leads Mitt Romney nationally among likely voters, 50% to 45%.

Up 5 in both Ohio and Florida and up 7 in Virginia

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 06:04 PM
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13944838-nbcwsj-poll-obama-leads-romney-nationally-by-5-points?lite) finds President Obama leads Mitt Romney nationally among likely voters, 50% to 45%.

Up 5 in both Ohio and Florida and up 7 in Virginia

Like I said, if you have a poll that is constructed from +7 Dems then a +5 Obama is probably about right. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the vote breakdown by party affiliation to see how they're each doing with IND.

ON EDIT: Also the dates on this are 9-12/9-16, so again it reflects a minimal amount of the movement that Gallup and Rasmussen started showing last Friday.

BigRedChief
09-18-2012, 06:30 PM
Strange. I thought all of these Romney gaffes had killed his campaign.

Rasmussen Last Week: Obama: 50, Romney: 46
Rasmussen This Week: Obama: 45, Romney: 47

Gallup Last Week: Obama: 50, Romney: 43
Gallup This Week: Obama: 47, Romney: 46

Given the huge pick-ups Romney makes when Likely Voter filters are applied, I'd say the Gallup and Rasmussen numbers are probably close to, if not exactly, the same.

Let's see if Obama gets another bounce from the 47% remark (doubt it, but we'll see) and how quickly that one fades...Rasussen is a joke. only R's give it any seriousness as a poll.

The R's kep telling all of us Obot's that McCain was surging and all the polls were wrong. Looks like its going to be more of the same this year.

dirk digler
09-18-2012, 06:45 PM
Like I said, if you have a poll that is constructed from +7 Dems then a +5 Obama is probably about right. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the vote breakdown by party affiliation to see how they're each doing with IND.

ON EDIT: Also the dates on this are 9-12/9-16, so again it reflects a minimal amount of the movement that Gallup and Rasmussen started showing last Friday.

42 D
37 R
16 I

Of course since it is random they weigh the R's more

RINGLEADER
09-18-2012, 10:04 PM
42 D
37 R
16 I

Of course since it is random they weigh the R's more

With IND leaners you have D+5.

Could happen, but doubt it.

DementedLogic
09-18-2012, 10:11 PM
Most of these polls are assuming D+5 to D+7. I think realistically we are looking at D+2. They are also underpolling Independents which favor Romney. If most of these polls actually used a D+2 model, then Romney would be ahead in almost all of them. When Gallup switched their model, it showed Romney as +5. Then they got Axelrodded and switched back to the old model. Anyone who really believes that Obama is winning in these polls does not understand polling models, or they are ignorant if the believe that voter turnout is going to reflect that of 2008.

Taco John
09-18-2012, 10:41 PM
The only things worth following at this point, as far as I'm concerned is InTrade and Nate Silver. Both will show any real movement in the polling market. Neither have Romney anywhere in striking distance at this point.

J Diddy
09-18-2012, 10:51 PM
Most of these polls are assuming D+5 to D+7. I think realistically we are looking at D+2. They are also underpolling Independents which favor Romney. If most of these polls actually used a D+2 model, then Romney would be ahead in almost all of them. When Gallup switched their model, it showed Romney as +5. Then they got Axelrodded and switched back to the old model. Anyone who really believes that Obama is winning in these polls does not understand polling models, or they are ignorant if the believe that voter turnout is going to reflect that of 2008.

First, let me say that I give a damn about polls. It's the election results that count. However, let me pretend for a second that I do. Every poll everywhere is wrong? And I should just accept that because some dude on the internet said so?

BucEyedPea
09-18-2012, 10:56 PM
Most of these polls are assuming D+5 to D+7. I think realistically we are looking at D+2. They are also underpolling Independents which favor Romney. If most of these polls actually used a D+2 model, then Romney would be ahead in almost all of them. When Gallup switched their model, it showed Romney as +5. Then they got Axelrodded and switched back to the old model. Anyone who really believes that Obama is winning in these polls does not understand polling models, or they are ignorant if the believe that voter turnout is going to reflect that of 2008.

You betcha' they're not polling Independents nor are they calculating the undecideds like myself.
I will vote either Mitt or Johnson. I may vote for Mitt, if it looks like Obama is still ahead, so I plan on voting at the last minute. Afterall, I think a war may happen under either, with Obama just being more covert about it using viruses etc and pandering to the voters lately. So I might as well go for a 50/50 chance of having states opt out of Obamacare or a repeal. But, since I change my mind every so many days....I still don't know.

cosmo20002
09-18-2012, 11:05 PM
First, let me say that I give a damn about polls. It's the election results that count. However, let me pretend for a second that I do. Every poll everywhere is wrong? And I should just accept that because some dude on the internet said so?

It is truly amazing hearing people like Rush and Hannity talking about the polls. If Obama is up or is making a positive move, then the poll is biased, the sample size wrong, the methodology is BS, etc. But if Romney moves up a point, they are humping that thing like it is definitive proof of a Romney landslide.

DementedLogic
09-18-2012, 11:31 PM
First, let me say that I give a damn about polls. It's the election results that count. However, let me pretend for a second that I do. Every poll everywhere is wrong? And I should just accept that because some dude on the internet said so?

I'm not saying every poll is wrong. However, most are basing their models on 2008 voter turnout. If you truly believe that the turnout is going to be similar, then the polls should be great for you. I think it says a lot that as soon as Gallup changed its model to a more realistic turnout, it had Romney beating Obama. A couple of days later the justice department sued Gallup and they reverted back to the 2008 model.

cosmo20002
09-18-2012, 11:46 PM
I'm not saying every poll is wrong. However, most are basing their models on 2008 voter turnout. If you truly believe that the turnout is going to be similar, then the polls should be great for you. I think it says a lot that as soon as Gallup changed its model to a more realistic turnout, it had Romney beating Obama. A couple of days later the justice department sued Gallup and they reverted back to the 2008 model.

First, that description of the legal action against Gallup is COMPLETELY false. There was a lawsuit, and it had nothing to do with voter turnout models.

Second, I don't know how you or anyone knows that the pollsters are using 2008 voter turnout models or what they are using. The specifics of their various methodologies are not released. Exactly how they get their final numbers is their "secret formula," so to speak.

Third, the "mainstream" polling orgs are in the business of being accurate. That is what they strive for, that is what they are selling. There is no reason for them to purposefully skew the numbers.

Pitt Gorilla
09-19-2012, 12:05 AM
I'm guessing his bump is due to this:

"If the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African-American voting bloc has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation."

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 12:32 AM
It is truly amazing hearing people like Rush and Hannity talking about the polls. If Obama is up or is making a positive move, then the poll is biased, the sample size wrong, the methodology is BS, etc. But if Romney moves up a point, they are humping that thing like it is definitive proof of a Romney landslide.

I don't agree with the fact that Obama being up = a flawed poll. Gallup and Rasmussen both had Obama up 5+ last week and there haven't been any polls except the tracking polls that have results since last Friday.

I agree that the turnout will be somewhere around the historical average of 3-4 points DEM. Might be a little less, might be a little more, but it won't be anywhere near 2008 IMO.

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 12:38 AM
I'm not saying every poll is wrong. However, most are basing their models on 2008 voter turnout. If you truly believe that the turnout is going to be similar, then the polls should be great for you. I think it says a lot that as soon as Gallup changed its model to a more realistic turnout, it had Romney beating Obama. A couple of days later the justice department sued Gallup and they reverted back to the 2008 model.

I don't know if they're all modeled off of 2008, but none are modeled after the national party ID of 2010. That's why I see this as being a 2004 election -- if Obama can get his base out he can neutralize Romney's advantage with INDs.

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 12:39 AM
First, that description of the legal action against Gallup is COMPLETELY false. There was a lawsuit, and it had nothing to do with voter turnout models.

Second, I don't know how you or anyone knows that the pollsters are using 2008 voter turnout models or what they are using. The specifics of their various methodologies are not released. Exactly how they get their final numbers is their "secret formula," so to speak.

Third, the "mainstream" polling orgs are in the business of being accurate. That is what they strive for, that is what they are selling. There is no reason for them to purposefully skew the numbers.

Mostly agree, but the weighting is a crapshoot.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 08:28 AM
First, that description of the legal action against Gallup is COMPLETELY false. There was a lawsuit, and it had nothing to do with voter turnout models.

I don't think DementedLogic said or intended to imply that the lawsuit had anything to do with turnout models, so your "completely false" judgment seems to be a middle-of-the-road misstep.

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 09:23 AM
First, that description of the legal action against Gallup is COMPLETELY false. There was a lawsuit, and it had nothing to do with voter turnout models.

Second, I don't know how you or anyone knows that the pollsters are using 2008 voter turnout models or what they are using. The specifics of their various methodologies are not released. Exactly how they get their final numbers is their "secret formula," so to speak.

Third, the "mainstream" polling orgs are in the business of being accurate. That is what they strive for, that is what they are selling. There is no reason for them to purposefully skew the numbers.


I didn't deceive anything. I didn't say the Justice Department sued them for their model. My first post about the issue was that they were "Axelrodded." This is how Obama and Axelrod operate. Axelrod was calling on Gallup to change their polling models. Then the Justice Department finds a way to sue Gallup, and they suddenly change their polling model back. This is how the Obama and his buddies operate. If you don't do what they want, they find ways to sue you and discredit you.
There are people who will vote for whoever is leading in the polls simple because they want to vote for a winner. The Obama administration knows this, which is why they want to keep him ahead in the polls. They perform their own internal polls for information, and they know where they really stand. They just want the public perception to be that Obama is leading.

As far as polling accuracy goes, for the last 45 days leading up to the 2008 Presidential election Rasmussen held Obama at +5 to +7 the entire time, with their final poll having Obama +6. Gallup held Obama at +10 to +11, with one exception in mid October having him at +7. Their final poll had Obama +11. Obama's won the election by 7 points. I would have to give the edge to Rasmussen for 2008. Rasmussen also nailed the 2004 election having Bush+1.5 with the final tally being Bush+2.4. Gallup had them at even.

dirk digler
09-19-2012, 09:32 AM
New polls:

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-18/obama-romney-swing-states-poll/57803524/1) of twelve swing states shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by just two points, 48% to 46%

Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Qinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 41% (Morning Call/Muhlenberg (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/blog_pennsylvania_ave/mc-document-pa-presidential-poll-20120918,0,4409695.htmlstory))

Virginia:Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Qinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Wisconsin:Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Qinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 09:41 AM
As far as polling accuracy goes, for the last 45 days leading up to the 2008 Presidential election Rasmussen held Obama at +5 to +7 the entire time, with their final poll having Obama +6. Gallup held Obama at +10 to +11, with one exception in mid October having him at +7. Their final poll had Obama +11. Obama's won the election by 7 points. I would have to give the edge to Rasmussen for 2008. Rasmussen also nailed the 2004 election having Bush+1.5 with the final tally being Bush+2.4. Gallup had them at even.

Getting back to my point about Romney gaining in the last week, another poll from AP is out this morning from 13th to 17th that, despite a heavy Dem skew, shows Obama up only a point. So you have Rasmussen with Romney up 1, Gallup with Obama up 1, and AP with Obama up 1 in the last week. NBC has him up +5 from last week.

Another interesting trend in Obama's favor is his approval rating. This is something that doesn't seem to get discussed much, but no president in the modern era has won with an upside down approval rating. Since the convention, Obama has righted this ship pretty substantially -- another indicator that is following the trends of 2004 (and how Bush performed) pretty closely. This election is playing out so similarly - the incumbent is playing to a base, while the New England rich guy plays to independents. We'll see who wins that battle because!

Other polls today:

CBS/Quinnipiac (Colorado): Obama +1
CBS/Quinnipiac (Virginia): Obama +4
WAA (Virginia): Obama +3
CBS/Quinnipiac (Wisconsin): Obama +6

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 09:41 AM
New polls:

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-18/obama-romney-swing-states-poll/57803524/1) of twelve swing states shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by just two points, 48% to 46%

Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Qinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 41% (Morning Call/Muhlenberg (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/blog_pennsylvania_ave/mc-document-pa-presidential-poll-20120918,0,4409695.htmlstory))

Virginia:Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Qinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Wisconsin:Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Qinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Beat me to it ;)

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 09:45 AM
Getting back to my point about Romney gaining in the last week, another poll from AP is out this morning from 13th to 17th that, despite a heavy Dem skew, shows Obama up only a point. So you have Rasmussen with Romney up 1, Gallup with Obama up 1, and AP with Obama up 1 in the last week. NBC has him up +5 from last week.

Another interesting trend in Obama's favor is his approval rating. This is something that doesn't seem to get discussed much, but no president in the modern era has won with an upside down approval rating. Since the convention, Obama has righted this ship pretty substantially -- another indicator that is following the trends of 2004 (and how Bush performed) pretty closely. This election is playing out so similarly - the incumbent is playing to a base, while the New England rich guy plays to independents. We'll see who wins that battle because!

Other polls today:

CBS/Quinnipiac (Colorado): Obama +1
CBS/Quinnipiac (Virginia): Obama +4
WAA (Virginia): Obama +3
CBS/Quinnipiac (Wisconsin): Obama +6

PA seems to be gone, probably MI too. Going to come down to OH, VA, CO and FL, in my opinion. If Mitt can't get OH or VA (he can't lose both) he'll have to steal WI and IA.

The first debate is going to be for all the marbles IMO.

oldandslow
09-19-2012, 10:00 AM
Never say never, but I think Nate Silver has it about right when he gives Obama about a 70% chance of winning the election.

I would be surprised if Romney wins both Ohio and VA, but stranger things have happened. You are correct in your assessment of PA and MI.

Job approval rate has risen fairly rapidly for Obama. I don't know why other than to say that Mitt is far more flawed than I thought he would be.

The election is far from over. Had you asked me a year ago, however, I would have bet the fundamentals in Sept 2012 would be in Mitt's favor, rather than Obama's. I would have been wrong.

Swanman
09-19-2012, 10:02 AM
PA seems to be gone, probably MI too. Going to come down to OH, VA, CO and FL, in my opinion. If Mitt can't get OH or VA (he can't lose both) he'll have to steal WI and IA.

The first debate is going to be for all the marbles IMO.

In 2004, Kerry erased a lead of like 5 or 6 points to Bush after the first debate, so it is possible. The problem for Romney is that he put himself in a position to have to be more aggressive during the debates, thus take more risk than Obama. The first debate will be very interesting.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 10:17 AM
I didn't deceive anything. I didn't say the Justice Department sued them for their model. My first post about the issue was that they were "Axelrodded." This is how Obama and Axelrod operate. Axelrod was calling on Gallup to change their polling models. Then the Justice Department finds a way to sue Gallup, and they suddenly change their polling model back. This is how the Obama and his buddies operate. If you don't do what they want, they find ways to sue you and discredit you.


I'm not saying every poll is wrong. However, most are basing their models on 2008 voter turnout. If you truly believe that the turnout is going to be similar, then the polls should be great for you. I think it says a lot that as soon as Gallup changed its model to a more realistic turnout, it had Romney beating Obama. A couple of days later the justice department sued Gallup and they reverted back to the 2008 model.

By not mentioning what they sued for, you definitely implied the suit was over the model. And, more importantly, how do you know that they were using a 2008 model, changed it, then changed back after being sued? Where are you getting that?

dirk digler
09-19-2012, 10:26 AM
PA seems to be gone, probably MI too. Going to come down to OH, VA, CO and FL, in my opinion. If Mitt can't get OH or VA (he can't lose both) he'll have to steal WI and IA.

The first debate is going to be for all the marbles IMO.

Romney has a very very narrow path for victory while Obama has several ways to get to 270.

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 11:40 AM
By not mentioning what they sued for, you definitely implied the suit was over the model. And, more importantly, how do you know that they were using a 2008 model, changed it, then changed back after being sued? Where are you getting that?

I believe the suit was because of the model. Axelrod was already putting pressure on Gallup over their methodology. Sticking with the Obama/Axelrod/Holder tradition, the next step was to find a reason to file a lawsuit.

I don't know exactly what models they were using at any time. I can only look at the internals of the poll. Gallup was originally polling D+5 to D+7, and typically had Obama+3 to 4 over Rasmussen. When Gallup had Romney up over Obama and was within 1 point of Rasmussen for more than a week, the internals consistently showed D+2 to D+3. After the lawsuit, their polling went back to D+5 to +7.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 12:22 PM
I believe the suit was because of the model. Axelrod was already putting pressure on Gallup over their methodology. Sticking with the Obama/Axelrod/Holder tradition, the next step was to find a reason to file a lawsuit.

No, it was not. We're back to square one.



I don't know exactly what models they were using at any time.

This. So STFU.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 12:24 PM
I don't think DementedLogic said or intended to imply that the lawsuit had anything to do with turnout models, so your "completely false" judgment seems to be a middle-of-the-road misstep.

I believe the suit was because of the model.

Pat, I pre-emptively accept your apology.

suzzer99
09-19-2012, 12:32 PM
A guy I know from my poker site has a poll-blog he'd love for you all to analyze: http://actuarygambler.blogspot.com/

patteeu
09-19-2012, 12:56 PM
No, it was not. We're back to square one.

*sigh* He didn't say it was. He said he believed it was. You believe otherwise. Fine.


Pat, I pre-emptively accept your apology.

You must mean prematurely. He's still not saying the lawsuit is a lawsuit about the models. He's only saying the lawsuit was intended to intimidate Gallup into changing their models. You should hire me to be your interpreter.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 01:06 PM
*sigh* He didn't say it was. He said he believed it was. You believe otherwise. Fine.


You must mean prematurely. He's still not saying the lawsuit is a lawsuit about the models. He's only saying the lawsuit was intended to intimidate Gallup into changing their models. You should hire me to be your interpreter.


I believe the suit was because of the model.


I don't know exactly what models they were using at any time.

I think someone doesn't know what they are talking about and you are eagerly backing him up for some reason.

So...the lawsuit over a completely different issue did not have any merit and was dropped then?

patteeu
09-19-2012, 01:17 PM
I think someone doesn't know what they are talking about and you are eagerly backing him up for some reason.

So...the lawsuit over a completely different issue did not have any merit and was dropped then?

I don't know anything about the lawsuit and I don't know anything about the merit of DementedLogic's theory about the lawsuit. I just know that I understood what he was saying.

RINGLEADER
09-19-2012, 01:19 PM
Never say never, but I think Nate Silver has it about right when he gives Obama about a 70% chance of winning the election.

I would be surprised if Romney wins both Ohio and VA, but stranger things have happened. You are correct in your assessment of PA and MI.

Job approval rate has risen fairly rapidly for Obama. I don't know why other than to say that Mitt is far more flawed than I thought he would be.

The election is far from over. Had you asked me a year ago, however, I would have bet the fundamentals in Sept 2012 would be in Mitt's favor, rather than Obama's. I would have been wrong.

70% could be correct. I don't think Romney's in the driver's seat and haven't said such a thing, but I also don't believe it is ludicrous to believe he could win Florida. Or Ohio. Or Virginia. The reason people discount his chances a bit (rightfully so) is that he has to win all three. But everyone running around saying the election is over isn't basing it on facts and statistics.

Again, that could change in a few days. It will be interesting to see what Rasmussen picks up by Friday and Gallup by next Monday.

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 01:24 PM
I think someone doesn't know what they are talking about and you are eagerly backing him up for some reason.

So...the lawsuit over a completely different issue did not have any merit and was dropped then?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters/

I have no desire to post and format the link, but the daily caller breaks it down pretty well.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 01:24 PM
I don't know anything about the lawsuit and I don't know anything about the merit of DementedLogic's theory about the lawsuit. I just know that I understood what he was saying.

:facepalm:

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 01:34 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters/

I have no desire to post and format the link, but the daily caller breaks it down pretty well.

No they don't break it down pretty well. It is like they purposefully avoided any detail that would actually explain the situation, such as what the lawsuit was about or what Alexrod's actual beef was. (The lawsuit had to with Gallup overcharging on some undelivered work and Alexrod's main beef had to with likely vs registered voters) And, despite your earlier statement otherwise, Gallup apparently did not change anything about its methods.

J Diddy
09-19-2012, 02:21 PM
I don't know anything about the lawsuit and I don't know anything about the merit of DementedLogic's theory about the lawsuit. I just know that I understood what he was saying.

So if I said Romney blows goats, are you just going to take that as truth? I mean you understood what I was saying, right?

dirk digler
09-19-2012, 02:23 PM
New poll show widening lead for Obama

A new Pew Research survey (http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/obama-ahead-with-stronger-support-better-image-and-lead-on-most-issues/) finds President Obama now leads Mitt Romney nationally by eight points among likely voters, 51% to 43%.


Also new poll in Wisconsin shows Obama up by 14%

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 02:46 PM
No they don't break it down pretty well. It is like they purposefully avoided any detail that would actually explain the situation, such as what the lawsuit was about

"In August, Justice signed on to a suit Lindley filed in 2009. Lindley alleged, according to The Associated Press, that Gallup filed false claims with the federal government on contracts it had with the State Department, the U.S. Mint and other federal agencies."


or what Alexrod's actual beef was. (The lawsuit had to with Gallup overcharging on some undelivered work and Alexrod's main beef had to with likely vs registered voters)

"In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.

In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012.”"


And, despite your earlier statement otherwise, Gallup apparently did not change anything about its methods.

Yes they did. They returned to oversampling Democrats. Now their samples look more like the electorate in 2008.


This is classic David Axelrod, intimidate people into doing things your way, or dig up dirt and sue them. This case was 3 years old. Gallup hadn't heard from the federal government for a year and a half, and even that time was at Gallup's request.

Ugly Duck
09-19-2012, 03:05 PM
given the unprecedented turnout for Obama in '08 and the unprecedented disappointment with him now.....

Google "Obama Approval" & you'll see that disappointment in Obama is far from "unprecedented." You see stuff like:

"Sept 19, 2012 WASHINGTON -
A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that Americans are feeling markedly better about the country's future and about Barack Obama's job performance. Obama's approval rating is back above 50 percent for the first time since May. "

Donger
09-19-2012, 03:07 PM
Google "Obama Approval" & you'll see that disappointment in Obama is far from "unprecedented." You see stuff like:

"Sept 19, 2012 WASHINGTON -
A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that Americans are feeling markedly better about the country's future and about Barack Obama's job performance. Obama's approval rating is back above 50 percent for the first time since May. "

I know that I approve of $16 trillion in debt. That just makes me want to break-dance.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 03:08 PM
"In August, Justice signed on to a suit Lindley filed in 2009. Lindley alleged, according to The Associated Press, that Gallup filed false claims with the federal government on contracts it had with the State Department, the U.S. Mint and other federal agencies."

Was this actually in the Daily Caller story? You are presenting it like it was.



"In April, Axelrod tweeted that a poll showing Mitt Romney with a 48-43 percent lead over Obama was “saddled with some methodological problems,” directing his Twitter followers to read a National Journal story criticizing Gallup polls showing a Romney lead.

In that National Journal piece, Ron Brownstein wrote that the polls showing Romney leading the president had “a sample that looks much more like the electorate in 2010 than the voting population that is likely to turn out in 2012

Yes they did. They returned to oversampling Democrats. Now their samples look more like the electorate in 2008.


Alexrod mentioned a National Journal article, then the Daily Caller picks one element of that article, then implies THAT was the element that Alexrod was focused on. JFC

Get a source other than the Daily Caller.

patteeu
09-19-2012, 03:12 PM
So if I said Romney blows goats, are you just going to take that as truth? I mean you understood what I was saying, right?

Sometimes I wonder about how low your college's entrance requirements must be. Why would understanding you mean that I had to believe you were telling the truth?

Direckshun
09-19-2012, 03:15 PM
http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/09/9-19-12-3.png

oldandslow
09-19-2012, 03:27 PM
New poll show widening lead for Obama

A new Pew Research survey (http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/obama-ahead-with-stronger-support-better-image-and-lead-on-most-issues/) finds President Obama now leads Mitt Romney nationally by eight points among likely voters, 51% to 43%.


Also new poll in Wisconsin shows Obama up by 14%

Just finished reading the internals on this one...was wondering why it seemed to be an outlier. Major poll...utilized over 3000 participants rathern than the usual >1500. Few more dems responded than repubs, and independents were very well represented...both cell phone and landlines were used.

Anyway, I am rather surprised at the margin of difference - I view Pew as one of the better polls, but that is just me.

Read for yourself...http://pewresearch.org/

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 03:46 PM
Was this actually in the Daily Caller story? You are presenting it like it was.

I copied and pasted it directly from the The Daily Caller story that I posted.


Alexrod mentioned a National Journal article, then the Daily Caller picks one element of that article, then implies THAT was the element that Alexrod was focused on. JFC

Get a source other than the Daily Caller.

They posted a link to the entire article as well. The main point of the national journal article was that Gallup's polling was reflecting the 2010 electorate. It then expanded on that. The Daily Caller quoted the main point of the article. Did you want them to copy and paste the entire article?

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 03:59 PM
Just finished reading the internals on this one...was wondering why it seemed to be an outlier. Major poll...utilized over 3000 participants rathern than the usual >1500. Few more dems responded than repubs, and independents were very well represented...both cell phone and landlines were used.

Anyway, I am rather surprised at the margin of difference - I view Pew as one of the better polls, but that is just me.

Read for yourself...http://pewresearch.org/

Here is Pew's breakdown.
30.6% Republican
37.0% Democrat
32.3% Independent

Unweighted Vote Totals
50.7% Obama
45.3% Romney


So they polled Democrats +6.4%, then they weighted even further to get Obama to +8. After weighting, it becomes D+9. Do you think that is realistic?

oldandslow
09-19-2012, 04:15 PM
Here is Pew's breakdown.
30.6% Republican
37.0% Democrat
32.3% Independent

Unweighted Vote Totals
50.7% Obama
45.3% Romney


So they polled Democrats +6.4%, then they weighted even further to get Obama to +8. After weighting, it becomes D+9. Do you think that is realistic?

Good question...and on the outside looking in that seems unrealistic. However, they base their weighing on Census data etc that is quite accurate. To be blunt, Pew is one of the better polls out there. Key characteristics of their samples conform closely to known population parameters from the U.S. Census. Finally, their final polls in major national elections have been very good. They came within one percentage point of predicting the margin of victory for Barack Obama in 2008, and Republican candidates for the U.S. House in 2010.

BTW in mid/late sept, 2008 Pew had Obama beating McCain by 6...Rasmussen had it a tie...which one turned out to be correct?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 04:38 PM
Here is Pew's breakdown.
30.6% Republican
37.0% Democrat
32.3% Independent

Unweighted Vote Totals
50.7% Obama
45.3% Romney

So they polled Democrats +6.4%, then they weighted even further to get Obama to +8. After weighting, it becomes D+9. Do you think that is realistic?

I think that I have yet to see a poll favoring a D that wasn't dismissed by the Rs as being biased, improperly weighted, etc. Heard the same in 2008, right before Obama won. Bottom line is that whatever the major pollsters are doing, they are usually pretty damn close most of the time. I don't see what is in it for them to intentionally not shoot for accuracy.

DementedLogic
09-19-2012, 04:43 PM
Good question...and on the outside looking in that seems unrealistic. However, they base their weighing on Census data etc that is quite accurate. To be blunt, Pew is one of the better polls out there. Key characteristics of their samples conform closely to known population parameters from the U.S. Census. Finally, their final polls in major national elections have been very good. They came within one percentage point of predicting the margin of victory for Barack Obama in 2008, and Republican candidates for the U.S. House in 2010.

BTW in mid/late sept, 2008 Pew had Obama beating McCain by 6...Rasmussen had it a tie...which one turned out to be correct?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

The Census does not ask party affiliation.

As of 9/14, Pew had it as a tie. They didn't have it as Obama+6 until 9/29.
Rasmussen had it as a tie on 9/17, but guess what, they had it as Obama +6 on 9/26. So your statement is incorrect.


You want to know something else, Rasmussen hed it as Obama +5 to +7 from 9/26 all the way until the election. Pew had Obama +14 on 10/19 and Obama+15 on 10/26.

oldandslow
09-19-2012, 04:52 PM
The Census does not ask party affiliation.

As of 9/14, Pew had it as a tie. They didn't have it as Obama+6 until 9/29.
Rasmussen had it as a tie on 9/17, but guess what, they had it as Obama +6 on 9/26. So your statement is incorrect.


You want to know something else, Rasmussen hed it as Obama +5 to +7 from 9/26 all the way until the election. Pew had Obama +14 on 10/19 and Obama+15 on 10/26.

And on election day Pew had it within 1 pt. As well as in 2010. Polls are snapshots of that day. Pew is very good at capturing those snapshots. Their methodology is not bad at all.

Calcountry
09-19-2012, 05:05 PM
Rasussen is a joke. only R's give it any seriousness as a poll.

The R's kep telling all of us Obot's that McCain was surging and all the polls were wrong. Looks like its going to be more of the same this year.If you are right, it will be more of the same next year as well.

dirk digler
09-19-2012, 05:16 PM
Nate Silver has a good article up today about polls who include cellphone users and live interviewers and those that don't

There is a huge difference between those polls

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/

In one of the forecasts, I ran the numbers based solely on polls that do include cellphones in their samples. The vast majority of these polls also use live interviewers, since federal law prohibits automated calls to cellphones under most circumstances. (Note, however, that one or two mostly automated polling firms, like SurveyUSA, use a separate sample based on live interviewers to reach cellphone-only voters; these were included in the model run.)

In this universe, Mr. Obama seems poised for victory. The model forecasts him for a 4.1 percentage points win in the national popular vote. That compares with 2.9 percentage points in the regular FiveThirtyEight forecast, which includes polls both with and without cellphones.

Mr. Obama’s advantage is also clearer in the swing states. The cellphone-inclusive polls give him an 80 percent chance to win Virginia, a 79 percent chance in Ohio, and a 68 percent chance to win Florida, all considerably higher than in the official FiveThirtyEight forecast.

Overall, this version of the model gives Mr. Obama an 83 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, a full 10 percentage points higher than the 73 percent chance that the official FiveThirtyEight forecast gave him as of Monday night. So the methodological differences are showing up in a big way this year.

The other version of the model consisted solely of polls that do not include cellphones. Although there are a handful of live-interview polls that still omit cellphones, most of the no-cellphone polls used automated dialers, while some were conducted online.

Here, Mr. Obama’s position is much more tenuous. The no-cellphone polls project him to a popular vote margin of just 1.5 percentage points, 2.6 points lower than in the cellphone-inclusive polls.

Mr. Obama is also losing Florida and Virginia in this version of the model, and has a much slimmer lead, of about one percentage point, in Ohio. Thus, his chances of winning the Electoral College are just 61 percent, as compared with 83 percent in the polls that do include cellphones.

dirk digler
09-19-2012, 06:34 PM
Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 44% (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/))

Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 42% (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/))

Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 44% (CNN/ORC (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/19/cnn-poll-romney-trailing-in-birth-state/))

Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 41% (Morning Call/Muhlenberg (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/blog_pennsylvania_ave/mc-document-pa-presidential-poll-20120918,0,4409695.htmlstory))

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (We Ask America (http://weaskamerica.com/2012/09/19/big-10-round-2-va/))

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 43% (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/))

Wisconsin:Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Wisconsin: Obama 54%, Romney 40% (Marquette Law School (http://law.marquette.edu/poll/))

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 09:27 PM
Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 44% (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/))

Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 42% (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/))

Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 44% (CNN/ORC (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/19/cnn-poll-romney-trailing-in-birth-state/))

Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 41% (Morning Call/Muhlenberg (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/blog_pennsylvania_ave/mc-document-pa-presidential-poll-20120918,0,4409695.htmlstory))

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (We Ask America (http://weaskamerica.com/2012/09/19/big-10-round-2-va/))

Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 43% (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/))

Wisconsin:Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515519/poll-obama-leads-in-virginia-wisconsin-tight-in-colorado/))

Wisconsin: Obama 54%, Romney 40%
(Marquette Law School (http://law.marquette.edu/poll/))


Romney's people must be shitting themselves.

I thought Ryan was supposed to put Wisconsin in play.
They are going to lose the VP's home state and both of Romney's (MA and MI). Wonder when the last time that happened.

Brock
09-19-2012, 09:30 PM
This guy's toast.

BucEyedPea
09-19-2012, 09:36 PM
Romney's people must be shitting themselves.

I thought Ryan was supposed to put Wisconsin in play.
They are going to lose the VP's home state and both of Romney's (MA and MI). Wonder when the last time that happened.

They lost the Paul supporters and its their own dayum fault. They aren't getting enough of the Independents to put them over. I'll wait until voting day to see how this is holding up.

Saw this over at Lew's! LMAO

Hey, Ron Paul Supporters

Come back(?) to the Republican party, you Ron grassroots. All is forgiven! Actually, we Republican neocons still hate your guts, but we want you to support warmongering fascist B as versus warmongering fascist A, because we hope to be on his payroll. There's a big difference, really. So get to it, and then shut up. Be Zombies for Romney. (Thanks to Travis Holte)

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 09:38 PM
They lost the Paul supporters and its their own dayum fault. LMAO

Yes because the Paul supporters went into this with a cooperative republican spirit...

LOL

BucEyedPea
09-19-2012, 09:41 PM
As if conventions and primaries in the past have always had cooperation. Remember Reagan was an insurgency that had in-fighting too. Before the scripted era of PR, conventions were full of passion. This is politics bub.

Chief Henry
09-19-2012, 10:15 PM
The polls over sample Dems to Reps. by anywhere from 5 % to 13%. The latest AP poll released yesterday had 13% more dems than rep.

Obama only had a 1% lead 47-46 after an over sampling by 13%.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 10:48 PM
The polls over sample Dems to Reps. by anywhere from 5 % to 13%. The latest AP poll released yesterday had 13% more dems than rep.

Obama only had a 1% lead 47-46 after an over sampling by 13%.

So, you are right, and every poll wrong. Got it.

Comrade Crapski
09-19-2012, 10:59 PM
America slashed her wrist on November 6, 2008. Will she slash the other one on November 6, 2012? I don't know, but just for the fact that I have to even ask, it's pretty much over. You can't fight reality. You can only improvise and adjust.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

-Alexis de Tocqueville.

Get prepared. Try to own your home -- you don't want a bank or anyone else to be able to legally confiscate your property. If you can have a well, that's awesome. If not make sure you have a reserve. Have a years worth of canned goods and preservatives. Make sure your home is located at least 25 miles from any public housing or public transportation. have an off road vehicle and a reserve of fuel. You don't need alot of guns, just one for each family member and have LOTS of ammo.

Chief Henry
09-19-2012, 11:03 PM
So, you are right, and every poll wrong. Got it.

Those are the facts Jack. Don't blame me if the polls are skewed to the max to make one particular candidate look like he is winning.

Brock
09-19-2012, 11:09 PM
Those are the facts Jack. Don't blame me if the polls are skewed to the max to make one particular candidate look like he is winning.

What are you going to blame when Romney gets stomped? Is it ever the fault of your precious party?

J Diddy
09-19-2012, 11:11 PM
What are you going to blame when Romney gets stomped? Is it ever the fault of your precious party?

It's 2008 all over again.

First it's the polls are skewed and afterwards it will be you're cheating.

cosmo20002
09-19-2012, 11:17 PM
Those are the facts Jack. Don't blame me if the polls are skewed to the max to make one particular candidate look like he is winning.

All of them? All? Fox News as well as MSNBC? Wall Street Journal and New York Times? All using methods they know are faulty?

I wonder why they even bother with the actual act of polling. Why not just publish the result they decide is going to be that day's result?

Pawnmower
09-19-2012, 11:31 PM
I do not see how this is possible....it seems like Obama is going to win by 5-10 points...

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 12:24 AM
FWIW

One of the chief reasons the media is so mistaken in their zeal to proclaim Obama the election winner is that most of the polls they're basing their predictions on are wildly inflating Democrat turnout. The overwhelming majority of media polls are assuming an electorate that is at least as Democrat as the one in 2008, with many polls assuming a higher Democrat turnout. This is just daft. The latest CBS poll of 3 swing states is the most recent to show that GOP has a huge turnout advantage over Democrats.
.......

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933459/posts

J Diddy
09-20-2012, 12:26 AM
FWIW

One of the chief reasons the media is so mistaken in their zeal to proclaim Obama the election winner is that most of the polls they're basing their predictions on are wildly inflating Democrat turnout. The overwhelming majority of media polls are assuming an electorate that is at least as Democrat as the one in 2008, with many polls assuming a higher Democrat turnout. This is just daft. The latest CBS poll of 3 swing states is the most recent to show that GOP has a huge turnout advantage over Democrats.
.......

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2933459/posts

Man I can't wait til this is over so I can go back to listening to you bitching about him not being born in the US for 4 years.

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 12:28 AM
Man I can't wait til this is over so I can go back to listening to you bitching about him not being born in the US for 4 years.

Are you seriously looking forward to four more years of B.O.?

J Diddy
09-20-2012, 12:32 AM
Are you seriously looking forward to four more years of B.O.?

Yes sir

KC native
09-20-2012, 12:41 AM
Man I can't wait til this is over so I can go back to listening to you bitching about him not being born in the US for 4 years.

I'm hoping he has an aneurysm.

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 01:43 AM
I'm hoping he has an aneurysm.

Obama?

-King-
09-20-2012, 01:46 AM
America slashed her wrist on November 6, 2008. Will she slash the other one on November 6, 2012? I don't know, but just for the fact that I have to even ask, it's pretty much over. You can't fight reality. You can only improvise and adjust.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

-Alexis de Tocqueville.

Get prepared. Try to own your home -- you don't want a bank or anyone else to be able to legally confiscate your property. If you can have a well, that's awesome. If not make sure you have a reserve. Have a years worth of canned goods and preservatives. Make sure your home is located at least 25 miles from any public housing or public transportation. have an off road vehicle and a reserve of fuel. You don't need alot of guns, just one for each family member and have LOTS of ammo.
What brand tin foil are you using?

DaneMcCloud
09-20-2012, 01:49 AM
Get prepared. Try to own your home -- you don't want a bank or anyone else to be able to legally confiscate your property. If you can have a well, that's awesome. If not make sure you have a reserve. Have a years worth of canned goods and preservatives. Make sure your home is located at least 25 miles from any public housing or public transportation. have an off road vehicle and a reserve of fuel. You don't need alot of guns, just one for each family member and have LOTS of ammo.

Is this your quote?

If so, do you believe that Obama wins the election, there are Americans that will begin killing innocent Americans?

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 01:57 AM
Is this your quote?

If so, do you believe that Obama wins the election, there are Americans that will begin killing innocent Americans?

Well they are doing that now. Will it get worse? Of course. But not because of who wins the election---

I've already stated that the only difference between Obama And Romney is one is a Kamikazi pilot, the other one is Chelsey Sullenberger.

Either way, this bird is going down.

There should have been a sense of urgency at the latest twenty years ago, but Washington DC has done nothing, and at this point it's too late.

Nothing is going to stop the economic tsunami that is coming.

DaneMcCloud
09-20-2012, 01:59 AM
Well they are doing that now. Will it get worse? Of course. But not because of who wins the election---

I've already stated that the only difference between Obama And Romney is one is a Kamikazi pilot, the other one is Chelsey Sullenberger.

Either way, this bird is going down.

There should have been a sense of urgency at the latest twenty years ago, but Washington DC has done nothing, and at this point it's too late.

Nothing is going to stop the economic tsunami that is coming.

Oh, economic. I thought you were referring to Americans killing other Americans because of an Obama win.

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 02:02 AM
Oh, economic. I thought you were referring to Americans killing other Americans because of an Obama win.

The mob riots and inevitable killing is going to happen no matter who the president is.

DaneMcCloud
09-20-2012, 02:31 AM
The mob riots and inevitable killing is going to happen no matter who the president is.

God, I hope you're wrong.

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 03:04 AM
"Collateral damage"

That's what they're calling Bernanke's victims.

Just google it

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=collateral+damage+QE3&oq=collateral+damage+QE3&gs_l=serp.12..35i39.4006.4771.0.6800.2.2.0.0.0.0.2227.2227.9-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.XGRuJVWmXHI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=25b3e54dee689702&biw=1311&bih=484

RINGLEADER
09-20-2012, 09:16 AM
The mob riots and inevitable killing is going to happen no matter who the president is.

When the social fabric unwinds, I agree.

For anyone who hasn't seen Too Big To Fail, the movie about the collapse in 9/2008, there's a revealing scene where Tim Geithner is walking down the street marveling at how everyone is just going about their business while he knew that a complete meltdown was upon them. We ended up not tipping over, but the next time - when a trillion doesn't suffice - it could very well all come undone. They'll try another trillion. They won't find takers. They'll print more money. It won't be enough. They'll make it two or three or five trillion. And they'll never be able to hold another auction again at rates under 7.0%.

Then it's over.

In other news, Obama is ripping Romney in half the polls. Neck in neck with the others. Romney's last stand is the debates IMO, and unless he lands a knock-out it's going to be hard to move the electorate. Looks like people want their goodies more than a sound economic policy. Of course, it would help if Romney offered a sound economic policy for them to rally around...lol.

dirk digler
09-20-2012, 09:22 AM
Rasmussen now has Obama up by 2 which really means he is up 8-10

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 09:41 AM
When the social fabric unwinds, I agree.

For anyone who hasn't seen Too Big To Fail, the movie about the collapse in 9/2008, there's a revealing scene where Tim Geithner is walking down the street marveling at how everyone is just going about their business while he knew that a complete meltdown was upon them. We ended up not tipping over, but the next time - when a trillion doesn't suffice - it could very well all come undone. They'll try another trillion. They won't find takers. They'll print more money. It won't be enough. They'll make it two or three or five trillion. And they'll never be able to hold another auction again at rates under 7.0%.

Then it's over.

Oh its coming undone--- and soon. I'm not blaming it all on Obama, he just speeded the process up. Before he came along, I figured 10-20 years tops. Now I'm thinking less than 3.


In other news, Obama is ripping Romney in half the polls. Neck in neck with the others. Romney's last stand is the debates IMO, and unless he lands a knock-out it's going to be hard to move the electorate. Looks like people want their goodies more than a sound economic policy. Of course, it would help if Romney offered a sound economic policy for them to rally around...lol.

I figure it this way---

Right now, I liken the country to a death row inmate. Obama will put him out of his misery, where Romney would give him another reprieve--- but the date with ol' sparky is inevitable. And soon.

Meh.

All I can do is accept reality, and prepare accordingly. The way I see it, everybody is going to get what they deserve in the end.

BigCatDaddy
09-20-2012, 09:43 AM
Rasmussen now has Obama up by 2 which really means he is up 8-10

I live in a country full of morons :facepalm:

Brock
09-20-2012, 10:05 AM
The mob riots and inevitable killing is going to happen no matter who the president is.

LMAO drama queen

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 10:21 AM
LMAO drama queen

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/liberals-franke.html

I know that I can't realistically hope to see the look on your face when they come for your children, but I can at least picture it.

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 10:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZErivmB7SQ

And this is during "good times". Whats gonna happen when the welfare check doesn't come?

Brock
09-20-2012, 10:25 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/06/liberals-franke.html

I know that I can't realistically hope to see the look on your face when they come for your children, but I can at least picture it.

Oh, so scarey. LMAO Freaking moonbat.

Comrade Crapski
09-20-2012, 10:26 AM
Oh, so scarey. LMAO Freaking moonbat.

The Germans have a word, Schadenfreude. I'll be experiencing plenty of it in the next few years.

Brock
09-20-2012, 10:33 AM
The Germans have a word, Schadenfreude. I'll be experiencing plenty of it in the next few years.

The Germans have another word, Hirnschaden. I think you're already experiencing that one.

InChiefsHell
09-20-2012, 10:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZErivmB7SQ

And this is during "good times". Whats gonna happen when the welfare check doesn't come?

The comments on that vid are disgusting though. Yeesh. I didn't think YouTube allowed that kind of language.

DementedLogic
09-20-2012, 10:47 AM
Rasmussen now has Obama up by 2 which really means he is up 8-10

What are you basing this on? Libs like to claim Rasmussen is right leaning, but Rasmussen performs a lot better than most polling organizations.

patteeu
09-20-2012, 12:03 PM
The Germans also have a word to describe our 44th POTUS: misserfolg (http://www.dict.cc/german-english/Misserfolg.html).

DementedLogic
09-20-2012, 12:47 PM
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/campaignselections/a/Analyzing-Virginia-Polls.htm


Four recent presidential polls for the state of Virginia show that Obama has leads of 3, 4, 8, and 5 points. But the data tell a different story. If you are interested in polls, this post offers a chance to look at polls by actually analyzing data, rather than simply looking at the final "result" that the media release. The method used here to calculate is open and honest, and offers a data-driven perspective of what story the polls might actually tell. Using the same data - but actually analyzing it - shows possible Romney leads of 4, 8, 2, and 2 points.

Background

When President Obama won the presidency in 2008, he had a record-breaking year in voter turnout and enthusiasm. In Virginia, Obama outspent McCain by more than 300% having dumped $26M into the state to a paltry $8M for McCain/Palin. With every possible factor in his favor, Democratic turnout bested Republican turnout by 6 points, with 39% of voters being Democrat and 33% identifying as Republican. A repeat of this turnout is highly unlikely given the major switch in voter enthusiasm and the competitive financial situation for the Romney campaign. Yet nearly every poll sample below shows that the turnout situation for Democrats has improved over 2008, while Republican turnout has dropped from the upper 30s to the mid 20s.

While the 2008 turnout was 39D to 33R, it rebounded in post-Obamacare Virginia in 2009 where it was 37R and 33D, a near reversal from a year earlier. In 2010, the Republican trend continued. While there is no exit data for 2010, Republicans dominated the congressional scene in that year. Democrats held a 6-5 advantage in the congressional delegation after 2008, but that turned into an 8-3 advantage for Republicans in 2010, thus suggesting similar turnout for Republicans that was seen in 2009. The turnout for 2009 and 2010 is similar to the turnout in Virginia in 2004, where Republicans also had a 4 point advantage (39R, 35D), and in 2006, where Republican had a turnout advantage of 39% to 36% over Democrats. There is no reliable exit poll data for 2000, but those election results suggest a similar pattern to 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2010. So, the question is, are the polls right and Democrats will outnumber Republicans by an even greater margin than in 2008, or is the analysis below right suggesting that turnout will be closer to every other election before and after Obama's 2008 win?

We Ask America

The We Ask America poll shows the race at 49% for Obama to 46% for Romney. Not a crazy number by any means, but what does the data say? For starters, Romney is leading with Independents by 6 points, 47-41%, which reflects an 8-point swing from 2008. Romney is currently capturing 87% of Republican voters while Obama captures a similar 88% of Democratic voters. If 2012 turnout is similar to 2008 turnout, then yes, Obama is up by 3. But if it is closer to either 2009, 2010, 2000, 2004, or 2006 turnout then Romney has 49% and Obama is back four points at 45%. Given everything that is known about enthusiasm, registrations, and money, which is the more likely scenario?

Quinnipiac/CBS/NY Times

The Quinnipiac/CBS/NY Times (disclosure: About is owned by the NY Times) poll shows Obama up 50-46%. This poll shows both Obama and Romney attracting 95% of their own constituencies, but Romney wins Independents by an even greater margin than in the We Ask America Poll, where he holds a 53-42% advantage. So how does Obama get a 4 point lead? The sample is made up of 35% Democrats and just 24% of Republicans. Remember, the average turnout for Democrats over the last two elections cycles is 36% and for Republicans it is 35%. Average turnout for Republicans over the last 6 election cycles is closer to 38%, while average turnout for Democrats is 35%.
A key data point found in Quinnipiac’s poll is that only 38% of Democrats are more enthusiastic about voting this year while 53% of Republicans say the same thing. With a sample that uses just 24% of Republican respondents, it’s actually remarkable that Romney is only “losing” by 4 points. With an 11 point lead among Independents, Romney would only need to have the average turnout of the last two election cycles to win the state. That would assume a turnout of 36% for Democrats and 35% for Republicans, which would still be depressed for Republicans and better-than-normal for Democrats, who are less excited than normal to vote.

But yes, if we assume that Democratic turnout in Virginia stays the same (despite losses in registration, decreased voter enthusiasm, and no money advantage) and assume that Republican turnout plummets by 13 points since 2009 (despite increases in voter registrations, increases in enthusiasm, and a healthy financial situation) then Obama is “winning” by 4 points. If you use the most recent turnout data (and for every year where it is available) instead, then Romney has 52.4% of the vote and Obama has 45%, an almost 7.5 point lead for Romney.

Washington Post

A Washington Post poll declares that Obama has a “clear” lead over Romney in Virginia, where he leads by an impressive 52-44%. The poll shows that Obama and Romney each hold their own constituencies equally well, and essentially split the Independents (Obama 47%, Romney 45%). But, once again, Democrats make up a reasonable 35% of the respondents, which is probably about what the electorate will wind up being. But Republicans make up just 26% of respondents, an astonishing 11 point drop from 2010 and even a seven point drop from 2008, when Republicans turnout was extremely depressed. So sure, if Republicans completely stay home despite all evidence to the contrary, then Obama is “clearly" winning by 8 points. Again, run the numbers using normal turnout data and it’s Romney 49.2%, Obama 46.9%.

Public Policy Polling
The final firm we look at is a poll from Public Policy Polling. They show that Obama leads in Virginia by 5 points, 51-46%. Their turnout model is a little more reasonable, showing Democrats with 35% (which, again, is about the normal turnout over the last decade) of the total sample. Republicans are still undervalued at 32% (which, also once again, is below every known data point over the last decade, including historically bad year 2008). The details of the data, however, are pretty similar to the rest of the polls. Romney leads with Independents by 2 (47-45%) and attracts 92% of his core supporters. Obama attracts 95% of Democrats, meanwhile. Once again, run the numbers through the most recent election where data is available, and Romney has 49.4% of the vote while Obama has 47.4%.

Analysis

In all of the above samples, we weighted the data to match 2009, 2010, 2004, and 2006 turnout, where Republicans had an advantage turnout of about 4 points over Democrats. There is no guarantee that turnout will match what it was in those years. But does anyone think that turnout will be better for Democrats (and worse than Republicans) than 2008, a historically major outlier in US presidential elections? That is essentially what every poll shows.

There is no evidence to support any justification that there will only be 24% Republican turnout in Virginia. It’s almost a statistical impossibility. But there is a good shot that Republican turnout will beat Democratic turnout, or at worst tie it. Factor in Romney’s coming money advantage, Obama’s decreasing popularity, the unpopularity of Obamacare, the recent Republican sweeps in Virginia, an increase in GOP registrations, a decrease in Democratic registrations, a major enthusiasm gap, and the fact that Virginia is a Republican-leaning state and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the data shows Romney is winning in Virginia.

There are many ways to look at data. The pollsters above did not weight the data in any form, and ran with unrealistic assumptions of voter turnout. There is no analysis, other than to look at what the final number spits out and declare "Obama is winning!" We weighted the data to the most recent election cycle, which also equals the data from every election outside of 2008. Has the mood changed since 2009 and 2010? The recent elections in Wisconsin would suggest not, as well as Obama's mid-40s approval ratings, and public support to see Obamacare repealed. In the end, the data within the polls is a lot more telling than what makes the headlines.

dirk digler
09-20-2012, 01:41 PM
What are you basing this on? Libs like to claim Rasmussen is right leaning, but Rasmussen performs a lot better than most polling organizations.

I made the comment mostly in jest but I take Ras polls with a grain of salt mostly.

RINGLEADER
09-20-2012, 02:43 PM
I made the comment mostly in jest but I take Ras polls with a grain of salt mostly.

Don't look now, but Romney lost 3-4 points in a day on Rasmussen. That would equate to probably a +6-7 point day yesterday for Romney. If he gains again tomorrow it equates to the video having an effect.

Now, as I stated originally, we'll see if it holds.

I continue to predict nothing much changing (with Obama slightly ahead) until the first debate. If Romney draws blood, he lives another day. If it is a tie or blah then Obama wins.

Just my $.02.

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 10:08 AM
New Polls:

Michigan: Obama 39%, Romney 30% (Michigan State (http://news.msu.edu/story/obama-leads-in-michigan-many-voters-undecided/))

North Carolina: Obama 46%, Romney 43% (HPU/Fox (http://myfox8.com/2012/09/20/hpufox8-poll-obama-regains-edge-with-nc-voters/))

Obama is +3 in Rasmussen for anyone that cares 49-46 with leaners

76.1% of winning according to 538

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 10:13 AM
I will add that not only are polls trending Obama's way big time so is money. For the first time Obama and his PAC's beat Romney and his. In fact Romney has spent more than he has taken in and had to get a $20 million loan because he is in money trouble.

Basically all the hype of their high dollar months was really not accurate the majority of it went to House and Senate candidates

ChiTown
09-21-2012, 10:15 AM
I will add that not only are polls trending Obama's way big time so is money. For the first time Obama and his PAC's beat Romney and his. In fact Romney has spent more than he has taken in and had to get a $20 million loan because he is in money trouble.

Basically all the hype of their high dollar months was really not accurate the majority of it went to House and Senate candidates

Link? Thanks

dirk digler
09-21-2012, 10:31 AM
Link? Thanks

Here is one http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/politics/romney-campaign-cautious-with-ad-budget-even-in-key-states.html?_r=2

One major reason appears to be that Mr. Romney’s campaign finances have been significantly less robust than recent headlines would suggest. Much of the more than $300 million the campaign reported raising this summer is earmarked for the Republican National Committee, state Republican organizations and Congressional races, limiting the money Mr. Romney’s own campaign has to spend.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81499.html?hp=t1



Team Obama has the momentum at the right time. Big Democratic donors are rallying to the Priorities USA Action super PAC, which is devoted to helping him and raised $10.1 million last (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81482.html)month (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81482.html) — its best month ever. And overall, for the first time in months, Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the joint DNC-Obama Victory Fund outraised Romney’s (http://www.politico.com/morningscore/0912/morningscore688.html)campaign (http://www.politico.com/morningscore/0912/morningscore688.html), the Republican National Committee and Romney Victory — $114 million to $111.6 million.


Romney has $50 million on hand Obama has $88 million

Aries Walker
09-21-2012, 10:45 AM
All I ask is that everyone who is offering INDELIBLE PROOF that their side will win, and whose candidate loses in November, fess up.

KC native
09-21-2012, 12:17 PM
All I ask is that everyone who is offering INDELIBLE PROOF that their side will win, and whose candidate loses in November, fess up.

It will be interesting to see who the rwnj blame when Obama is re-elected. ACORN isn't around anymore.

BigCatDaddy
09-21-2012, 12:24 PM
It will be interesting to see who the rwnj blame when Obama is re-elected. ACORN isn't around anymore.

That's pretty easy. It's the handout crowd.

alnorth
09-21-2012, 01:30 PM
What are you basing this on? Libs like to claim Rasmussen is right leaning, but Rasmussen performs a lot better than most polling organizations.

That has not been true for a while.

Rasmussen was terrible in 2000, fantastic in 2004, and a little above average in 2008. In 2010, Rasmussen's accuracy was utterly pathetic.

Their problem is they don't call cell phones. They aren't intentionally biased (unless they have decided not to call cell phones in order to get GOP-friendly polls), but they are extremely biased. 8 years ago it wasn't a big deal, but the number of people who have cut the cord have ballooned. 1/3 of voters are now cell-phone only, and that group is tilted towards Obama. Rasmussen doesn't contact them and doesn't even try to adjust for it. So, Rasmussen skews old, retired, and white. PPP also doesn't poll cell phones, but at least they try to adjust for it. Most other reputable polling organizations call cells.

Until the Mad House of Ras starts calling cell phones, their polls should be seen as a rotting pile of fetid garbage, which is only useful if you mentally add a few points to the D. (but why bother doing that when we have real polls out there?)

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 10:14 AM
New Polls:

Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/09/obama-up-6-in-colorado.html))
Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America (http://weaskamerica.com/2012/09/24/big-cheese/))

BucEyedPea
09-24-2012, 10:17 AM
New Polls:

Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/09/obama-up-6-in-colorado.html))
Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America (http://weaskamerica.com/2012/09/24/big-cheese/))

What's the percentage for "Undecideds?" Those who will decide at the very last minute. I've been polled three times already, and either there is no undecided asked or it's just undecided for one call.

Could we be experiencing the Bradley Effect too?

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 12:59 PM
Looking at these new polls I honestly don't see how Romney is going to win at this point in time. This is looking more like 2008 EC wise.


Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/09/obama-up-6-in-colorado.html))

Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/FL12.html))

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/IA12.html))

Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/election_2012_michigan_president))

North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas (http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/civitas-poll-obama-biden-lead-gop-ticket/))

Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/NV12.html))

Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America (http://weaskamerica.com/2012/09/24/big-cheese/))

oldandslow
09-24-2012, 03:08 PM
If NC goes Obama, this election is way over. Period. I've never heard of Civitas tho...so I don't know their track record.

cosmo20002
09-24-2012, 03:23 PM
I've been polled three times already

OK...too much information. But has anyone called to ask you who you plan on voting for?

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 06:25 PM
Looking at these new polls I honestly don't see how Romney is going to win at this point in time. This is looking more like 2008 EC wise.


Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/09/obama-up-6-in-colorado.html))

Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/FL12.html))

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/IA12.html))

Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/michigan/election_2012_michigan_president))

North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas (http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/civitas-poll-obama-biden-lead-gop-ticket/))

Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/NV12.html))

Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America (http://weaskamerica.com/2012/09/24/big-cheese/))Part of the reason for this is Obama and his Super Pac's are concentrating the money in the battleground states. That's why you see a wider gap in the battleground states than the national poll. As per Bill Clinton on Face the Nation on Sunday.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 06:46 PM
If NC goes Obama, this election is way over. Period. I've never heard of Civitas tho...so I don't know their track record.New polls out today have Obama leading Romney 48%-41% among Nascar voters. Obama is also leading among military families.

Romney is losing Nascar and military families to Obama. That should red flag Republicans.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 06:48 PM
New polls out today have Obama leading Romney 48%-41% among Nascar voters. Obama is also leading among military families.

Romney is losing Nascar and military families to Obama. That should red flag Republicans.

What about billionaires who are trying to buy the election? How's he doing with them?

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:06 PM
Part of the reason for this is Obama and his Super Pac's are concentrating the money in the battleground states. That's why you see a wider gap in the battleground states than the national poll. As per Bill Clinton on Face the Nation on Sunday.

Yeah, that sounds plausible. Romney must be putting most of his ad dollars in Mississippi, California, and Guam. If Bill Clinton really said that, he thinks he's talking to fools.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:07 PM
New polls out today have Obama leading Romney 48%-41% among Nascar voters. Obama is also leading among military families.

Romney is losing Nascar and military families to Obama. That should red flag Republicans.

Sure he is.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:08 PM
What about billionaires who are trying to buy the election? How's he doing with them?

Obama leads in all demographic groups by 7 or more points. He's up by double digits among Mormons and he's ahead in the tea party vote by 9. Hope is alive and well!

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 07:11 PM
Sure he is.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0924/Obama-opens-up-lead-over-Romney-with-NASCAR-voters-Another-straw-the-wind

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:14 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0924/Obama-opens-up-lead-over-Romney-with-NASCAR-voters-Another-straw-the-wind

You should take that to the bank.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 07:19 PM
You should take that to the bank.I think Nate Silver is the authority of polls. He's the best at this. No one is even close.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:23 PM
I think Nate Silver is the authority of polls. He's the best at this. No one is even close.

LOL Nate Silver did a good job analyzing poll data for two election cycles, but he doesn't even do polls. It's far too early in his poll analysis career to hand him the title "authority of polls" IMO. I don't have anything against him, but as Obama would tell you, there are other smart people out there.

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 07:23 PM
New polls out today have Obama leading Romney 48%-41% among Nascar voters. Obama is also leading among military families.

Romney is losing Nascar and military families to Obama. That should red flag Republicans.

Romney is winning among middle class families...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html

More important, in this latest set of data in the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, is the fact that Romney is also winning by a strong 14-point margin over Obama with middle-class families, a group of voters that is not only a majority of the American electorate, but is usually seen as the ultimate target group in any presidential election.

Pitt Gorilla
09-24-2012, 07:26 PM
Romney is winning among middle class families...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.htmlInteresting that you would post a piece that claims that middle class families are a majority of the electorate.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 07:29 PM
Romney is winning among middle class families...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.htmlmiddle class families don't vote. I thinks its like 20-30% isn't it? And they are no longer than "average" voter.

The fact that he's ahead by 14 points in that demographic and with the economy the way it is and he's still down in the polls.......... its arithmetic.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 07:33 PM
LOL Nate Silver did a good job analyzing poll data for two election cycles, but he doesn't even do polls. It's far too early in his poll analysis career to hand him the title "authority of polls" IMO. I don't have anything against him, but as Obama would tell you, there are other smart people out there.We were discussing the accuracy of polls not who's the best pollster.

The best analyzer of poll data is Nate Silver, thats just my opinion. You of course, are welcome to your own opinion and tell me how FOS I am in the next post.:)

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 07:40 PM
Interesting that you would post a piece that claims that middle class families are a majority of the electorate.

They are a majority of the electorate if you use their definitions and you are going by registered voters not likely voters.

I don't necessarily think the piece is accurate I just found it interesting. All this poll talk is really silly until after the first debate, in my opinion.

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 07:43 PM
middle class families don't vote. I thinks its like 20-30% isn't it? And they are no longer than "average" voter.

The fact that he's ahead by 14 points in that demographic and with the economy the way it is and he's still down in the polls.......... its arithmetic.

I have no clue what the %s are.. I can't imagine that they vote at a LOWER % than minorities or the poor. That would AMAZE me if that were the case.

As I have said many times, focusing on polls is silly at this point. I'd GUESS the election RIGHT NOW is a toss up with a marginal advantage to Obama (which I credit to the media bias not holding him accountable like they would even a moderate like Clinton).

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 08:16 PM
Yeah, that sounds plausible. Romney must be putting most of his ad dollars in Mississippi, California, and Guam. If Bill Clinton really said that, he thinks he's talking to fools.

Actually I don't think he has been running many ads because of money issues. That is why he is constantly doing fundraisers and had to take a loan out

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 08:18 PM
Romney is winning among middle class families...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html

You did read the title didn't you?
"Republican poll analysis"

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 08:22 PM
We were discussing the accuracy of polls not who's the best pollster.

The best analyzer of poll data is Nate Silver, thats just my opinion. You of course, are welcome to your own opinion and tell me how FOS I am in the next post.:)

If anyone knows about analyzing poles it's patteeu. The high school locker room is what he refers to as the glory years.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 08:23 PM
Actually I don't think he has been running many ads because of money issues. That is why he is constantly doing fundraisers and had to take a loan out

What happens to the money if he doesn't spend it?

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 08:42 PM
You did read the title didn't you?
"Republican poll analysis"

That doesn't change the validity of the math. Did you actually read it? I am not one to put much value in this at this point... but for all those touting the polls... you can't pick and choose what you want to hear. The Democratic analysis of the poll doesn't refute these findings it simply focuses on other aspects of it. If you are going to put value in polls, than you have to accept these results.

The FACT is.. this poll shows a 14 pt lead for Romney among middle class families. Notice it does not say middle class Americans... but FAMILIES.. I haven't checked the data to see if this is significant, I imagine it is, otherwise if Romney had a 14 pt lead among everyone in the middle class there is just no way Obama could have a 3pt lead overall, which the poll also shows. If you want to say this poll is wrong and useless... that's fine by me, but it is NO DIFFERENT than all the other polls.

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 08:48 PM
That doesn't change the validity of the math. Did you actually read it? I am not one to put much value in this at this point... but for all those touting the polls... you can't pick and choose what you want to hear. The Democratic analysis of the poll doesn't refute these findings it simply focuses on other aspects of it. If you are going to put value in polls, than you have to accept these results.

The FACT is.. this poll shows a 14 pt lead for Romney among middle class families. Notice it does not say middle class Americans... but FAMILIES.. I haven't checked the data to see if this is significant, I imagine it is, otherwise if Romney had a 14 pt lead among everyone in the middle class there is just no way Obama could have a 3pt lead overall, which the poll also shows. If you want to say this poll is wrong and useless... that's fine by me, but it is NO DIFFERENT than all the other polls.

I am not saying it was useless or wrong just that I don't put much stock in Republican or Democrat spin analysis.

I will add I noticed the complete poll and data was 488 pages so I am sure numbers could be spun a lot of different ways in both directions

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 08:49 PM
What happens to the money if he doesn't spend it?

Good question I don't know except it doesn't go into the candidates personal bank account

AustinChief
09-24-2012, 09:01 PM
I am not saying it was useless or wrong just that I don't put much stock in Republican or Democrat spin analysis.

I will add I noticed the complete poll and data was 488 pages so I am sure numbers could be spun a lot of different ways in both directions

The "you" in my post was meant as "anyone" not you in particular.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 11:56 PM
Nate Silver, nah! :drool:







ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
09-25-2012, 12:01 AM
They are a majority of the electorate if you use their definitions and you are going by registered voters not likely voters.

I don't necessarily think the piece is accurate I just found it interesting. All this poll talk is really silly until after the first debate, in my opinion.If it's silly, why actively participate?

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 12:05 AM
If it's silly, why actively participate?

If you'll notice, up til now I have not been participating, I just saw that article and thought it was funny after reading BRC's comments. I'll join in the conversation actively after the first debate, until then I feel that most of this is just pissing in the wind.

Direckshun
09-25-2012, 12:07 AM
Fucking brutal.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/24/latest_swing_state_polls.html

Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling)

Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group)

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)

Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen)

North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas)

Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)

Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America)

AustinChief
09-25-2012, 01:39 AM
Fucking brutal.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/24/latest_swing_state_polls.html

Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling)

Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group)

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)

Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen)

North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas)

Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)

Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America)

REPOST! (had to be done...)

I have a hard time believing that Florida, North Carolina and Iowa are going Obama, but at this point who the hell knows...

If I had to bet right now, I think it will all boil down to Ohio in the end, and that's going to be a tough one for Romney.

Rausch
09-25-2012, 06:03 AM
REPOST! (had to be done...)

I have a hard time believing that Florida, North Carolina and Iowa are going Obama, but at this point who the hell knows...

If I had to bet right now, I think it will all boil down to Ohio in the end, and that's going to be a tough one for Romney.

Rep's fucked up by choosing a guy even they don't like.

There is absolutely nothing about Romney I like. I'm a conservative.

I'll sit and wait during Obama's 2nd term and hope it beats some sense into people...

Great Expectations
09-25-2012, 08:29 AM
What happens to the money if he doesn't spend it?

I've seen State Senators give the money to other candidates in different districts. At the National level it probably goes to a Senate/Governor/Rep race in the future.

The MO Gubernatorial race ads attacking Nixon are very well done until the end IMO. It should have stopped short of attacking Obama, but those ads were probably paid for in a combination of funds from Romney and Spence.

dirk digler
09-25-2012, 08:59 AM
Early voting has started in half the states...

<table dir="ltr" class="tblGenFixed" id="tblMain" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr dir="ltr"><td dir="ltr" class="s0">State</td><td dir="ltr" class="s1">early voting % 2004</td><td dir="ltr" class="s1">early voting % 2008</td></tr><tr dir="ltr"><td class="hd">.
</td><td dir="ltr" class="s2">CO</td><td class="s3">47.9</td><td class="s3">79.3</td></tr><tr dir="ltr"><td class="hd">.
</td><td dir="ltr" class="s4">FL</td><td class="s5">36.1</td><td class="s5">57.3</td></tr><tr dir="ltr"><td class="hd">.
</td><td dir="ltr" class="s2">IA</td><td class="s3">30.8</td><td class="s3">31.6</td></tr><tr dir="ltr"><td class="hd">.
</td><td dir="ltr" class="s4">NV</td><td class="s5">53.1</td><td class="s5">67.6</td></tr><tr dir="ltr"><td class="hd">.
</td><td dir="ltr" class="s2">NC</td><td class="s3">30.8</td><td class="s3">73.9</td></tr><tr dir="ltr"><td class="hd">.
</td><td dir="ltr" class="s4">OH</td><td class="s5">10.7</td><td class="s5">25.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

patteeu
09-25-2012, 09:22 AM
I've seen State Senators give the money to other candidates in different districts. At the National level it probably goes to a Senate/Governor/Rep race in the future.

The MO Gubernatorial race ads attacking Nixon are very well done until the end IMO. It should have stopped short of attacking Obama, but those ads were probably paid for in a combination of funds from Romney and Spence.

That could be. It also could be that Obama is unpopular enough in Missouri that to tie Nixon to Obama is advantageous for Spence.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 09:23 AM
Early voting has started in half the states...

Early voting is an abomination, but Romney has been investing heavily in it to try to counter Obama's likely effectiveness in this area.

dirk digler
09-25-2012, 10:10 AM
Early voting is an abomination, but Romney has been investing heavily in it to try to counter Obama's likely effectiveness in this area.

Why is it an abomination?

Comrade Crapski
09-25-2012, 10:23 AM
http://unskewedpolls.com/

patteeu
09-25-2012, 10:43 AM
Why is it an abomination?

Because our elections should be about making a case to the people and then letting them decide. Early voting means that some people are voting before the arguments have all been made. For example, some people are voting right now before the first debate has even taken place. It's like letting a jury member cast it's vote whether or not to convict any time after closing arguments begin instead of making them wait until both sides have made their closing arguments.

Early voting favors the incumbent whose case is generally pretty well known and raises the hurdle for challengers who generally have more limited funds and opportunities to get their "new" case in front of the voters. Does the challenger blow his/her wad just before early voting starts or do they save it for the last few weeks before the majority of people will vote knowing that they will be at a big disadvantage with the early voters. This is an even bigger problem for down ticket races than it is for the POTUS race.

J Diddy
09-25-2012, 10:46 AM
Because our elections should be about making a case to the people and then letting them decide. Early voting means that some people are voting before the arguments have all been made. For example, some people are voting right now before the first debate has even taken place. It's like letting a jury member cast it's vote whether or not to convict any time after closing arguments begin instead of making them wait until both sides have made their closing arguments.

Early voting favors the incumbent whose case is generally pretty well known and raises the hurdle for challengers who generally have more limited funds and opportunities to get their "new" case in front of the voters. Does the challenger blow his/her wad just before early voting starts or do they save it for the last few weeks before the majority of people will vote knowing that they will be at a big disadvantage with the early voters. This is an even bigger problem for down ticket races than it is for the POTUS race.

That's bullshit. Everyone here has known you were going to vote for at least the last 4 years and everyone here knows exactly where I'm going to vote. Why wait it out and risk the chance of turnout?

patteeu
09-25-2012, 10:54 AM
That's bullshit. Everyone here has known you were going to vote for at least the last 4 years and everyone here knows exactly where I'm going to vote. Why wait it out and risk the chance of turnout?

Did you read my post? The places where early voting has the most nefarious impact are on the elections for offices other than POTUS where challengers are less well known and have poorer funding. It certainly has an impact at the POTUS level too, not on discerning people like me or sheep like you, but on the less committed people among us.

dirk digler
09-25-2012, 11:02 AM
Because our elections should be about making a case to the people and then letting them decide. Early voting means that some people are voting before the arguments have all been made. For example, some people are voting right now before the first debate has even taken place. It's like letting a jury member cast it's vote whether or not to convict any time after closing arguments begin instead of making them wait until both sides have made their closing arguments.

Early voting favors the incumbent whose case is generally pretty well known and raises the hurdle for challengers who generally have more limited funds and opportunities to get their "new" case in front of the voters. Does the challenger blow his/her wad just before early voting starts or do they save it for the last few weeks before the majority of people will vote knowing that they will be at a big disadvantage with the early voters. This is an even bigger problem for down ticket races than it is for the POTUS race.

Ok. Fair enough and you make a good argument against it. Are you in favor though of early voting via absentee ballot?

J Diddy
09-25-2012, 11:08 AM
Did you read my post? The places where early voting has the most nefarious impact are on the elections for offices other than POTUS where challengers are less well known and have poorer funding. It certainly has an impact at the POTUS level too, not on discerning people like me or sheep like you, but on the less committed people among us.
I apologize, but I must point out that you got your labels mixed up. Probably due to the feverish pitch you were throwing your mind numbing bullshit out.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 12:00 PM
Ok. Fair enough and you make a good argument against it. Are you in favor though of early voting via absentee ballot?

I'm in favor of stricter limitations on absentee ballots, but I don't want to disenfranchise people who really have no choice but to be absent from the area on election day or confined to a bed.

alnorth
09-25-2012, 12:24 PM
Because our elections should be about making a case to the people and then letting them decide. Early voting means that some people are voting before the arguments have all been made. For example, some people are voting right now before the first debate has even taken place. It's like letting a jury member cast it's vote whether or not to convict any time after closing arguments begin instead of making them wait until both sides have made their closing arguments.

Early voting favors the incumbent whose case is generally pretty well known and raises the hurdle for challengers who generally have more limited funds and opportunities to get their "new" case in front of the voters. Does the challenger blow his/her wad just before early voting starts or do they save it for the last few weeks before the majority of people will vote knowing that they will be at a big disadvantage with the early voters. This is an even bigger problem for down ticket races than it is for the POTUS race.

Agreed, early voting is a stupid idea. Yes, it has no impact on the hard-core bullet voters, but anyone who is undecided or softly leaning one way should not be voting early unless they really need to vote absentee.

I wont vote early, even if I'm firmly decided in every race on the ballot, until election day because I want the ability to change my mind if the guy I was going to vote for gets caught with a dead hooker or is exposed as someone whose beliefs are radically different from what I thought.

At some point you have to vote and if they succeed in fooling you through early November, so be it, but I'm going to force them to successfully lie if thats what the candidate is doing until the final day.

dirk digler
09-25-2012, 06:11 PM
<wbr>

Race Stabilizes in Obama's Favor (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/25/race_stabilizes_in_obamas_favor.html)

Charlie Cook (http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/pollsters-suggest-race-stabilizing-in-obama-s-favor-20120925): "Leading Democratic and Republican pollsters and strategists privately say that the Obama lead is around 4 or 5 points and is neither widening nor narrowing. The convention bounces have dissipated, but Romney's negatives remain quite high and are not diminishing. In the Gallup three-week super-samples--almost 10,000 interviews--the percentage of Democrats saying that they will definitely vote has moved up to the point that it is now virtually tied with Republicans."

alnorth
09-25-2012, 06:30 PM
Nate Silver tweeted this hilarious gem today

Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight
Thinking every poll but Rasmussen is skewed is literally as delusional as believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

alnorth
09-25-2012, 06:35 PM
My prediction hasn't changed much since 2 months ago. Only difference is now I think Obama takes Ohio.

<img src="http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg81/Northjayhawk/map9-25.png">

dirk digler
09-25-2012, 06:35 PM
Nate Silver tweeted this hilarious gem today

There is stupid people like this on this board like TomJay (aka shtsprayer)

BigRedChief
09-25-2012, 06:39 PM
There is stupid people like this on this board like TomJay (aka shtsprayer)He's not the only one.

Calcountry
09-25-2012, 07:09 PM
I think that I have yet to see a poll favoring a D that wasn't dismissed by the Rs as being biased, improperly weighted, etc. Heard the same in 2008, right before Obama won. Bottom line is that whatever the major pollsters are doing, they are usually pretty damn close most of the time. I don't see what is in it for them to intentionally not shoot for accuracy.ROFL how about, a horse race? It sells better.

cosmo20002
09-25-2012, 07:32 PM
Because our elections should be about making a case to the people and then letting them decide. Early voting means that some people are voting before the arguments have all been made.

I do kind of like the idea of an Election DAY, but if the argument hasn't been made by now, that's the candidates' fault.

J Diddy
09-25-2012, 07:48 PM
I do kind of like the idea of an Election DAY, but if the argument hasn't been made by now, that's the candidates' fault.

Not me. I'm usually sweating balls and boozed up. That's before i go vote. I probably should chill before I accidently vote for Garfield the Cat as a write in.

ReynardMuldrake
09-25-2012, 10:46 PM
http://unskewedpolls.com/

I guess I'm not seeing the point of this. They are compensating for a perceived oversampling of Democrats by deliberately oversampling Republicans? Isn't that skewed by definition?

Comrade Crapski
09-25-2012, 11:05 PM
There is stupid people like this on this board like TomJay (aka shtsprayer)

Shut the fuck up you pussy.

Comrade Crapski
09-25-2012, 11:07 PM
I guess I'm not seeing the point of this. They are compensating for a perceived oversampling of Democrats by deliberately oversampling Republicans? Isn't that skewed by definition?

You'll find out on November 6th I guess.

Yeah, that's when the blacks riot because they think Barry was supposed to win because of all the distorted polls the moonbats have been promoting.

ReynardMuldrake
09-26-2012, 09:57 AM
You'll find out on November 6th I guess.

Yeah, that's when the blacks riot because they think Barry was supposed to win because of all the distorted polls the moonbats have been promoting.

How long has unskewedpolls.com been around? I've never heard of them before this year. I'm curious what their success rate has been in picking winners.

I like to judge a polling organization based on its merits, i.e. how successful its predictions are. If you have these numbers, I'd be interested to see them.

Cave Johnson
09-26-2012, 10:50 AM
Because our elections should be about making a case to the people and then letting them decide. Early voting means that some people are voting before the arguments have all been made. For example, some people are voting right now before the first debate has even taken place. It's like letting a jury member cast it's vote whether or not to convict any time after closing arguments begin instead of making them wait until both sides have made their closing arguments.

Early voting favors the incumbent whose case is generally pretty well known and raises the hurdle for challengers who generally have more limited funds and opportunities to get their "new" case in front of the voters. Does the challenger blow his/her wad just before early voting starts or do they save it for the last few weeks before the majority of people will vote knowing that they will be at a big disadvantage with the early voters. This is an even bigger problem for down ticket races than it is for the POTUS race.

But this isn't a jury. Juries have specific instructions on elements of certain claims/charges and the burden of proof. By contrast, you cant vote for or against someone for any reason under the sun.

Early voting is also used significantly more by Democrats. Total coincidence, no doubt.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:53 AM
How long has unskewedpolls.com been around? I've never heard of them before this year. I'm curious what their success rate has been in picking winners.

I like to judge a polling organization based on its merits, i.e. how successful its predictions are. If you have these numbers, I'd be interested to see them.

Polls aren't predictions. If you're expecting any of the polls of today to accurately predict the results on the first Tuesday of November, you're going to be disappointed in most cases.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 10:57 AM
But this isn't a jury. Juries have specific instructions on elements of certain claims/charges and the burden of proof. By contrast, you cant vote for or against someone for any reason under the sun.

It's not a jury? Duh, you don't say. The distinction you describe is completely irrelevant. All of the important characteristics are analogous.

Early voting is also used significantly more by Democrats. Total coincidence, no doubt.

I don't know who uses early voting more, so yeah, I guess it's a coincidence if it's even true. What's not a coincidence is the fact that early voting favors the incumbent. That's actually one of the reasons I oppose it.

dirk digler
09-26-2012, 11:04 AM
Shut the fuck up you pussy.

moonbat

Cave Johnson
09-26-2012, 11:39 AM
It's not a jury? Duh, you don't say. The distinction you describe is completely irrelevant. All of the important characteristics are analogous.

It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and moon rocks. Your analogy is beyond retarded.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 11:50 AM
It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and moon rocks. Your analogy is beyond retarded.

Only the retarded can't understand my analogy.

Cave Johnson
09-26-2012, 11:52 AM
Only the retarded can't understand my analogy.

There's no argument too specious re vote suppression you won't endorse.

ReynardMuldrake
09-26-2012, 12:00 PM
Polls aren't predictions. If you're expecting any of the polls of today to accurately predict the results on the first Tuesday of November, you're going to be disappointed in most cases.

Of course not. Polls are just raw data. Plus it's still too far out.

As you get closer to election day though, the poll numbers should reflect the real voting numbers, if it's an accurate poll. Some polls are more accurate than others.

patteeu
09-26-2012, 12:17 PM
Of course not. Polls are just raw data. Plus it's still too far out.

As you get closer to election day though, the poll numbers should reflect the real voting numbers, if it's an accurate poll. Some polls are more accurate than others.

Right, but as you say, they all change as election day gets closer.

dirk digler
09-26-2012, 01:21 PM
Gallup now Obama up by 6 so hopefully all this talk of bs polls subsides.

Cave Johnson
09-26-2012, 01:48 PM
Gallup now Obama up by 6 so hopefully all this talk of bs polls subsides.

Polls have a liberal bias.

/RWNJs

vailpass
09-26-2012, 01:53 PM
Ghetto the vote!

Pitt Gorilla
09-26-2012, 04:49 PM
Ghetto the vote!what does that mean?

BigRedChief
09-26-2012, 05:35 PM
Gallup now Obama up by 6 so hopefully all this talk of bs polls subsides.It's become the dogma of the whole Republican party. They are liberal bias polls. Doesnt matter that the Fox News polls are showing the same thing. Just turn the bubble up to full strength.

It's really sad but just a desperate act of a failing campaign. Makes then look horrible. Again, science is wrong. We are right.

BigRedChief
09-26-2012, 05:40 PM
Polls have a liberal bias.

/RWNJsIt's not RWNJ's anymore. The Romney campaign cant raise money if the campaign is a lost cause. So they make up some BS story. Say we got the "true" results, dont worry. uhhh Mr. Romney can we see this "true" data? Sorry, its for internal use only but trust us, we have the real data.LMAO

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 06:07 PM
Iowa: Romney 47%, Obama 46% (TIR-Voter/Consumer Research (http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/romney-leads-obama-in-latest-tir-poll/))

Virginia: Obama 46%, Romney 44% (Suffolk University (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/new-poll-close-contest-in-virginia/))

North Carolina: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))

New Hampshire: Obama 51%, Romney 44%(WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))

Nevada: Obama 49%, Romney 47% (WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))

Fox News: Obama 48% Romney 43%

qabbaan
09-27-2012, 06:14 PM
North Carolina: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))


It would be fun to analyze the sampling bias in one of these polls but look, it's pay walled.

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 06:17 PM
It would be fun to analyze the sampling bias in one of these polls but look, it's pay walled.

Are you accusing the Wall Street Journal of having a liberal bias? The same WSJ that supports Romney?

:spock:

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 06:19 PM
Are you accusing the Wall Street Journal of having a liberal bias? The same WSJ that supports Romney?

:spock:And that Fox News poll showing Obama up 5 points nationally? Wonder how the radical left found a way to dupe Fox news?;)

VAChief
09-27-2012, 06:27 PM
It would be fun to analyze the sampling bias in one of these polls but look, it's pay walled.

Yes, I think the WSJ and Fox are probably keeping the margins artificially lower to make sure Romney has at least a shot going into the debates.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 07:40 PM
Yes, I think the WSJ and Fox are probably keeping the margins artificially lower to make sure Romney has at least a shot going into the debates.

But if they are artificially lower, then it doesn't actually give him "a shot."

Hoover
09-27-2012, 07:45 PM
Iowa: Romney 47%, Obama 46% (TIR-Voter/Consumer Research (http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/romney-leads-obama-in-latest-tir-poll/))

Virginia: Obama 46%, Romney 44% (Suffolk University (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/new-poll-close-contest-in-virginia/))

North Carolina: Obama 48%, Romney 46% (WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))

New Hampshire: Obama 51%, Romney 44%(WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))

Nevada: Obama 49%, Romney 47% (WSJ/NBC (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444549204578022813911439502.html?mod=djemalertNEWS))

Fox News: Obama 48% Romney 43%
FYI, I commissioned the Iowa Poll you reference. We have been polling the state of Iowa since the spring of 2009.

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 07:53 PM
FYI, I commissioned the Iowa Poll you reference. We have been polling the state of Iowa since the spring of 2009.Hoover, is there really some super secret polling data that the Romney campaign has that shows him winning? And if so why not share it to prop up your base?

dirk digler
09-27-2012, 07:54 PM
FYI, I commissioned the Iowa Poll you reference. We have been polling the state of Iowa since the spring of 2009.

I think there is some serious RWNJ bias in your poll ;)


J/k :)

Hoover
09-27-2012, 08:01 PM
Hoover, is there really some super secret polling data that the Romney campaign has that shows him winning? And if so why not share it to prop up your base?
All campaigns do internal polling, and that data also tests various messages. So a generic ballot test might show them losing, an informed ballot might show otherwise.

Romney is not strong anywhere, but he is in the game in most battlegrounds.

The debate over the make up of these polls are legitimate. Everyone and their brother could conduct polls if it was as easy as using the last elections turnout models or a state's voter registration makeup. Its not that simple, and every pollster knows that.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 08:10 PM
The debate over the make up of these polls are legitimate. Everyone and their brother could conduct polls if it was as easy as using the last elections turnout models or a state's voter registration makeup. Its not that simple, and every pollster knows that.

You seem to be leaving something out here. Such as "...and that's why pollsters don't simply use the last election turnout model as is being alleged."

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 08:21 PM
All campaigns do internal polling, and that data also tests various messages. So a generic ballot test might show them losing, an informed ballot might show otherwise.

Romney is not strong anywhere, but he is in the game in most battlegrounds.

The debate over the make up of these polls are legitimate. Everyone and their brother could conduct polls if it was as easy as using the last elections turnout models or a state's voter registration makeup. Its not that simple, and every pollster knows that.You didnt answer why you wouldnt release that data if it was going to make your candidate and or campaign look good?

Barring someone comes forward with an Oboma got a BJ in the Oval, he is going to win Ohio and Pennslyvania. No Republican has ever won a Presidential election without taking those states. Whats the path that you see for Romney to get to 270 EC?

Hoover
09-27-2012, 08:40 PM
The data doesn't mean shit in and of itself. Data is knowledge and you use it to get people to vote for you. The media wants to report on the horserace, campaigns simply want to win on election day. Romney needs some good polling numbers to create some momentum, but a one day news story isn't going to do him any good.

Cosmo, I'm not a pollster, that's why I hire one to conduct the poll. It's a science. I don't know how they cook the sauce. I do know my pollster has a pretty good track record in my state and across the nation.

Hoover
09-27-2012, 08:42 PM
The big turd for Romney is Ohio. If he can't win that, Obama just has to win either IA, WI, NV, CO, or VA. If Romney can turn Ohio around we have a real race.

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 08:46 PM
The data doesn't mean shit in and of itself. Data is knowledge and you use it to get people to vote for you. The media wants to report on the horserace, campaigns simply want to win on election day. Romney needs some good polling numbers to create some momentum, but a one day news story isn't going to do him any good.thanks for the explanation that makes sense. :thumb:

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 08:50 PM
The big turd for Romney is Ohio. If he can't win that, Obama just has to win either IA, WI, NV, CO, or VA. If Romney can turn Ohio around we have a real race.You know that an Ohio turn around is not going to happen. The economy is doing great in Ohio thanks in big part to Oboma's bailout of Chrysler and GM. Mitt wrote a huge Op=Ed in the NY times saying let them fail. If you lived in Ohio, who do you think had your back?

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 08:58 PM
Cosmo, I'm not a pollster, that's why I hire one to conduct the poll. It's a science. I don't know how they cook the sauce. I do know my pollster has a pretty good track record in my state and across the nation.

This is my main point--that despite all the pundits and their sheep claiming the pollsters are simply using 2008 turnouts, no one really knows the complete formula. And if the pollsters are in fact simply plugging in 2008 data (which would likely have SOME adjustments anyway), there's a reason they are doing so--because they think it is accurate.

Hoover
09-27-2012, 09:12 PM
This is my main point--that despite all the pundits and their sheep claiming the pollsters are simply using 2008 turnouts, no one really knows the complete formula. And if the pollsters are in fact simply plugging in 2008 data (which would likely have SOME adjustments anyway), there's a reason they are doing so--because they think it is accurate.
Every poll is a crap shoot, that why I prefer the Real Clear Politics poll average. Very smart tool. The debate is really about whether the polls should be weighted by party or not. My pollster weights his samples, the majority of poll that have come out showing Obama with leads are unweighted. We will not know what method is better in the current cycle until the polls close.

BigRedChief
09-27-2012, 09:28 PM
Every poll is a crap shoot, that why I prefer the Real Clear Politics poll average. Very smart tool. The debate is really about whether the polls should be weighted by party or not. My pollster weights his samples, the majority of poll that have come out showing Obama with leads are unweighted. We will not know what method is better in the current cycle until the polls close.What's your opinion of Nate Silver?

Hoover
09-27-2012, 09:56 PM
LOVE Nate Silver's work. That said, his analysis is only as good as the data, and you don't know how good the data was until after election day. :)

BigRedChief
09-28-2012, 07:05 PM
<table class="data"><tbody><tr class="rcpAvg"><td class="noCenter">RCP Average</td><td>9/13 - 9/27</td><td>--</td><td>--</td><td>48.7</td><td>44.6</td><td class="spread">Obama +4.1</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter">Rasmussen Tracking (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)</td><td>9/25 - 9/27</td><td>1500 LV</td><td>3.0</td><td>47</td><td>46</td><td class="spread">Obama +1</td></tr><tr><td class="noCenter">FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/09/27/fox-news-poll-voters-want-change-president-to-stand-up-for-free-speech/)</td><td>9/24 - 9/26</td><td>1092 LV</td><td>3.0</td><td>48</td><td>43</td><td class="spread">Obama +5</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter">Gallup Tracking (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx)</td><td>9/21 - 9/27</td><td>3050 RV</td><td>2.0</td><td>50</td><td>44</td><td class="spread">Obama +6</td></tr><tr><td class="noCenter">Bloomberg (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs)</td><td>9/21 - 9/24</td><td>789 LV</td><td>3.5</td><td>49</td><td>43</td><td class="spread">Obama +6</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter">Politico/GWU/Battleground (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/09/battlegroundpoll.html)</td><td>9/16 - 9/20</td><td>1000 LV</td><td>3.1</td><td>50</td><td>47</td><td class="spread">Obama +3</td></tr><tr><td class="noCenter">National Journal (http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/heartland-monitor-poll-obama-leads-50-percent-to-43-percent-20120921)</td><td>9/15 - 9/19</td><td>1055 LV</td><td>3.0</td><td>50</td><td>43</td><td class="spread">Obama +7</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter">Associated Press/GfK (http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20Poll%20September%202012%20Topline_1st%20release.pdf)</td><td>9/13 - 9/17</td><td>807 LV</td><td>4.3</td><td>47</td><td>46</td><td class="spread">Obama +1</td></tr></tbody></table>

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 07:12 PM
RCP Average 9/13 - 9/27 -- -- 48.7 44.6 Obama +4.1 Biased
Rasmussen Tracking 9/25 - 9/27 1500 LV 3.0 47 46 Obama +1 A little baised
FOX News 9/24 - 9/26 1092 LV 3.0 48 43 Obama +5 Really biased
Gallup Tracking 9/21 - 9/27 3050 RV 2.0 50 44 Obama +6 VERY biased
Bloomberg 9/21 - 9/24 789 LV 3.5 49 43 Obama +6 VERY biased
Politico/GWU/Battleground 9/16 - 9/20 1000 LV 3.1 50 47 Obama +3 Big bias
National Journal 9/15 - 9/19 1055 LV 3.0 50 43 Obama +7 Holy crap biased
Associated Press/GfK 9/13 - 9/17 807 LV 4.3 47 46 Obama +1 A little biased

/right wing nutjob

patteeu
09-28-2012, 10:40 PM
Why is it an abomination?

LOL, check this guy out. He stole my post.

Early Voting Is an Abomination (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/early-voting-is-an-abomination.html)

By Francis Wilkinson Sep 27, 2012 10:57 AM CT

At his blog, Reed College political scientist Paul Gronke tells us to calm down about early voting.

It’s true that early voting has started in many states, and will start in more states in the upcoming weeks. And it’s also true that both campaigns will be mobilizing those early votes as a way to “bank” voters. But this doesn’t mean that half the country is going to tune out from the presidential contest or miss the debates.

Gronke points out that most voters don’t vote early, and that even those who do tend to vote not in September but in the final days of the campaign.

In only nine states (Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) did early votes total more than 30% of all votes in 2008. For two of these, Georgia and Texas, the overwhelming majority of “early” votes are not cast no-excuse absentee but early in-person, which does not start for a few weeks.

It's comforting that most voters are not early voters. But none of this convinces me that the convenience of early voting justifies the damage it does to democratic principle and practice.

I previously complained about early voting during the Republican presidential primary, mainly because early voting decisively aids campaigns with the most money. In the Florida primary, for example, Mitt Romney -- the big-bucks candidate -- was able to flood the airwaves with ads during the extended early voting period while still having plenty of money left for the final weeks. His opponents were largely off the air during early voting, leaving Romney to make his case without fear of contradiction. Admittedly, this is no longer an issue in the presidential race, since both Obama and Romney have plenty of money. But it still matters in congressional races.

Early voting also shortchanges the campaign narrative, which adds new information as it unfolds. What good is an "October surprise" to a citizen who voted in September?

The willingness to vote early, before all the innings are played, is an affront to democratic discourse. It signals that minds are closed to new information. That may be an accurate reflection of American politics -- not only in our especially polarized era but in previous ones as well. Partisanship is an essential feature of our politics. But it's not a vision we should endorse and institutionalize with early voting. Democracy, like a Hollywood movie, requires a certain suspension of disbelief. We know in reality that not every American's vote is equal (if you have any doubt, ask Sheldon Adelson). Yet we behave as if that's the case.

Likewise, it's important to organize our elections with the understanding that voters will adapt their thinking, and consequently their votes, to new information. The campaign debate isn't over. Locking up our votes early is a tacit admission that we have also locked up our minds.

How can that be good?

cosmo20002
09-28-2012, 11:20 PM
LOL, check this guy out. He stole my post.

Early Voting Is an Abomination (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/early-voting-is-an-abomination.html)



I have a feeling that you are against early voting because your candidate is circling the drain and you don't want the polls open before he has a chance to recover.

6 weeks early seems a bit ridiculous, but a couple weeks--why not? If a candidate hasn't made his case by then (or by now), tough. Campaigns have been going on a full year and, what--they are going to come up with some new policy to announce?

Plus, a single day has some practical problems--potential bad weather, loooong lines

AustinChief
09-28-2012, 11:43 PM
6 weeks early seems a bit ridiculous, but a couple weeks--why not? If a candidate hasn't made his case by then (or by now), tough. Campaigns have been going on a full year and, what--they are going to come up with some new policy to announce?

Plus, a single day has some practical problems--potential bad weather, loooong lines

One or two weeks is plenty. 6 weeks is ridiculous, 1 day is equally absurd.

BigRedChief
09-28-2012, 11:48 PM
One or two weeks is plenty. 6 weeks is ridiculous, 1 day is equally absurd.Why, whats the harm or downside?

AustinChief
09-28-2012, 11:53 PM
Why, whats the harm or downside?

Massive downside. Uninformed voters.

I don't care HOW partisan a person is or how made up their mind is.. you shouldn't be allowed to vote before a SINGLE debate has been held. Period.

The very idea only validates more ignorant votes. It's unAmerican and shitty.

patteeu
09-28-2012, 11:57 PM
Why, whats the harm or downside?

The answer to that question has been posted in this thread at least two times, including the article I just posted.

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 12:08 AM
Massive downside. Uninformed voters.

I don't care HOW partisan a person is or how made up their mind is.. you shouldn't be allowed to vote before a SINGLE debate has been held. Period.

The very idea only validates more ignorant votes. It's unAmerican and shitty.Although I'd agree with you points, not allowing early voting will not fix your main point and the core issue, the ignorant and uneducated voter.

J Diddy
09-29-2012, 12:09 AM
Massive downside. Uninformed voters.

I don't care HOW partisan a person is or how made up their mind is.. you shouldn't be allowed to vote before a SINGLE debate has been held. Period.

The very idea only validates more ignorant votes. It's unAmerican and shitty.

I would disagree.

The debates have lost their impact. Maybe in the 1980s and 1990's and to some extent the first four years of the 21st. However, the truth is now their position is very well established. Through the internet and cable channels news is immediate and a ton of interpretation and facts are available. The only purpose of a debate at this point is to see if they crack a bit under the lights in a debate forum.

BucEyedPea
09-29-2012, 12:23 AM
Most democrats are economically ignorant.

bandwagonjumper
09-29-2012, 06:25 AM
Most democrats are economically ignorant.

What does it mean? Democrats are ignorant of economic or are very efficient with there ignorance?

patteeu
09-29-2012, 07:03 AM
What does it mean? Democrats are ignorant of economic or are very efficient with there ignorance?

Both