Three New Likely Voter Polls

[houghtam]

These polls are all likely voters.

9/13: Obama Up Five Points Over Romney in Virginia

This is without factoring how much of the vote third-party candidate and fellow conservative Virgil Goode will take away from Romney. Virginia will be a blue state again in 2012.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/913-obama-up-five-points-over-romney-in-virginia/

9/13: Obama with Advantage Over Romney in Florida


5 point lead for Obama, 7 point lead for Obama with independent voters. Florida will likely be a blue state again in 2012.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/913-obama-with-advantage-over-romney-in-florida/

9/13: Obama Leads Romney by 7 Points in Ohio

Obama has a sizable lead in all age groups in Ohio, including a whopping 9% advantage over Romney in likely voters 60 and over. Ohio will likely be a blue state again in 2012.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/913-obama-leads-romney-by-7-points-in-ohio/

[peacepipe]

explains some of the desperation willard is showing. It's still no excuse for willard trying to exploit the deaths of americans in libya for political gain.

[Paladin]

Didn't work anyway.

[Pseudofool]

I'm thinking Obama might win bigger than he did with McCain. McCain actually got a convention bounce, and it wasn't until after the debates that Obama should a substantive lead.

[Jetmeck]

Actually the polls and the pathetic showing at the repub convention are to blame for pathetic reach and desperation coming from Romney and several OP
on this board..............

BTW obama is up 6 points in the FOX NEWS POLL which Bill O reilly tried to discredit......get that...he tried to discredit his own right leaning poll.

Folks the wheels are coming off...............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Keep opening your cake hole, Mittens - every time you says something, the voters get a clearer picture of what a complete piece of moral garbage on legs you really are.

http://www.bartcop.com/romney-libya-fox.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually the polls and the pathetic showing at the repub convention are to blame for pathetic reach and desperation coming from Romney and several OP
on this board..............

BTW obama is up 6 points in the FOX NEWS POLL which Bill O reilly tried to discredit......get that...he tried to discredit his own right leaning poll.

Folks the wheels are coming off...............

The most stark difference between the two conventions:

The DNC reflected the real America in all its diversity.

The RNC looked like some kind of Klan or Aryan Brotherhood rally.

Thanks to eight years of Bush and, now, the TeaTards, the GOP has been reduced to an exclusive club for sister diddling racists, snake handlers, and a handful of rich white guys.

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-symbol.jpg

[DBruleU]

While usually all polls are total BS at this point and there are so many different polls that go one way or the other...I found this interesting. A report listed the most accurate polls from the 2008 election. At the top of those most accurate? Pew and Rasmussen. (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/) Rasmussen today has Romney up 48% to 45%. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Also, swing state tracking has Romney/Obama all tied up (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll).

Whatever bump Obama got after the election is slowly dissipating and who knows how this ME crisis plays into polls in the coming weeks. One of Obama's strong points according to pollsters is his FP. That may take a hit.

[Jetmeck]

While usually all polls are total BS at this point and there are so many different polls that go one way or the other...I found this interesting. A report listed the most accurate polls from the 2008 election. At the top of those most accurate? Pew and Rasmussen. (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/) Rasmussen today has Romney up 48% to 45%. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Also, swing state tracking has Romney/Obama all tied up (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll).

Whatever bump Obama got after the election is slowly dissipating and who knows how this ME crisis plays into polls in the coming weeks. One of Obama's strong points according to pollsters is his FP. That may take a hit.


OK I realize facts are hard for you right asswipes but one poll showing Romney up versus a half dozen saying otherwise should give you a clue.

The fox news poll has OBAMA up by 6 points, spin that one ?

[Traveler]

While it does seem the wheels are falling off the R & R boys campaign, I'll wait till the election is over.

Anyone else notice that Romney did another flop and basically did what he accused the President of doing. Certainly sounds to me like he's apologizing for America.

Well, I haven't seen the film. I don't intend to see it. I you know, I think it's dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn't do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it's not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film. [...]

"I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don't think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment -- the good judgment -- not to be -- not to offend other peoples' faiths. It's a very bad thing, I think, this guy's doing."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/14/13864261-romney-echoes-sentiment-he-rejects?lite

What say you?

[Drek]

While usually all polls are total BS at this point and there are so many different polls that go one way or the other...I found this interesting. A report listed the most accurate polls from the 2008 election. At the top of those most accurate? Pew and Rasmussen. (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/) Rasmussen today has Romney up 48% to 45%. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Also, swing state tracking has Romney/Obama all tied up (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll).

Whatever bump Obama got after the election is slowly dissipating and who knows how this ME crisis plays into polls in the coming weeks. One of Obama's strong points according to pollsters is his FP. That may take a hit.
LULZ, RAS as a balanced and accurate poll.

FYI, Rasmussen always leans right pretty strongly up until late October when they start rolling out more legitimate polls to keep their status as "unbiased" in tact.

Just a few weeks ago they had 14 point swings within a week in both Ohio and Florida. Hell of a model they're working with to generate that kind of swing.

[ghwk]

No polls matter right now other than they may make Romney do something desperate. The debates will seal the deal for one of them, and I think Romney will F up based on his performance in the Republican debates. Biden and Ryan will be an idological draw.

Unfortunately the winning sound bite will determine a bunch of people's votes e.g. "I knew Jack Kennedy and you sir are no Jack Kennedy".

[Jetmeck]

No polls matter right now other than they may make Romney do something desperate. The debates will seal the deal for one of them, and I think Romney will F up based on his performance in the Republican debates. Biden and Ryan will be an idological draw.

Unfortunately the winning sound bite will determine a bunch of people's votes e.g. "I knew Jack Kennedy and you sir are no Jack Kennedy".



True, the game is still in play. Obama has not a comfortable lead.

However Romney is getting desperate and will continue doing stupid stuff which will push the polls more towards Obama.

The debates will seal the deal. Romney is not a quick thinker nor a even somewhat good speaker.............Obama will beat him over the head with facts ala Bill Clinton and Romney will look clueless as has looked many many times.

[DBruleU]

The three NBC/Marist polls over sample Democrats and Ind. Democrats made up 31% to Republicans 26%. So it's clear the numbers will favor Obama by far. Independents made up 43%. Independents haven't even made up more than 30% of Virginia statewide voting the past two election cycles.

These polls also bank on the fact that we will see voting demographics close to 2008 election when we saw massive Democratic turnout. Voter enthusiasm this time around is going to favor Republicans as they are more enthusiastic about voting.

And no...it's not just one poll showing Romney leading. It's just you only hear about Obama leading polls in the media. Another poll of likely voters released on Tuesday had Romney up 5 points in Virginia (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Gravis_VA_0911.pdf).

Bottom line is...all polls are BS and we know that based on past elections. Before the recall vote of Scott Walker the polls indicated he would lose.

[peacepipe]

rasmussen is a joke. always has been.

[peacepipe]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

obama leads in all legit polls.

[peacepipe]

as pathetc as ras is,they even have Obama ahead in VA.

[DBruleU]

rasmussen is a joke. always has been.

Of course you think that.

But my first post indicates they were the most accurate in 2008.

[Jetmeck]

Of course you think that.

But my first post indicates they were the most accurate in 2008.

what about all the rest of the polls that say different including a fox news poll or do you just want to ignore that ?

[peacepipe]

Dblow is is as desperate as willard. can't handle the fact that willard is losing the race.

[Jetland]

Tombstones take from the rep bomb thread:


Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> Originally Posted by Kaylore http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3667264#post3667264)
Rasmussen is the only accurate poll. It's predicted the presidential outcomes with greater accuracy than any of the others. I believe the most recent CNN poll polled 33% Dems to 22% Republicans and showed a (surprise) Obama seven point lead! Go figure!
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
media manipulation at its finest. "tombstone RJ"

[peacepipe]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussen-bias-redux/

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.
This lends more credence to the view I expressed Wednesday: Rasmussen’s sample is biased because they’re polling on the cheap — using robocalls, which by law can’t dial cell phones, and otherwise cutting corners — rather than because of some agenda to propagandize for the GOP. The end result, however, is the same: Polls that can’t be trusted.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bottom line is...all polls are BS and we know that based on past elections. .

Actually, no.

Polls can't take GOP fraud (see 2000 and 2004) into account.

[Kid A]

Best resource, in my opinion, is Five Thirty Eight. For the uninitiated, the guy who managed Baseball Prospectus analyzed all the polls, finding their biases, figuring out what indicators really matter and nailed it in the 08 election. Now his blog is hosted by the NYT: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Anyway, he has Obama in a solid lead right now due to him having a slight lead pre-convention, Romney getting almost no boost in the poll from the RNC (which normally would be expected to be higher) and Obama getting a decent boost from the DNC. Has Obama at 78% odds (92% if election were held today).

Lack of a bounce from the RNC seems to indicate this isn't an election Romney can win. Certainly one Obama could lose with a big enough sudden downturn in the economy, but nothing the Romney campaign does at this point will overturn the fact that swing voters just don't really like him and, sluggish economy aside, seem to want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

[DBruleU]

You guys can all bash Rasmussen all you want. But you ignore the fact that they are consistently accurate in their polling. You convenvetinalty ignore what I said earlier.

I was talking to a friend about polling and he made a good point that further illustrates what I have been saying.

Actual turnout in 2008 was Dem +7, and incidentally, Obama also won the popular vote by +7.

In 2010, the actual turnout was Repub +2 !!! Yet all these polls are using sample sizes based on 2008!! Or WORSE. One poll had Obama up +7, but the sample size was Dem+10!!! PLUS TEN!! That would assume that Dem turnout this year would be BETTER than in 2008!!! NO WAY THAT HAPPENS!! These polls are meant to INFLUENCE. Polls will get more accurate with about 1-2 weeks to go until the election. That's because they stop trying to influence....and actually start worrying about their reputations as accurate pollsters.

Turnout will probably be closer to 2010, which was Repub +2.....could be even, could be higher.

If these polls sampled based on R+2.....Romney would be up by at least 6-7 points.

It all comes down to turnout.

[Mecklomaniac]

I'm thinking Obama might win bigger than he did with McCain. McCain actually got a convention bounce, and it wasn't until after the debates that Obama should a substantive lead.

http://www.tovx.com/Motivational%20Posters/guys/selfdelusion.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lHPPhOSC0bk/S2I-awpM4HI/AAAAAAAAFSg/jilsYMptB7g/s400/obamas_delusions.jpg

[Mr.Meanie]

You guys can all bash Rasmussen all you want. But you ignore the fact that they are consistently accurate in their polling. You convenvetinalty ignore what I said earlier.

I was talking to a friend about polling and he made a good point that further illustrates what I have been saying.

Actual turnout in 2008 was Dem +7, and incidentally, Obama also won the popular vote by +7.

In 2010, the actual turnout was Repub +2 !!! Yet all these polls are using sample sizes based on 2008!! Or WORSE. One poll had Obama up +7, but the sample size was Dem+10!!! PLUS TEN!! That would assume that Dem turnout this year would be BETTER than in 2008!!! NO WAY THAT HAPPENS!! These polls are meant to INFLUENCE. Polls will get more accurate with about 1-2 weeks to go until the election. That's because they stop trying to influence....and actually start worrying about their reputations as accurate pollsters.

Turnout will probably be closer to 2010, which was Repub +2.....could be even, could be higher.

If these polls sampled based on R+2.....Romney would be up by at least 6-7 points.

It all comes down to turnout.

You can't compare mid-term elections to presidential elections. Mid-terms are more influenced by older voters, and will tend to skew more towards conservatives anyways. Presidential election turnout is leagues different, both in demographics and pure numbers of voters (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). I think you're making the same mistake you're accusing the pollsters of doing...

[DBruleU]

You can't compare mid-term elections to presidential elections. Mid-terms are more influenced by older voters, and will tend to skew more towards conservatives anyways. Presidential election turnout is leagues different, both in demographics and pure numbers of voters (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). I think you're making the same mistake you're accusing the pollsters of doing...

Damnit, you're right. R's are screwed.

[Kid A]

I'm thinking Obama might win bigger than he did with McCain. McCain actually got a convention bounce, and it wasn't until after the debates that Obama should a substantive lead.

Highly unlikely. Given economic situation (recovering, but very slowly) history would point toward winning by a couple points. '08 was a perfect storm of Bush fatigue + financial disaster. I mean, Indiana going blue? Not going to be even close this year. Dems should be more than happy if they can hold onto Ohio and Florida. Which, as of now, is the most likely outcome.

Both campaigns in 08 saw more movement in the polls, including after conventions. 538 has noted that they have been especially hard to move this year. That's why the RNC generating a very small bump for Romney wasn't a total disaster, but Obama get a decent one was a significant sign. Will be interesting to see if the debates have greater power in swinging the needle. I doubt it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Will be interesting to see if the debates have greater power in swinging the needle. I doubt it.

Same here.

The knuckle draggers who voted for Bush in '04 were convinced Dumbya won all three debates.

[Mr.Meanie]

Highly unlikely. Given economic situation (recovering, but very slowly) history would point toward winning by a couple points. '08 was a perfect storm of Bush fatigue + financial disaster. I mean, Indiana going blue? Not going to be even close this year. Dems should be more than happy if they can hold onto Ohio and Florida. Which, as of now, is the most likely outcome.

Both campaigns in 08 saw more movement in the polls, including after conventions. 538 has noted that they have been especially hard to move this year. That's why the RNC generating a very small bump for Romney wasn't a total disaster, but Obama get a decent one was a significant sign. Will be interesting to see if the debates have greater power in swinging the needle. I doubt it.

He'll probably win by maybe 2-3% in the popular vote, but I really think the electoral votes he'll grab will be in the range of 320-340. The way it's looking right now Obama should take Florida, Ohio, PA, and probably even VA, WI and CO where he's at least a cointoss if not better. It won't be as great a margin as in '08 but Obama is comfortably leading Romney, and I think it would take a major event to shake that up.

[Pseudofool]

Highly unlikely. Given economic situation (recovering, but very slowly) history would point toward winning by a couple points. '08 was a perfect storm of Bush fatigue + financial disaster. I mean, Indiana going blue? Not going to be even close this year. Dems should be more than happy if they can hold onto Ohio and Florida. Which, as of now, is the most likely outcome.

Both campaigns in 08 saw more movement in the polls, including after conventions. 538 has noted that they have been especially hard to move this year. That's why the RNC generating a very small bump for Romney wasn't a total disaster, but Obama get a decent one was a significant sign. Will be interesting to see if the debates have greater power in swinging the needle. I doubt it.I think you're downplaying what a horrible candidate Romney really is. And how much Obama has overcome his 08 detriments (foreign policy, capacity to lead). McCain was actually a candidate that appealed to both moderates and the base for different reasons. Romney does neither. I suppose we'll see. But I have a hard time believe any Obama 08 voters change their vote for Romney, no matter how dissatisfied they are.

We'll know more once the debates start and we see the candidates side by side--and we'll be able to better measure the starkness between them.

[peacepipe]

Obama has been been winning since like march. the rnc tied things up abit,but didn't last.

[DBruleU]

Some interesting things to consider.

Mitt Romney holds large lead in UnSkewedPolls.com average of polls

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-holds-large-lead-unskewedpolls-com-average-of-polls?cid=PROD-redesign-right-ne

http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

While Mitt Romney enjoys a 47 percent to 46 percent lead over President Obama in the Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll released today, he has taken a 7.8 percent lead in the UnSkewedPolls.com average of unskewed polls. The UnSkewed Average includes the results of “unskewed” analysis of several well-known national polls, that typically over-sample Democrats and/or under-sample independent voters. Here is an example illustrating the process of “unskewing” a skewed poll that over-sampled Democrats.

The current UnSkewedPolls.com average reported today from the website includes eight recent polls, each one the latest conducted by that polling or media organization. When unskewed and averaged, they show a Mitt Romney lead of 7.8 percent.

The most notable of the polls is the CNN/ORC poll released last Monday that reported Obama leading by a six percent, 52 percent to 46 while it massively over-sampled Democrats and under-sampled independent voters. Unskewed, that poll's data calculated to a 53 percent to 45 percent margin in favor of Romney.

The last NY Times/CBS News poll was equally as skewed. It reported the presidential race 49 percent Obama to 46 percent Romney while the unskewed analysis of that poll's data revealed a 51 percent Romney to 44 percent Obama result. This poll relied on an unusually large sample of Democratic voters.

The UnSkewedPolls.com average included six other polls, all of which were similarly skewed due to the sampling issues mentioned above, and produced results showing Obama finishing stronger as a result. Unskewed, the data from these polls indicated a substantial Romney lead in every single instance.

In the past many have relied on the Real Clear Politics average of polls. In past election cycles it might have seem that there were one or two polls that seemed to favor the Republicans, and maybe a few that somewhat favored the Democrats, and averaging all the major polls produced a number that seemed fairly accurate. In past election cycles, the RCP average was fairly accurate for that reason.

During this election cycle, it seems we have many more polls that are so much more skewed and biased in favor of the Democrats, primarily a result of heavily over-sampling Democrats in the samples and not weighting them in the analysis to counter that effect. As a result, the RCP average itself has become quite skewed from being dominated by so many skewed polls. The current RCP average includes 10 polls, of which eight of them are heavily skewed and have been unskewed for inclusion in the UnSkewedPolls.com average of unskewed polls.

The purpose of unskewing the polls is to arrive at accurate numbers, not to show one candidate or the other ahead in the presidential race. The analysis process in unskewing polls relies on the Rasmussen Reports partisan data measured from hundreds of thousands of voters by Rasmussen Reports, which measures the partisan percentages at 37.6 percent Republicans, 33.3 percent Democrats and 29.2 percent independents.

Journalists and analysts can honestly debate this premise and assert their own educated prediction of what the partisan makeup of the electorate on election day will, but within some degree of reason and reasonable probability. While 2008 was a heavily Democratic election, the percentage of Democrats voting was about six percent more than that of Republicans voting in the actual election. The 2010 election that saw Republicans gain 65 seats in Congress was about the opposite of that.

During this year, most states have seen large increases in Republican voters registrations while registration of Democrats has declined. In many instances where both parties held state and local primaries on the same day, the Republican primary typically had more voter participation. There is overwhelming empirical evidence of higher enthusiasm and participation levels of Republicans than Democrats this year. The 4.3 percent Republican edge that Rasmussen Reports is projecting would appear to be a fairly small-c conservative projection given the available evidence. Rasmussen Reports has invested far too much in their reputation for accuracy to gamble that way taking chances in projections of this sort.

[DBruleU]

Also, some interesting polling in regards to party registration and how it correlates to election results.

http://datechguyblog.com/2012/09/17/demoralized-as-hell-the-poll-the-media-isnt-talking-about-edition/

http://datechguyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/rasmussan-2012.png

[TonyR]

"I witnessed Prime Minister [David Cameron] saying to a group of people, myself included, that Mitt Romney had that unique distinction of uniting all of England against him with his various remarks," - Harvey Weinstein.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9546490/Cameron-claimed-Britain-is-united-against-Mitt-Romney.html


Forty-seven percent of UK respondents said a Romney victory would make them feel less favourable towards the US, and only 3% would make them feel more favourable. That sentiment was mirrored in Germany and France, where only 4% and 5% respectively said that he would make them feel more favourable towards the US. In Germany, 48% said it would make them feel less favourable and in France 38%. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/11/romney-triumph-us-reputation-europe

[TonyR]

“Romney is in a very bad place. He’s got the Republican intelligentsia second-guessing him, publicly and privately. The party base has never trusted him and thinks that everything bad it ever thought about him is being borne out now. And he’s got the media believing that he can’t win. He’s right on the edge of a self-­fulfilling downward spiral,” - a "senior Republican strategist" to John Heilemann. http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/mitt-romney-middle-east-unrest-2012-9/

[Mecklomaniac]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

Gallup(registered voters)-- Obama 47 Romney 46

Rasmussen (likely voters) --- Romney 47 Obama 45

[DBruleU]

Romney up in CO now too!

[houghtam]

LOL Rasmussen.

There have been 12 major polls in CO in the last 3 months. 2 of them have favored Romney. Take a guess which two.

[peacepipe]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Obama is ahead in every poll except for the biased rasmussun.

[DBruleU]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Obama is ahead in every poll except for the biased rasmussun.

We've been through this genius. Those polls where Obama is killing Romney are extremely biased. They over sample D's by sometimes 10+ points.

And you mean the same Rasmussen that in the past was the most accurate?

[DBruleU]

LOL Rasmussen.

There have been 12 major polls in CO in the last 3 months. 2 of them have favored Romney. Take a guess which two.

The ones not heavily weighted towards D's? ???

[houghtam]

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=zJu

Romney cannot win without Florida. Even Rasmussen has Romney losing in FL.

Romney cannot win without 2/3 of OH/VA/WI. All polls have Romney losing in Ohio. All but one poll has Romney losing in VA. Most polls have Romney losing in WI.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

L0L!

As always, it's DBruleU vs. Reality. Ha!

[houghtam]

Even if you take the most recent Rasumussen polls from each of the "battleground" states, Obama is still up 307-231.

http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=zJW

[peacepipe]

We've been through this genius. Those polls where Obama is killing Romney are extremely biased. They over sample D's by sometimes 10+ points.

And you mean the same Rasmussen that in the past was the most accurate?

BS. just because they don't fit what you think,doesn't make them biased.

[Drek]

We've been through this genius. Those polls where Obama is killing Romney are extremely biased. They over sample D's by sometimes 10+ points.

And you mean the same Rasmussen that in the past was the most accurate?

FYI, Ras goes cheap with the slanted robo calls and massively oversampling the GOP base up until the last week or so of every POTUS election. This is why they have massive swings, especially just before elections when they actually do some real polling.

Not so long ago he had double digit swings in a single week for both Ohio and Florida, the opposite way in each state. Its silly season for Ras until it gets close to election day and the numbers they'll be touting over the next four years need to start coming out.

Also, Nate Silver of 538 does a correction based on historical leaning and poll sampling within all of his predictions. He has Obama up by 51.1% to 47.8%, based on weighted rolling averages, which is likely a very solid indicator of a slight edge for Obama. Fact is though, those numbers get a lot less pleasant when you look at his numbers for swing states. Obama has consistent leads in all but Missouri and North Carolina. That leads to a 332 to 206 electoral college landslide.

As for actually getting people out to vote, well, Obama is destroying Romney in the number of field offices he has in swing states and people on the ground. Romney's big edge is supposed to be a media blitz, but how do you do that when everyone thinks you're full of **** before you even start?

[Mr.Meanie]

The ones not heavily weighted towards D's? ???

Can you spot the obvious non-biased poll?

http://i.imgur.com/VkQWJ.jpg

[peacepipe]

We've been through this genius. Those polls where Obama is killing Romney are extremely biased. They over sample D's by sometimes 10+ points.

And you mean the same Rasmussen that in the past was the most accurate?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rasmussen-bias-redux/

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.
This lends more credence to the view I expressed Wednesday: Rasmussen’s sample is biased because they’re polling on the cheap — using robocalls, which by law can’t dial cell phones, and otherwise cutting corners — rather than because of some agenda to propagandize for the GOP. The end result, however, is the same: Polls that can’t be trusted.

[Mecklomaniac]

New swing state polls

Gallup Obama +2 Obama 48% Romney 46%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157517/obama-romney-swing-states.aspx

USA Today Obama +2 Obama 48% Romney 46%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-18/obama-romney-swing-states-poll/57803524/1

Rasmussen Romney + 1 Romney 47% Obama 46%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll

[houghtam]

New swing state polls

Gallup Obama +2 Obama 48% Romney 46%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157517/obama-romney-swing-states.aspx

USA Today Obama +2 Obama 48% Romney 46%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-18/obama-romney-swing-states-poll/57803524/1

Rasmussen Romney + 1 Romney 47% Obama 46%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll

Swing state polls are pointless.

They do not take into account the electoral process. If all those swing states were one big state, it would matter, but it doesn't. What matters is the polls in each of those individual states.

[DBruleU]

New swing state polls

Gallup Obama +2 Obama 48% Romney 46%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157517/obama-romney-swing-states.aspx

USA Today Obama +2 Obama 48% Romney 46%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-09-18/obama-romney-swing-states-poll/57803524/1

Rasmussen Romney + 1 Romney 47% Obama 46%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll

Uh oh...bounce has all but dissipated.

Also saw a poll today with Ind. showing a huge swing on Obama's FP. Taking a big hit there.

[houghtam]

Uh oh...bounce has all but dissipated.

Also saw a poll today with Ind. showing a huge swing on Obama's FP. Taking a big hit there.

LOL

[barryr]

Yes, Obama's economy and foreign policies are a big hit to the public.

[DBruleU]

LOL

Uh oh. LOL

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=285548

The foreign policy approval rating of US President Barack Obama dropped five points following last week's deadly protests throughout the Muslim world against an anti-Islam film, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal (WSJ) poll.

The poll found that among registered voters, the president's foreign policy approval rating dropped to 49 percent from 54 percent one month earlier. Among Independents, who are likely to play a crucial role in determining the result of the upcoming US election, Obama's foreign policy approval rating dropped dramatically from 53 percent in August to 41 percent.

Across 18 NBC/WSJ polls tracking the issue since 2009, the five-point drop is the second biggest recorded over a one-month period, the largest (7%) coming in June 2011 following a record-high approval bump the previous month attributed to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The 49 percent approval rating is the second lowest in the 18 polls.

The new poll also pinned Obama’s foreign policy disapproval rate at 46 percent, up from 40 percent last month. It is his highest foreign policy disapproval rate since taking office

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tuesday’s 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), showing Obama at 50 percent versus Romney’s 45 percent among likely voters...

[houghtam]

Uh oh. LOL

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=285548

The foreign policy approval rating of US President Barack Obama dropped five points following last week's deadly protests throughout the Muslim world against an anti-Islam film, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal (WSJ) poll.

The poll found that among registered voters, the president's foreign policy approval rating dropped to 49 percent from 54 percent one month earlier. Among Independents, who are likely to play a crucial role in determining the result of the upcoming US election, Obama's foreign policy approval rating dropped dramatically from 53 percent in August to 41 percent.

Across 18 NBC/WSJ polls tracking the issue since 2009, the five-point drop is the second biggest recorded over a one-month period, the largest (7%) coming in June 2011 following a record-high approval bump the previous month attributed to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The 49 percent approval rating is the second lowest in the 18 polls.

The new poll also pinned Obama’s foreign policy disapproval rate at 46 percent, up from 40 percent last month. It is his highest foreign policy disapproval rate since taking office

It. Doesn't. Matter.

Guys...people on both sides. Listen. At this point in the race, no national polls matter. Not registered voters, not likely voters. Not likability, not favorability. Not approval rating, not country is on the right track.

The lines have already been drawn. There are a certain number of states that will go either red or blue no matter what, and there are a few select battleground states. Some say there are 12, but many say there are only nine. Pennsylvania (http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Pennsylvania/) and Michigan (http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Michigan/) are assumed to be blue, and South Carolina is assumed to be red. This gives Obama 237 electoral votes and Romney 191, with 270 needed to win. The remaining states in play are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

Now people who listen to swing state polls would have you believe that the gap is very narrow, but anyone who has studied statistics knows that an average doesn't mean anything in an individual winner take all argument, not to mention that it assumes that each state is weighted equally as far as the electorate is concerned.

What you need to pay attention to is the races in each individual state.

NV - 6 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Nevada/
CO - 9 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Colorado/
IA - 6 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Iowa/
WI - 10 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Wisconsin/
OH - 18 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Ohio/
NH - 4 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/New_Hampshire/
VA - 13 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Virginia/
NC - 15 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/North_Carolina/
FL - 29 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Florida/

As you can see, this already gives Obama 273 votes without Ohio or Florida even factored in. In order for Romney to win, he would have to seal Iowa, Florida and Ohio while stealing at least one of those states in which the poll averages (for that individual state) lean heavily toward Obama.

[peacepipe]

While usually all polls are total BS at this point and there are so many different polls that go one way or the other...I found this interesting. A report listed the most accurate polls from the 2008 election. At the top of those most accurate? Pew and Rasmussen. (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/) Rasmussen today has Romney up 48% to 45%. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Also, swing state tracking has Romney/Obama all tied up (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll).

Whatever bump Obama got after the election is slowly dissipating and who knows how this ME crisis plays into polls in the coming weeks. One of Obama's strong points according to pollsters is his FP. That may take a hit.

BTW,pew has obama up by 8:51-43.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/2012-polls-obama-lead_n_1897591.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_hp_ref=politics

[ghwk]

ghwks poll has Obama at 75% to Romneys 25% but admittedly its me asking 3 other guys at work.

It is however just as good an indicator as any other poll right now.

[Kid A]

Interesting look by 538 at the influence of cellphone polling. Not surprisingly, polls that don't factor in the 1/3 of the country without landline (i.e. people who only use cellphones, which happens to be a strongly Democratic demographic) tend to underestimate Democratic candidates.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/?gwh=41D8F5771A2D96983AB28699FD97E3ED#more-34740

It's also looking like the Senate is moving out of reach for the GOP, with 538 giving the GOP only about a 20% chance - or about what the same odds the Dems take the House. All that to say, it looks like we're headed toward maintaing the same alignment in the Senate and House of Reps.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It. Doesn't. Matter.

Guys...people on both sides. Listen. At this point in the race, no national polls matter. Not registered voters, not likely voters. Not likability, not favorability. Not approval rating, not country is on the right track.

The lines have already been drawn. There are a certain number of states that will go either red or blue no matter what, and there are a few select battleground states. Some say there are 12, but many say there are only nine. Pennsylvania (http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Pennsylvania/) and Michigan (http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Michigan/) are assumed to be blue, and South Carolina is assumed to be red. This gives Obama 237 electoral votes and Romney 191, with 270 needed to win. The remaining states in play are Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

Now people who listen to swing state polls would have you believe that the gap is very narrow, but anyone who has studied statistics knows that an average doesn't mean anything in an individual winner take all argument, not to mention that it assumes that each state is weighted equally as far as the electorate is concerned.

What you need to pay attention to is the races in each individual state.

NV - 6 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Nevada/
CO - 9 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Colorado/
IA - 6 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Iowa/
WI - 10 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Wisconsin/
OH - 18 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Ohio/
NH - 4 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/New_Hampshire/
VA - 13 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Virginia/
NC - 15 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/North_Carolina/
FL - 29 electoral votes - http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Florida/

As you can see, this already gives Obama 273 votes without Ohio or Florida even factored in. In order for Romney to win, he would have to seal Iowa, Florida and Ohio while stealing at least one of those states in which the poll averages (for that individual state) lean heavily toward Obama.

You just b*tch slapped DBruleU, barryr, lonestar and the rest of the cast of "Fantasy Island" off the face of the planet. :notworthy

They should be along to declare this thread a victory for themselves anytime now...

[TonyR]

Obama's lead over McCain was 1.9 percent. Today, his lead over Romney is 2.8 percent.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/election_2012_vs_election_2008_four_years_ago_toda y.html

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/four-years-ago-today.html

[TonyR]

Generic Democrat – perhaps a mildly unfair label – wasn’t quite enough for Gore in 2000 and I’m not sure Generic Republican is going to be quite enough for Romney in 2012 either. The two are almost mirror-images of one another. A good economy couldn’t save Gore; it’s not clear a bad one can rescue Romney. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/09/mitt-romney-is-no-george-w-bush-thats-a-problem/

[TonyR]

Roughly one third of American households rely solely on mobile phones and do not have landlines, meaning they will simply be excluded by polls that call landlines only. Potential voters who rely on cellphones belong to more Democratic-leaning demographic groups than those which don’t, and there is reasonably strong empirical evidence that the failure to include them in polls can bias the results against Democrats, even after demographic weightings are applied. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/

[TonyR]

Not looking good for the Mittster:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/sept-20-obamas-convention-bounce-may-not-be-receding/#more-34814

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/20/13993186-polls-obama-ahead-in-colorado-iowa-and-wisconsin?lite

[El Minion]

The Wolf: "Well, let's not start sucking each other's cócks quite yet"

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Conservatives Working on Their Get-Out-The-Vote Campaign (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Sep21.html#item-1)

Conservative groups are getting ready (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/conservative-groups-reaching-new-levels-of-sophistication-in-mobilizing-voters/2012/09/20/3c3cd8e8-026c-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html?hpid=z1) for a massive get-out-the-vote campaign on (and before) election day. Groups such as the National Rifle Association and College Republicans, as well as billionaire-backed superPACs are setting up a highly sophisticated operation to match or surpass what the Democrats set up in 2008. The effort has many facets. In Florida, a new law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature inhibited Democratic registration efforts. In Wisconsin, the Democrats' attempt to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) allowed conservative groups to test their house-by-house voter outreach strategy. In Ohio, 10,000 churches in rural areas have been enlisted to distribute two million voter guides.

The Citizens United decision is allowing the Republican effort to be far better funded and organized than anything John McCain could have even dreamed about in 2008. Billionaire David Koch is spending $125 million in the 2012 campaign, half of it on the ground in battleground states. Spending money on the ground war is a twofer over the air war because it benefits all Republicans, also those downticket, not just Romney.

With so few undecided voters left, many observers think the presidential race will come down to which side does a better job of getting its voters to the polls, hence the importance of the ground game.

[frerottenextelway]

It's not a close race. Fox has this as a blowout. 538 has the nowcast (if today was election day) at 95% chance Obama. The Senate is most likely to easily stay D, and even the House isnt even safe anymore (unbelievable!).

[Rohirrim]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com// now has Obama at 329.7 to Romney's 208.3. Those are bad numbers for Mitt. Also, Obama has crossed the 50% barrier, usually an indicator of a win. Obama's odds of winning are 95.4%. Romney's are 4.6%.

[frerottenextelway]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com// now has Obama at 329.7 to Romney's 208.3. Those are bad numbers for Mitt. Also, Obama has crossed the 50% barrier, usually an indicator of a win. Obama's odds of winning are 95.4%. Romney's are 4.6%.


http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1337436914921846786.jpg

[Old Dude]

Concerning the disparity in polls:

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

I can easily understand why Obama would perform better in polls that include cell phones. Romney's strongest age group is the over-65 bracket and far more of them tend to exclusively use landlines. (I myself have a cellphone, but I don't think I've made more than a dozen calls on it in the past year and I rarely bother to even charge it.)

Younger voters certainly favored Obama last time around and I don't have any doubt that more of them exclusively use cell phones. Other demographics are consistent with that as well.

What I don't really understand is why Obama tends to poll higher in systems that use a live person to conduct the questioning rather than an automated "robo-call." I don't see why the results should be any different. Anyone care to share any insight on that?

[DBruleU]

Concerning the disparity in polls:

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

I can easily understand why Obama would perform better in polls that include cell phones. Romney's strongest age group is the over-65 bracket and far more of them tend to exclusively use landlines. (I myself have a cellphone, but I don't think I've made more than a dozen calls on it in the past year and I rarely bother to even charge it.)

Younger voters certainly favored Obama last time around and I don't have any doubt that more of them exclusively use cell phones. Other demographics are consistent with that as well.

What I don't really understand is why Obama tends to poll higher in systems that use a live person to conduct the questioning rather than an automated "robo-call." I don't see why the results should be any different. Anyone care to share any insight on that?

I've wondered the same thing. I sometimes think people just say Obama when asked the question by a live person by reason of just feeling like that's who they should say. When asked by a robocall...no pressure to say one or the other.

[pricejj]

The media has done their best to make Romney sound like a dirty word. We'll see what happens in the voter booth.

[Rohirrim]

The media has done their best to make Romney sound like a dirty word. We'll see what happens in the voter booth.

:bs: Romney's incompetence has done that. The righty refusal to take responsibility raises it pathetic head once again.

[manchambo]

Concerning the disparity in polls:

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

I can easily understand why Obama would perform better in polls that include cell phones. Romney's strongest age group is the over-65 bracket and far more of them tend to exclusively use landlines. (I myself have a cellphone, but I don't think I've made more than a dozen calls on it in the past year and I rarely bother to even charge it.)

Younger voters certainly favored Obama last time around and I don't have any doubt that more of them exclusively use cell phones. Other demographics are consistent with that as well.

What I don't really understand is why Obama tends to poll higher in systems that use a live person to conduct the questioning rather than an automated "robo-call." I don't see why the results should be any different. Anyone care to share any insight on that?

What I understood from 538 is that it's part and parcell of the cell phone issue. It is illegal to robo call cell phones, and there's only one robo call poll that also uses live people to call cell phones. In other words, there are almost no non-live polls that include cell phones, so the non-live polls are less favorable to Obama because they are also no cell phone polls.

[Kid A]

Concerning the disparity in polls:

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

What I don't really understand is why Obama tends to poll higher in systems that use a live person to conduct the questioning rather than an automated "robo-call." I don't see why the results should be any different. Anyone care to share any insight on that?

My understanding was that the live person questioning went in hand with the cellphone polls, as they can't call your cell unless you've agreed in person, so all the cellphone polling was part of in-person polling as well? Could be wrong about what that meant, though.

[TonyR]

The media has done their best to make Romney sound like a dirty word. We'll see what happens in the voter booth.

LOL Yes, it's all the media's fault...

[Mr.Meanie]

LOL Yes, it's all the media's fault...

I think he meant cameras and microphones...

[TonyR]

That question divides likely voters almost exactly in thirds: in the poll, 31 percent say they are better off than four years ago, while 34 percent say they are worse off and 34 percent say they are about the same. Romney, predictably, wins more than four-fifths of voters who say they are worse off; the president, equally unsurprisingly, attracts almost nine in 10 of those who consider themselves better off.

Crucially, though, Obama holds a commanding 57 percent to 34 percent advantage among those who say their finances are unchanged. One reason for that critical tilt in his direction: Voters who say their finances are unchanged also say, by a resounding 53 percent to 33 percent margin, that they believe the country has been better off over these past four years because Obama, rather than another candidate, won in 2008. Overall, 48 percent say they believe the country is better off because Obama won in 2008, while 41 percent say the nation would be in a stronger position today if another candidate had won.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/heartland-monitor-poll-obama-leads-50-percent-to-43-percent-20120921

[Jetmeck]

Yes, Obama's economy and foreign policies are a big hit to the public.

You are an IDIOT...................he saved the economy from becoming another great depression and is getting us out of two wars.

Both things your party created.

[Jetmeck]

The media has done their best to make Romney sound like a dirty word.

I don't know how you or Romney will ever recover from your stupidity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are an IDIOT...................he saved the economy from becoming another great depression and is getting us out of two wars.

Both things your party created.

Yep.

Dinglebarry is just another right-wing bullsh*t artist peddling the same "argument" Clinton exposed in his DNC speech, i.e., "we left him (Obama) a huge mess - he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."

Unfortunately for Dinglebarry and his party, there just aren't enough voters who are stupid enough to actually believe that bullsh*t.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/418379_530013123682907_1319427075_n.jpg

[Mecklomaniac]

http://triblive.com (http://triblive.com/home/2641005-74/obama-percent-romney-poll-voters-pennsylvania-leads-lee-margin-points#axzz27PaLRwRr)

PA. Obama 47 -- Romney 45

[BroncoInferno]

I've wondered the same thing. I sometimes think people just say Obama when asked the question by a live person by reason of just feeling like that's who they should say. When asked by a robocall...no pressure to say one or the other.

Robocalls can't be made to cellphones. A lot of younger people don't even bother with land-lines anymore (I don't have one, nor can I think of any friends off of the top of my head who do), so the robocalls disproportionately go to old people, which is a more favorable demographic for the GOP.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://triblive.com (http://triblive.com/home/2641005-74/obama-percent-romney-poll-voters-pennsylvania-leads-lee-margin-points#axzz27PaLRwRr)

PA. Obama 47 -- Romney 45

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/58734_530900046927548_1348267361_n.jpg

[houghtam]

http://triblive.com (http://triblive.com/home/2641005-74/obama-percent-romney-poll-voters-pennsylvania-leads-lee-margin-points#axzz27PaLRwRr)

PA. Obama 47 -- Romney 45

Let's take a look at the whole picture, shall we? These are the major polls conducted in the last 30 days:

Mercyhurst Obama 48 Romney 40
SPR Obama 47 Romney 45
Rasmussen Obama 51 Romney 39
YouGov Obama 51 Romney 42
We Ask America Obama 48 Romney 42
MCM Obama 50 Romney 41
Inquirer PA Obama 50 Romney 39

http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Pennsylvania/

Even Rasmussen and their flawed Republican-sympathizing polling methods have Obama up 12 points in PA.

:welcome:

[barryr]

This is what the Obama supporters want. To call the election over so anyone not voting for Obama stays home and doesn't vote. Basically the same as what they claim the huge number of minorities with no ID can't vote. Just saw someone today who didn't have an ID. Of course, turns out the guy has multiple DWI's and had his driver's license taken away, so the liberals are still worrying about felons getting to vote.

[barryr]

Let's take a look at the whole picture, shall we? These are the major polls conducted in the last 30 days:

Mercyhurst Obama 48 Romney 40
SPR Obama 47 Romney 45
Rasmussen Obama 51 Romney 39
YouGov Obama 51 Romney 42
We Ask America Obama 48 Romney 42
MCM Obama 50 Romney 41
Inquirer PA Obama 50 Romney 39

http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Pennsylvania/

Even Rasmussen and their flawed Republican-sympathizing polling methods have Obama up 12 points in PA.

:welcome:

So it's flawed when it says what you don't like, but ok when it agrees with your thinking. Typical liberal.

[SoCalBronco]

Let's take a look at the whole picture, shall we? These are the major polls conducted in the last 30 days:

Mercyhurst Obama 48 Romney 40
SPR Obama 47 Romney 45
Rasmussen Obama 51 Romney 39
YouGov Obama 51 Romney 42
We Ask America Obama 48 Romney 42
MCM Obama 50 Romney 41
Inquirer PA Obama 50 Romney 39

http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/Pennsylvania/

Even Rasmussen and their flawed Republican-sympathizing polling methods have Obama up 12 points in PA.

:welcome:

Mercyhurst is apparently showing a D+10 turnout model. I think we can accept as a given that whatever shows up on election day will be somewhere below D+7 (2008 turnout- Democrat recent high in last several cycles), and prolly around the norm of D+3.

I wish we could get state by state polling using a D+3 model. Most of what we're seeing now is at or even above 2008 levels...not realistic.

[Pseudofool]

Mercyhurst is apparently showing a D+10 turnout model. I think we can accept as a given that whatever shows up on election day will be somewhere below D+7 (2008 turnout- Democrat recent high in last several cycles), and prolly around the norm of D+3.

I wish we could get state by state polling using a D+3 model. Most of what we're seeing now is at or even above 2008 levels...not realistic.

SoCal, where are you getting the D +10 number? I'm not seeing it in the methodology of the Mercyhurst study. As a general rule, I've always understood polling to count a higher turnout for Republicans (given the usual class reasons).

Alternative, Nate Silver, looks at the disparity in polls using cellphones and ones not (and how the former favor Obama). http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/

[Pseudofool]

This is what the Obama supporters want. To call the election over so anyone not voting for Obama stays home and doesn't vote. Basically the same as what they claim the huge number of minorities with no ID can't vote. Just saw someone today who didn't have an ID. Of course, turns out the guy has multiple DWI's and had his driver's license taken away, so the liberals are still worrying about felons getting to vote.

Jesus, the exact opposite could easily happen. Obama supporters think he has in the bag, so they stay home. There's no evidence of either theory...

[SoCalBronco]

SoCal, where are you getting the D +10 number? I'm not seeing it in the methodology of the Mercyhurst study. As a general rule, I've always understood polling to count a higher turnout for Republicans (given the usual class reasons).

Alternative, Nate Silver, looks at the disparity in polls using cellphones and ones not (and how the former favor Obama). http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Mercyhurst_PA_0924.pdf

Look at Question 36 in the polling. D+10 is just dumb. Only 4% are Independents....really?

[barryr]

Jesus, the exact opposite could easily happen. Obama supporters think he has in the bag, so they stay home. There's no evidence of either theory...

Not really since liberals are nuts and know most don't see things their way so they have to vote and get whatever bogus votes they can to get their destructive agendas passed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not really since liberals are nuts and know most don't see things their way so they have to vote and get whatever bogus votes they can to get their destructive agendas passed.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight - all those voters who gave Obama a landslide victory in '08 were "liberal nuts."

Whatever gets you through the night, Kool-Aid Boy.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-polls-120924.jpg

That margin if victory is widening faster than Ann Coulter's legs at Nazi-Con 2012...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/romney-still-win-course-just-not-way-things-164727716.html

[Pseudofool]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Mercyhurst_PA_0924.pdf

Look at Question 36 in the polling. D+10 is just dumb. Only 4% are Independents....really?
I'm pretty sure most polling adjusts their pool to fit their model of likely voters in spite of whomever they interview.

Here's an article from Pew on their methodology for party affiliation (from July): http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/

I guess they don't take in account party affiliation when extrapolating, but they do note that about 8% more of the national population identifies as Democrats. And that might be higher in Penn. So a D +10 isn't all that dumb.

I also imagine that as elections become eminent independents identify with the party with whom their presidential choice resides.

All this said, if you're trying to dig through the numbers and find a silver lining for Romney's chances, I think that's pretty fruitless and wishful.

Nate Silver's 538 methodology can be found here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/
It's interesting stuff; if you're curious.

[Pseudofool]

Not really since liberals are nuts and know most don't see things their way so they have to vote and get whatever bogus votes they can to get their destructive agendas passed.Why can't you respect other people's point of views? I think being conservative is perfectly reasonable, nothing nuts about it. What people refer to as the tea-party, however, doesn't seem conservative at all, and is totally ideological based.

Liberals tend to be secular and educated; while you may disagree with them, they aren't crazy. Show some class, dude.

[SoCalBronco]

I'm pretty sure most polling adjusts their pool to fit their model of likely voters in spite of whomever they interview.

Here's an article from Pew on their methodology for party affiliation (from July): http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/03/party-affiliation-and-election-polls/

I guess they don't take in account party affiliation when extrapolating, but they do note that about 8% more of the national population identifies as Democrats. And that might be higher in Penn. So a D +10 isn't all that dumb.

I also imagine that as elections become eminent independents identify with the party with whom their presidential choice resides.

All this said, if you're trying to dig through the numbers and find a silver lining for Romney's chances, I think that's pretty fruitless and wishful.

I'm not looking for a silver lining...or anything else, just a poll that takes into account historical averages. That 8% more of the public may identify as Democrats is not particular probative of anything. What is important is the historical average turnout, and thats about DEM +3.

In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform), although I agree with the administration on probably more issues overall. I could still go either way, or, not vote at all for the top of the ballot.

[Pseudofool]

I'm not looking for a silver lining...or anything else, just a poll that takes into account historical averages. That 8% more of the public may identify as Democrats is not particular probative of anything. What is important is the historical average turnout, and thats about DEM +3.Fair enough. But I do think the "likely voter" model (as opposed to just "registered voters") tries to account for that. Unless you think they pre-sample people for polling, which would be odd. They have to get the data first and then decide what to do with it.

In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform), although I agree with the administration on probably more issues overall. I could still go either way, or, not vote at all for the top of the ballot.I'll be curious where you stand after the debates as you seem like a non-ideological conservative.

There's rumbling from the Huff Post that Obama will seek entitlement reforms, despite an outcry from liberals if he wins. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/obama-and-social-security_n_1910498.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I'm all for entitlement reform (it's a damn necessity), but the voucher idea seems totally bogus (the price of services will out pace the worth of vouchers --which is where the savings come in). My preferred method is to continue to take the profiteering out of healthcare (hospitals and pharmaceuticals, I'm looking at you), but we probably don't agree on that.

[Dexter]

I'm not looking for a silver lining...or anything else, just a poll that takes into account historical averages. That 8% more of the public may identify as Democrats is not particular probative of anything. What is important is the historical average turnout, and thats about DEM +3.

In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform), although I agree with the administration on probably more issues overall. I could still go either way, or, not vote at all for the top of the ballot.

Wow a conservative that actually will admit that he agrees with the administration on a few things? :D Where is all the hate you're supposed to have for the POTUS?.

Seriously though, I disagree with you on the SS and Medicare stuff, but glad to see that you're open minded, even if you do end up voting for Romney.

[Dexter]

I'm not looking for a silver lining...or anything else, just a poll that takes into account historical averages. That 8% more of the public may identify as Democrats is not particular probative of anything. What is important is the historical average turnout, and thats about DEM +3.

In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform), although I agree with the administration on probably more issues overall. I could still go either way, or, not vote at all for the top of the ballot.

Wow a conservative that actually will admit that he agrees with the administration on a few things? :D Where is all the hate you're supposed to have for the POTUS?.

Seriously though, I disagree with you on the SS and Medicare stuff, but glad to see that you're open minded, even if you do end up voting for Romney.

[BroncoInferno]

I
In terms of my own voting intentions, right now I'd classify myself as a very slight Romney lean. I agree with Romney-Ryan on what I feel is the most important issue (SS and Medicare reform)

Did you listen to Romney on 60 Minutes? He claims he's not going to mess with Medicare or SS, then bashed Obama for cutting $760 million from Medicare.

[Kid A]

Did you listen to Romney on 60 Minutes? He claims he's not going to mess with Medicare or SS, then bashed Obama for cutting $760 million from Medicare.

I think it was Josh Barro of Bloomberg who has pointed out that Romney has moved to the left of Obama on Medicare.

Conservatives who were excited by the Ryan pick had to be a little confused that the Romney campaign, at the exact same time, began to disavow almost all Medicare reform plans by both guys on their ticket. It's all about keeping the senior citizen vote, even if it means dumping on the young and poor via massive, brutal slashes to Medicaid...which also spends a huge amount of money on seniors, but they're betting on voters not being as aware of that.

[Pseudofool]

Here you go, SoCal: http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

Here's a nice discussion of why they don't skew in favor political party: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/republicans-to-pollsters-too-many-democrats-in-your-surveys-20120925?page=1

Money quote:
Pollsters counter that the results they are finding reflect slight changes in public sentiment — and, moreover, adjusting their polls to match arbitrary party-identification targets would be unscientific.
Party-identification is rather arbitrary, following the tail-wind for whom a voter decides to vote. So if Obama is 'winning', more (otherwise) independent voters will identify as a Dem for the time being.

[TonyR]

This morning’s Washington Post poll found Obama leading Romney by 8 points in the Buckeye State. That’s on the high end of recent margins, but the trend is unambiguously in the president’s favor: Obama was up 5 in an Ohio Newspaper Organization poll, up 4 in a Purple Strategies poll, and up 7 in a Fox News poll and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College Poll. That’s all in the last two weeks. http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/romneys-problem-ohio-ohio-ohio-136596.html

[SoCalBronco]

Did you listen to Romney on 60 Minutes? He claims he's not going to mess with Medicare or SS, then bashed Obama for cutting $760 million from Medicare.

He has to say that before the election. Medicare and SS absolutely must be "messed with" at least to some degree.

[Rohirrim]

He has to say that before the election. Medicare and SS absolutely must be "messed with" at least to some degree.

Not true. We simply need to return to the progressive tax code that worked brilliantly for almost 80 years. Instead, we are returning to Gilded Age policies. People should read about the America that was, under that era. It was a very dark and nasty place. Read about the coal strike TR settled in Pennsylvania. There was blood in the streets.

Yesterday, there was a report that 57% of American students taking the SAT cannot read at a college level. We continue to funnel wealth to the top while our future (our children), our R&D, and our infrastructure collapse. Why? So the rich can stash more wealth in the Cayman Islands. These are the policies of a society engaged in slow suicide.

[houghtam]

Here you go, SoCal: http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

Here's a nice discussion of why they don't skew in favor political party: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/republicans-to-pollsters-too-many-democrats-in-your-surveys-20120925?page=1

Money quote:

Party-identification is rather arbitrary, following the tail-wind for whom a voter decides to vote. So if Obama is 'winning', more (otherwise) independent voters will identify as a Dem for the time being.

In likely voter polls, party identification is not really something that makes much difference. In fact, it doesn't even need to be asked at all, particularly this close to the election. The moderates in the middle who decide the election are the ones much less likely to have any official party identification, for sure. But at this point, most people's minds are made up.

It doesn't surprise me one iota that, in a state where the Democrats have won every election but one since 1988 by 5 or more points, in a state that voted for the incumbent in the last election by a 10 point margin, only 4% of those polled are self-identifying as independents.

[BroncoInferno]

He has to say that before the election. Medicare and SS absolutely must be "messed with" at least to some degree.

Well, Obama actually has "messed with" Medicare (something I don't agree with, FWIW), while Romney claims he won't. So, what is your evidence that Romney is the better candidate (based on your stated criteria) than Obama on this issue?

[BroncoInferno]

Not true. We simply need to return to the progressive tax code that worked brilliantly for almost 80 years. Instead, we are returning to Gilded Age policies. People should read about the America that was, under that era. It was a very dark and nasty place. Read about the coal strike TR settled in Pennsylvania. There was blood in the streets.

Yesterday, there was a report that 57% of American students taking the SAT cannot read at a college level. We continue to funnel wealth to the top while our future (our children), our R&D, and our infrastructure collapse. Why? So the rich can stash more wealth in the Cayman Islands. These are the policies of a society engaged in slow suicide.

Yep. It's the ol' Grover Norquist playbook. Underfund (or in the case of SS, steal from) programs, then claim they're unsustainable. Social Security was perfectly sustainable until Reagan raided the surplus and gave the rich massive tax cuts.

[SoCalBronco]

Wow a conservative that actually will admit that he agrees with the administration on a few things? :D Where is all the hate you're supposed to have for the POTUS?.

Seriously though, I disagree with you on the SS and Medicare stuff, but glad to see that you're open minded, even if you do end up voting for Romney.

I'm a moderate Republican (except on fiscal issues, where I am very conservative and by conservative I mean, its very important to have low debt and very low budget deficits. That means spending cuts when necessary and also tax increases when necessary, I'm not opposed to reasonable tax increases purely on principle. They are often necessary and I support the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts). I supported Huntsman in the primary (check the search function). I'm not a fan of Romney and I never have been, and its mainly because he's a worthless empty suit with only a rudimentary understanding of issues. He won because he had huge financial advantages over everyone else and drowned them out. But I am slightly leaning towards him primarily because he picked Ryan. I am a fan of Ryan on spending issues, most notably on SS/Medicare and I'm intrigued by Ryan's ideas on these issues, and I'm encouraged that he's flexible as well (he worked with Sen. Wyden and slightly altered his approach). I'm encouraged by the CBO analysis of his premium support proposals which also include increasing the Medicare eligibility range over time and the fact that the supports vary by income levels also helps to soften the effect. I know it is essentially cost shifting in part to seniors and I'm okay with that. While its true that through SS and Medicare taxes they have paid into the program, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they are entitled to the exact same benefit formulas that have been provided to others in the past, just that they are entitled to some significant benefit, not necessarily this particular benefit. The changes in demographics with a greater aging population will put a huge strain on us financially. This is the long term debt driver. There has been discussion of raiding the funds in teh past and its true htats happened, but even without that, it wouldnt come close to fixing hte long term problem (and SS trust fund funds dont address Medicare issues). Even CMS admits this is the biggest problem going forward. I think the long term debt is something like 63T over 75 years, about 1T a year without any changes. That a few hundred billion or even a trillion in total were removed from SS trust fund in the past would not have cured this problem. CBO estimated that, without more, the proposal would sharply reduce the debt to GDP ratio over time. I am providing a link to their analysis for your review: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf. With regard to BroncoInferno's point about Romney now saying he won't touch it, I think I read an article awhile back indicating he had put out an actual proposal earlier in the campaign that was not materially dissimilar from Wyden-Ryan, so I'm thinking his current talk is to merely make sure seniors don't abandon him in the election.

I realize that on issues such as taxes, Romney-Ryan are not as responsible as they are on these issues, but I think the tax problem is largely solved due to the fact that if nothing else happens in 2012, we will go back to the 2001 tax code, which will be great for long term debt control. Between that and serious SS/Medicare reform, we will be in good shape. I'm not persuaded that tax increases alone will solve these issues. Tax increases alone doesnt solve a 63T long term problem and I dont think its fair to apportion everything to taxes, anyway. It has to be a balanced solution.

I do support the administration on issues such as cap and trade (I prefer this approach rather than a carbon tax because I like the idea of injecting market based principles into the equation to disincentive businesses from environmentally inefficient conduct, rather than the simple imposition of a tax, make everyone try to run it as efficiently as possible so they can sell their credits elsewhere...there is good precedent for this approach in Europe) and I generally support the administration in foreign affiars with the exception of supporting insurgencies and democracy in the ME. I think thats abysmal. I don't give a **** about "promoting values". I care only about acting to presreve US strategic interests. I'm in the Nixon school of foreign affairs, not the Carter school. I'm more than willing to support brutal, repressive dictatorial regimes, so long as it promotes stability and protects US strategic interests. I'm concerned about AL Qaeda gaining a foothold in the region due to us promoting these popular uprisings. I'm not a fan of this at all. Other than that, I generally approve of the administration in foreign affairs, especially the Vietnamization in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued arms control with Russia.


I could still go either way with my vote and there is a good chance I could ignore the top ballot. I don't like Romney and I never have. If he did not select Ryan, and we didn't have the impending sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts merely by inaction (in a divided congress, which we will likely get, a Romney tax cut couldnt pass), I probably would not vote for him at all.

[BroncoInferno]

With regard to BroncoInferno's point about Romney now saying he won't touch it, I think I read an article awhile back indicating he had put out an actual proposal earlier in the campaign that was not materially dissimilar from Wyden-Ryan, so I'm thinking his current talk is to merely make sure seniors don't abandon him in the election.

Keep in mind that if Romney wins, he's going to want to be reelected. If he comes into office and starts fiddling with Medicare, he's going to be out in one term. So, I highly doubt that's going to be his approach, at least not in his first term.

I'm in the Nixon school of foreign affairs, not the Carter school. I'm more than willing to support brutal, repressive dictatorial regimes, so long as it promotes stability and protects US strategic interests.

I simply can't understand how anyone can still hold this position. Supporting dictators and meddling in the affairs of other nations to further short-term interests has bitten us in the ass too many times. The CIA staging a coup to install the Shah in Iran back in the 50s is still a blunder that reverberates in the region today. Reagan arming and training the Taliban in the 80s to fight the Soviets. The infamous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam. I could go on and on. It's historically proven at this point that the type of foreign policy you support causes more long-term problems than it solves in the short-term. How are you missing this?

Enjoyed the rest of your post. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[Rigs11]

oops

*** The impact of 47%: Want to know the impact that the video of Mitt Romney’s comments on the “47%” have had in this presidential contest? We have two fresh pieces of evidence. The first are brand-new New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac surveys -- conducted right after the release of the video -- showing Obama leading Romney by nine points among likely voters in Florida (53%-44%), 10 points in Ohio (53%-43%), and 12 in Pennsylvania (54%-42%). These are margins we haven’t seen before. The second (and perhaps more telling) piece of evidence is Romney’s new 60-second TV ad, his first of the general election where he looks to the camera. “President Obama and I both care about poor and middle-class families,” Romney says as the camera zooms in on him. “The difference is my policies will make things better for them. We shouldn’t measure compassion by how many people are on welfare. We should measure compassion by how many people are able to get off welfare and get a good paying job.” Folks, this is an admission that the “47%” remarks – and the Obama camp’s new TV ads on them -- have done real damage. Realize: Candidate-to-camera ads are typically when all else is failing and the bonds of trust with the voters are fraying. Even Obama had to do it in late July, after the welfare hits and the “You didn’t build that” attack

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14110895-first-thoughts-the-impact-of-47-percent?lite

[Rigs11]

Dry your eyes righties! You too can be like Mittens and simply use your own data.Ha!

Romney camp trusts own data, strategy, not public polls, in Ohio

VANDALIA, OH – For the Romney campaign, Tuesday brought yet more bad news from the Buckeye state: a new Washington Post poll showed the Republican presidential nominee trailing President Barack Obama by eight points in this critical battleground state, with 52 percent of Ohio voters in favor of giving the incumbent another four years.

Before Mitt Romney's plane touched down at the Dayton airport today, two top aides were dispatched to the press cabin to put out possible fires the numbers might have sparked.

"The public polls are what the public polls are," Romney Political Director Rich Beeson told reporters. "I kind of hope the Obama campaign is basing their campaign on what the public polls say. We don’t. We have confidence in our data and our metrics."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/14102182-romney-camp-trusts-own-data-strategy-not-public-polls-in-ohio?lite

[TonyR]

Nate Silver's latest gives Romney a 3.6% chance of winning. So there's that for the righties to cling to.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KX5jNnDMfxA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[houghtam]

And when asked by the Rachel Maddow show, they were unwilling (or more likely unable) to show the methodology and data for the polls they claim they have.

That's what makes a poll legitimate (exist?), folks. You publish your methodology.

Bloodbath.

[Pseudofool]

The polls from today are devastating for Mitt. Wow.
Florida CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 53, Romney 44 Obama +9
Ohio CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 53, Romney 43 Obama +10
Penn CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 54, Romney 42 Obama +12

[houghtam]

The polls from today are devastating for Mitt. Wow.
Florida CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 53, Romney 44 Obama +9
Ohio CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 53, Romney 43 Obama +10
Penn CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Obama 54, Romney 42 Obama +12

Washington Post has it

FL Obama +4

OH Obama +8

VA Obama +8

[TonyR]

The polls from today are devastating for Mitt. Wow.

As many of us have been saying from day 1, he's a terrible candidate. I thought he had a shot because of the economy and the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda. But it's starting to look like he's even worse than I thought. Borderline unelectable.

[Rohirrim]

As many of us have been saying from day 1, he's a terrible candidate. I thought he had a shot because of the economy and the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda. But it's starting to look like he's even worse than I thought. Borderline unelectable.

Not really. If the Right Wingers can illegally squelch the vote in enough key areas, they could pull it out. How could anybody remember what happened in Gore v Bush or four years later in the Ohio robbery and take a victory for granted?

[Pseudofool]

Gallup tracking (over seven days) shows a six point lead for Obama. It has typically been more favorable to Mitt than other major polls (beyond Rasmussen).

[Old Dude]

I think I hear the Fat Lady warming up.

[TonyR]

...they could pull it out...

They could, sure. But it's looking less and less likely. Which is why I'm saying Romney is such an awful candidate, and the GOP such a joke. They should have run away with this election.

[Rohirrim]

They could, sure. But it's looking less and less likely. Which is why I'm saying Romney is such an awful candidate, and the GOP such a joke. They should have run away with this election.

I think this cartoon says it all about the GOP in this election:

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/F/4/Romney-2012-Button.jpg

[SoCalBronco]

Huntsman would have won this race by 5 plus points.

[houghtam]

I think this cartoon says it all about the GOP in this election:

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/F/4/Romney-2012-Button.jpg

On that pin, I see at least 8 names who would have at least been performing better than Romney in the polls. 9, if you include "Other".

Ha!

[Rohirrim]

Huntsman would have won this race by 5 plus points.

Herman Cain would have been more entertaining.

[Dexter]

I'm a moderate Republican (except on fiscal issues, where I am very conservative and by conservative I mean, its very important to have low debt and very low budget deficits. That means spending cuts when necessary and also tax increases when necessary, I'm not opposed to reasonable tax increases purely on principle. They are often necessary and I support the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts). I supported Huntsman in the primary (check the search function). I'm not a fan of Romney and I never have been, and its mainly because he's a worthless empty suit with only a rudimentary understanding of issues. He won because he had huge financial advantages over everyone else and drowned them out. But I am slightly leaning towards him primarily because he picked Ryan. I am a fan of Ryan on spending issues, most notably on SS/Medicare and I'm intrigued by Ryan's ideas on these issues, and I'm encouraged that he's flexible as well (he worked with Sen. Wyden and slightly altered his approach). I'm encouraged by the CBO analysis of his premium support proposals which also include increasing the Medicare eligibility range over time and the fact that the supports vary by income levels also helps to soften the effect. I know it is essentially cost shifting in part to seniors and I'm okay with that. While its true that through SS and Medicare taxes they have paid into the program, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they are entitled to the exact same benefit formulas that have been provided to others in the past, just that they are entitled to some significant benefit, not necessarily this particular benefit. The changes in demographics with a greater aging population will put a huge strain on us financially. This is the long term debt driver. There has been discussion of raiding the funds in teh past and its true htats happened, but even without that, it wouldnt come close to fixing hte long term problem (and SS trust fund funds dont address Medicare issues). Even CMS admits this is the biggest problem going forward. I think the long term debt is something like 63T over 75 years, about 1T a year without any changes. That a few hundred billion or even a trillion in total were removed from SS trust fund in the past would not have cured this problem. CBO estimated that, without more, the proposal would sharply reduce the debt to GDP ratio over time. I am providing a link to their analysis for your review: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf. With regard to BroncoInferno's point about Romney now saying he won't touch it, I think I read an article awhile back indicating he had put out an actual proposal earlier in the campaign that was not materially dissimilar from Wyden-Ryan, so I'm thinking his current talk is to merely make sure seniors don't abandon him in the election.

I realize that on issues such as taxes, Romney-Ryan are not as responsible as they are on these issues, but I think the tax problem is largely solved due to the fact that if nothing else happens in 2012, we will go back to the 2001 tax code, which will be great for long term debt control. Between that and serious SS/Medicare reform, we will be in good shape. I'm not persuaded that tax increases alone will solve these issues. Tax increases alone doesnt solve a 63T long term problem and I dont think its fair to apportion everything to taxes, anyway. It has to be a balanced solution.

I do support the administration on issues such as cap and trade (I prefer this approach rather than a carbon tax because I like the idea of injecting market based principles into the equation to disincentive businesses from environmentally inefficient conduct, rather than the simple imposition of a tax, make everyone try to run it as efficiently as possible so they can sell their credits elsewhere...there is good precedent for this approach in Europe) and I generally support the administration in foreign affiars with the exception of supporting insurgencies and democracy in the ME. I think thats abysmal. I don't give a **** about "promoting values". I care only about acting to presreve US strategic interests. I'm in the Nixon school of foreign affairs, not the Carter school. I'm more than willing to support brutal, repressive dictatorial regimes, so long as it promotes stability and protects US strategic interests. I'm concerned about AL Qaeda gaining a foothold in the region due to us promoting these popular uprisings. I'm not a fan of this at all. Other than that, I generally approve of the administration in foreign affairs, especially the Vietnamization in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued arms control with Russia.


I could still go either way with my vote and there is a good chance I could ignore the top ballot. I don't like Romney and I never have. If he did not select Ryan, and we didn't have the impending sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts merely by inaction (in a divided congress, which we will likely get, a Romney tax cut couldnt pass), I probably would not vote for him at all.

Nice post. Unlike you I really dislike Ryan. There is nothing about the Republican ticket that appeals to me at all. Ryan and Romney are too extreme on social issues to me, and I really don't like their take on healthcare.

However, I will say this. I'm not someone who would have been dedicated 100% to voting for Obama had there been a responsible alternative. Jon Huntsman is someone who is very intriguing, and I've brought his name up in the past around here. Just a few people here actually like him. I really have no idea how he didn't get more consideration than Romney. He seems like he really has a balanced viewpoint on the important issues, and is someone that understands and can connect with the common man. So I'm definitely with you here. - And yes I know Huntsman does support Ryan's medicare plan.

Even though Obama's gotten us out of Iraq, and we've killed Bin Laden and a few other high priority targets, I'm still not a huge fan of his foreign policy. I'm a bit of a pacifist though, I hate the nation building this country is committed to. Fixing what I believe is an awful foreign policy, encouraging the development of clean energy and being independent from foreign oil would go a long way to cut spending. And yes, taxing the top 2% won't fix everything, but giving tax cuts to the middle class, and not those that don't need it will encourage some growth imo. So we don't really agree on foreign policy, but I'm definitely willing to vote for someone I don't agree with on 100% of the issues --Huntsman.

While I don't like Ryan, and I feel like he only appeals to the far far right, I can't believe how much more likable he is by the republican party.

Just an amusing video:http://youtu.be/SclDiN-lcYE

[Pseudofool]

Huntsman would have won this race by 5 plus points.That's wishful thinking. He wouldn't turn out the base; more than that, he'd never be the nominee of the Republican party as long as the teaparty is the base.

It's akin to saying Hillary Clinton would win this race (in a general election against Obama) by five plus points. Maybe there's some truth in the notion, but it's based on fantasy circumstances divorced from the actual mechanisms of politics.

[Rigs11]

I don't think any republican would have beaten obama.the right is broken up into too many parties.you have the true conservatives which make up a small percentage then you have the extremist tea party and then you have the deficit spenders who call themselves conservatives.they come up with all these silly plans to cut unions,women's programs,deportation nonsense.all so that they can give corps more tax breaks.hell,the one saving grace the repuba had was the economy.and they even managed to blow it there

[~Crash~]

umm would hold your glee .. but go ahead celbrate four more years of the same ... lol

[~Crash~]

also I remember plenty of you telling us Wisconsin was going to have a new governer .. strange he seems to be still getting your goat.

[~Crash~]

Counting Chickens before they hatch.. I think I will send another $100 to Romney tomorrow.

[SoCalBronco]

That's wishful thinking. He wouldn't turn out the base; more than that, he'd never be the nominee of the Republican party as long as the teaparty is the base.

It's akin to saying Hillary Clinton would win this race (in a general election against Obama) by five plus points. Maybe there's some truth in the notion, but it's based on fantasy circumstances divorced from the actual mechanisms of politics.

Huntsman had a chance to win the nomination IF....IF he was willing to ask his Dad to dig deep into his pockets. Huntsman Sr. could OVERWHELM Romney financially....and Romney has at least a quarter billion in assets and probably alot closer to half a billion. That doesnt hold a candle to the Huntsman family's assets. For whatever reason, they decided not to put the Huntsman family money into this race.

Yes, its true the base wouldn't like him, but they don't like Romney either and never have and he still won the nomination relatively easily.

[DenverBrit]

Romney has run a terrible campaign to-date and is a very unpopular ex Governor.

From the State that knows Mitt best:

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

President Obama remains well ahead of Mitt Romney in Massachsuetts.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Massachusetts Voters shows Obama with 55% support to Romney's 40%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while two percent (2%) are undecided.
(To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/massachusetts/election_2012_massachusetts_president

[Jetmeck]

Counting Chickens before they hatch.. I think I will send another $100 to Romney tomorrow.


Go ahead throw good money after bad. I just gave a hundred to the winner couple of minutes ago and FYI that asshole Walker may still be there because of special interest money but his BS union busting laws are not there anymore.............judicial system still works just fine....thank you very much !

[Pseudofool]

Yes, its true the base wouldn't like him, but they don't like Romney either and never have and he still won the nomination relatively easily.
Romney, however, has managed the expectations of the base by cowing to them. Is that something Huntsman would do? If not, I don't see how he gets the nomination with however much he out spends Romney.

If Romney doesn't swing hard right, Santorum is the nominee, that's the Republican political landscape. And it should frighten reasonable conservatives.

[TonyR]

What a fantastic last two weeks these have been. I don’t even mean Barack Obama solidifying his lead over Mitt Romney, although that’s perfectly fine. No, I mean the near-mathematically perfect joy of watching these smug and contemptible creatures of the right dodge and swerve and make excuses and, most of all, whine. There is no joy in the kingdom of man so great as the joy of seeing bullies and hucksters laid low, and watching people who have arrogantly spent years assuming they were right about the world living to see all those haughty assumptions die before their eyes. Watching them squirm is more fun than watching Romney and Paul Ryan flail away. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/michael-tomasky-on-the-gop-s-self-delusion-syndrome.html

LOL

[Drek]

Huntsman had a chance to win the nomination IF....IF he was willing to ask his Dad to dig deep into his pockets. Huntsman Sr. could OVERWHELM Romney financially....and Romney has at least a quarter billion in assets and probably alot closer to half a billion. That doesnt hold a candle to the Huntsman family's assets. For whatever reason, they decided not to put the Huntsman family money into this race.

Yes, its true the base wouldn't like him, but they don't like Romney either and never have and he still won the nomination relatively easily.

Obama's too strong a candidate. Huntsman would probably be beating him in national polls, but he wouldn't swing PA, MI, OH, WI, IA, or VA where Obama is stretching his lead.

The Obama campaign predicted the key swing states years out, built powerful ground games, and have been doing unofficial campaigning in those states for a long time now. Coupled with the auto bail out specifically helping most of those states and you see a strong reason why no GOP candidate had a real shot this cycle.

To that end, I'm betting that the Huntsmans understood this and this is why they spent a small amount of money to get some name recognition out there, which will be followed by a much larger effort in 2016, especially if Hillary doesn't run.

Christie is in an economic quagmire and might lose his job to Booker before he even gets the chance to run for POTUS. Jeb Bush has a toxic family legacy and it reinforces the equally toxic American Royalty stigma. Ryan will now be DOA after being a poor VP candidate. The landscape on the GOP side isn't very strong when you think about it realistically. Huntsman could begin running in earnest much sooner this time around and would have the major early primaries lined up and soaked in money well in advance.

[houghtam]

Obama's too strong a candidate. Huntsman would probably be beating him in national polls, but he wouldn't swing PA, MI, OH, WI, IA, or VA where Obama is stretching his lead.

This is the crux of the argument, both for this election and for hypothetical ones like Huntsman, etc. vs. Obama. The election is not determined by national numbers. Rather, it's determined every year by the same 10-15 states who represent what the middle thinks. Although there are several candidates who would probably be performing better than Romney, I have yet to see a convincing argument from anyone on how exactly they would be doing better than Obama where it matters.

[Requiem]

UnskewedPolls was a site/firm started by Republicans. Unskewed my rear. Their whole model is going under the assumption that African-American and Latino turnout will be much less this year.

[houghtam]

UnskewedPolls was a site/firm started by Republicans. Unskewed my rear. Their whole model is going under the assumption that African-American and Latino turnout will be much less this year.

Actually they had a story about that the other night. Apparently he applied the Rasmussen research methods to all polls, and then Rasmussen came out and was all like, "That's not how it works, guy, you can't just apply the same pollin methods to different polls."

Rasmussen sucks, too.

[peacepipe]

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/george-w-bush-viewed-more-favorably-mi

The most recent Bloomberg poll shows Bush with a 46% to 49% favorable rating as compared to Romney's 43% to 50%.



LOL you know you got issues when GWB has a higher favorably than you.

[DBruleU]

Actually they had a story about that the other night. Apparently he applied the Rasmussen research methods to all polls, and then Rasmussen came out and was all like, "That's not how it works, guy, you can't just apply the same pollin methods to different polls."

Rasmussen sucks, too.

You keep saying this...but facts prove the opposite. Do I need to show you more studies in which Rasmussen came out on top with the most consistent and accurate polling in past elections?

Or does "sucks" just mean you don't agree or like their polling results?

[peacepipe]

the problem cons have is they can't accept the fact that Willard is losing. they complain about the polling but act as if ras is the only poll out there that can be trusted.

every poll out there has Obama with a lead,but yet we're to believe that all the polls are wrong,except for ras. even though ras has obama leading as well.

[houghtam]

You keep saying this...but facts prove the opposite. Do I need to show you more studies in which Rasmussen came out on top with the most consistent and accurate polling in past elections?

Or does "sucks" just mean you don't agree or like their polling results?

The facts prove that they did well 4 years ago.

How many more people have cellphones and no landline now than back then? Their polling methods are crap. How many times does this need to be shown to you?

Or do you really believe that landline-only polls really have any significance in 2012?

I suppose if you sample payphones only you'd probably get biased information on what the soup kitchen on 5th should serve for dinner, too.

[Rigs11]

Righties are in panic mode.tea party is trying to suppress voters in Ohio, windbag limbaugh is crying about the polling,repubs are now supporting Akin.repubs are trying to make mittens the underdog in the debates...oh except for Christie who is saying that mittens is gonna turn this around in the debates.gotta love it

[peacepipe]

Righties are in panic mode.tea party is trying to suppress voters in Ohio, windbag limbaugh is crying about the polling,repubs are now supporting Akin.repubs are trying to make mittens the underdog in the debates...oh except for Christie who is saying that mittens is gonna turn this around in the debates.gotta love it

he also stated this morning that these complaints about the polls are bogus.

[Requiem]

You keep saying this...but facts prove the opposite. Do I need to show you more studies in which Rasmussen came out on top with the most consistent and accurate polling in past elections?

Or does "sucks" just mean you don't agree or like their polling results?

But, you aren't really presenting facts. You are just going with Rasmussen because they show the closest race of all the pollsters out there.
Rasmussen was crap in 2000, Solid in 2004 and 2008 (most were, there were even more accurate pollsters in 2008) and did horrendous in 2010 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/). I mean, how do you get a certain race 40 points completely wrong?

If you go by what Rasmussen is reporting now, Mittens gets New Hampshire and North Carolina. Obama wins all the other battle ground states. Too bad for Mittens. :(

[houghtam]

But, you aren't really presenting facts. You are just going with Rasmussen because they show the closest race of all the pollsters out there.
Rasmussen was crap in 2000, Solid in 2004 and 2008 (most were, there were even more accurate pollsters in 2008) and did horrendous in 2010 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/). I mean, how do you get a certain race 40 points completely wrong?

If you go by what Rasmussen is reporting now, Mittens gets New Hampshire and North Carolina. Obama wins all the other battle ground states. Too bad for Mittens. :(

Yep. If you go entirely by Rasmussen's numbers right now, Obama still wins 313-225.

This is starting to seem like another example of attempted refutation of science by conservatives. I'm sorry you either don't agree or can't understand, guys, but polling, statistics and the like...it's a science. You can't make pre-ordained assumptions on the party leanings of a particular state before taking a poll. You must attempt to sample the most accurate representation of the US, otherwise your numbers are worthless.

What world do you guys live in where not calling cell phones is going to give you an accurate representation of the populace?? Just looking at my and my wife's own families (who are about 50/50 conservative/liberal), there are 12 family units in our immediate family. 4 years ago, 6 of 12 had landlines. Currently only 3 do, and take a guess the age and political leanings of those 3. Derp.

Numbers and science are nothing to be afraid of, conservatives.

[Requiem]

^ Bingo. Notice how none of them have voted in your Obama's EV thread? Not hard to figure out why.

[houghtam]

^ Bingo. Notice how none of them have voted in your Obama's EV thread? Not hard to figure out why.

LOL

Well, to be fair about it, some of the races are fairly close in Rasmussen, so it would be kind of hard to decide whether Obama will win by 15 electoral votes or by 100. I don't blame them.

Ha!

[W*GS]

Numbers and science are nothing to be afraid of, conservatives.

Conservatives are terminally afraid of anything remotely intellectual.

[houghtam]

Conservatives are terminally afraid of anything remotely intellectual.

I'm surprised they haven't tried removing the Book of Numbers from the Bible because it has a liberal bias.

[Rohirrim]

Ohio poll shows Romney trailing by 9 points.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/30/1-dispatch-poll-shows-obama-in-lead.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Battleground snapshot: Another bad weekend for Romney

http://www.dailykos.com/story/<wbr>2012/10/01/1138526/<wbr>-Battleground-snapshot-Another-<wbr>bad-weekend-for-Romney (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/01/1138526/-Battleground-snapshot-Another-bad-weekend-for-Romney)


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/546308_10151177411169255_1017440391_n.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151177411169255&set=a.416444264254.190398.43179984254&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Early voting update in Iowa and North Carolina

http://www.dailykos.com/story/<wbr>2012/10/01/1138546/<wbr>-Early-voting-update-in-Iowa-an<wbr>d-North-Carolina (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/01/1138546/-Early-voting-update-in-Iowa-and-North-Carolina)


https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/548578_10151177484184255_254556139_n.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151177484184255&set=a.416444264254.190398.43179984254&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow! Even the Moonie Times is reporting it...

Obama widens lead

Link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/30/obama-widens-lead-confidence-against-romney-voters/)

Obama has opened a sizable lead over Mitt Romney in polling ahead of the election as both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly convinced that he is going to win re-election, according to The Washington Times/Zogby Poll released Sunday.

In the latest poll, Obama drew 49 percent support while Romney garnered 41 percent.

The previous Times/Zogby polls showed the race a dead heat — including just before the national party conventions, when they were tied with 45.7 percent of the vote each.

Even with third-party candidates added to the mix, the results barely changed.

Obama’s support is growing even as voters are split on whether they are better off from four years ago and even as voters said they weren’t happy with the president’s handling of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts three weeks ago.

http://www.bartcop.com/plane-windows-bush_n.jpg

[Bacchus]

I'm surprised they haven't tried removing the Book of Numbers from the Bible because it has a liberal bias.

The Bible, most liberals do not care about fiction.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.bartcop.com/plane-windows-bush_n.jpg

LOL

[Old Dude]

Not taking a position on this one way or the other, but I thought this was interesting:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259655-poll-plurality-of-americans-believe-polls-biased-for-obama

Made me wonder if the poll about polls was also skewed? And then I got hungry and went to the fridge.

[Requiem]

Not taking a position on this one way or the other, but I thought this was interesting:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259655-poll-plurality-of-americans-believe-polls-biased-for-obama

Made me wonder if the poll about polls was also skewed? And then I got hungry and went to the fridge.

Ha! Then they bring up Dick Morris, who somehow has Romney up on an average of 5% in states like OH, FL, NV and even Pennsylvania that has no shot at switching red. He is even more conservative in his polling bias than Rasmussen is. Even Rasmussen and his polling subsidiaries have Obama with leads in swing states, and a Rasmussen subsidiary just released a poll showing that a majority of Americans expect Obama to win.

Just sounds like a bunch of cry babies finally starting to realize that their candidate is junk. He has yet to offer a stance on why you should vote for him, but has been in attack mode against Obama. Not a good strategy. He is toast. He was toast six months ago when he was winning in primaries and caucuses. Mittens, you've been smitten!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He has yet to offer a stance on why you should vote for him, but has been in attack mode against Obama.

That pretty much sums up the entire republican party "strategery" since Obama was sworn in.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/223335_421435971248821_67415929_n.jpg

[GreasyQtip]

That pretty much sums up the entire republican party "strategery" since Obama was sworn in.

What world are you living in, he has made it very clear that he plans to "mke america better" by "creating more jobs"

[Mecklomaniac]

Romney post debate bounce..

Ohio Obama 50% Romney 49% (LV) Rassmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president)

Ohio Romney 51% Obama 48% among those certain to vote.
Ohio Romney 47% Obama 46% we ask america poll

Also in Ohio Republicans have closed the gap in requests for absentee ballots. washington examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-shocker-gop-closes-early-voting-gap-boosting-romney/article/2509838#.UG8dfK6CuAA)

Florida Romney 49 Obama 47 Rasmussen
Florida Romney 49 Obama 46 We ask America poll

Virginia Romney 49 Obama 46 Rasmussen
Virginia Romney 48 Obama 45 We ask America

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Requiem]

Why am I not surprised at the polls Mecklomaniac used to pick and choose.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why am I not surprised at the polls Mecklomaniac used to pick and choose.

Gives new meaning to the phrase "cherry picking," doesn't it? Ha!

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/384410_539689306056585_1203919643_n.jpg

[Mecklomaniac]

Post debate.

Colorado Romney 49% Obama 46%

Gravis Poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Gravis_CO_1006.pdf)

[DBruleU]

Post debate.

Colorado Romney 49% Obama 46%

Gravis Poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Gravis_CO_1006.pdf)

Don't you know you're just full of ****!? You can only post polls that are highly biased towards Obama if you want to be taken seriously.

[Mecklomaniac]

Gives new meaning to the phrase "cherry picking," doesn't it? Ha!



http://i.qkme.me/355pt5.jpg


Just using the only state polls published since the debate..... Cherry picking would be going back and using old polls just because the old data looks better for Obama....

Election is a lot closer than you leftists think. Think you will be shocked by the only poll that counts in Nov.

[Rohirrim]

Romney is a liar, a huckster, and a flim flam man. That doesn't mean he can't attract voters, however.

[Requiem]

Don't you know you're just full of ****!? You can only post polls that are highly biased towards Obama if you want to be taken seriously.

And interestingly enough those who follow polling and their methodologies seriously know that Rasmussen, Gravis and We Ask America are the most well-known establishments from Republican leaning bias. Just like the PPP is biased towards Democrats. This is something you conveniently ignore.

[Drek]

Post debate.

Colorado Romney 49% Obama 46%

Gravis Poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2012/Gravis_CO_1006.pdf)

Gravis? Really?

1. They sampled 3.6% more republicans than dems. Thought that was skewing the polls when it went the other way around?

2. They sampled 8% hispanics in a 21% or more hispanic state.

3. They sampled literally twice as many people between 50-64 than 18-29.

4. They skewed very slightly towards women, but in a state that has a 200K gender gap favoring women, i.e. under sampled. Happens to also disproportionately favor Obama.

See, this is what people mean when they talk about ****ty polling, not the blanket "dur, gots to be cookin' them numbars!" bull**** the right has been trying to pull. Look into the actual data and you can see if a poll is accurate.

[Jetmeck]

Romney post debate bounce..

Ohio Obama 50% Romney 49% (LV) Rassmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president)

Ohio Romney 51% Obama 48% among those certain to vote.
Ohio Romney 47% Obama 46% we ask america poll

Also in Ohio Republicans have closed the gap in requests for absentee ballots. washington examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/ohio-shocker-gop-closes-early-voting-gap-boosting-romney/article/2509838#.UG8dfK6CuAA)

Florida Romney 49 Obama 47 Rasmussen
Florida Romney 49 Obama 46 We ask America poll

Virginia Romney 49 Obama 46 Rasmussen
Virginia Romney 48 Obama 45 We ask America

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/



Nice cherry picking of the polls............take a look at the rest of them and then average..............

[Jetmeck]

Romney is a liar, a huckster, and a flim flam man. That doesn't mean he can't attract voters, however.


Actually and unfortunately that says a lot about the people in this country. They have short memories of which party and what policies put us in this situation and they are very uninformed.

[Jetmeck]

http://i.qkme.me/355pt5.jpg


Just using the only state polls published since the debate..... Cherry picking would be going back and using old polls just because the old data looks better for Obama....

Election is a lot closer than you leftists think. Think you will be shocked by the only poll that counts in Nov.


You want to be hard headed and ass to boot.

He means what you know he means but being a dumbass righty you don't want to admit to picking only certain polls that are right leaning to begin with.

Take all the polls and average and you will see the truth. Your still ****ed..........................

[Rohirrim]

Actually and unfortunately that says a lot about the people in this country. They have short memories of which party and what policies put us in this situation and they are very uninformed.

I imagine the majority of Americans couldn't even tell you what happened.

[Mecklomaniac]

And interestingly enough those who follow polling and their methodologies seriously know that Rasmussen, Gravis and We Ask America are the most well-known establishments from Republican leaning bias. Just like the PPP is biased towards Democrats. This is something you conveniently ignore.


Speaking of left wing biased PPP. New post debate poll from them today. Wisconsin is down to a 2 point Obama lead. Just two weeks ago PPP had Obama +7

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-lead-down-to-2-in-wisconsin.html

[lonestar]

Romney is a liar, a huckster, and a flim flam man. That doesn't mean he can't attract voters, however.

might be taking a hint from nobamas 08 campaign.. it seemed to work then..

hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change

and you morons bought it..

[Rohirrim]

might be taking a hint from nobamas 08 campaign.. it seemed to work then..

hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change
hope and change

and you morons bought it..

I guess Obama didn't plan on having to deal with the worst Congress in history. And I'm not just making that up. A group of historians say this one wins the title. I wish we had a fourth estate left in this country that could point this out to the people, but we don't. Obama is an average president following the worst president in our history. Extremism just doesn't work in a republic. I guess we just have to suffer through it until the Right figures that out and stops putting these little whacked out zealots in office.

[lonestar]

I guess Obama didn't plan on having to deal with the worst Congress in history. And I'm not just making that up. A group of Democratic historians say this one wins the title. I wish we had a fourth estate left in this country that could point this out to the people, but we don't. Obama is an average president following the worst president in our history. Extremism just doesn't work in a republic. I guess we just have to suffer through it until the Right figures that out and stops putting these little whacked out zealots in office.

fixed that for you. Iirc he had both the house and senate from his own party the first two years.

Should have been able to change a lot more.

But go ahead and believe your fellow progressives about what they believe.

I do not care.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

fixed that for you. Iirc he had both the house and senate from his own party the first two years.

Should have been able to change a lot more.

But go ahead and believe your fellow progressives about what they believe.

I do not care.

Let's keep things real here:

You are a POS who supports TRAITORS who destroyed the U.S. economy and subsequently, for entirely political reasons, used all means at their disposal to obstruct recovery efforts.

Therefore, your status here is lower than whale sh*t, and your credibility is null and void.

Your best play right now would be to just STFU and go away.

[lonestar]

let me guess another cartoon for the cartoon dildo..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

let me guess another cartoon for the cartoon dilrod..

You put people on ignore so you can try to guess what they're saying every time they post, and I'm the "dilrod?"

Like so many of your Fox News lemming friends, you're too mentally handicapped to even realize you have a handicap.

[Rohirrim]

fixed that for you. Iirc he had both the house and senate from his own party the first two years.

Should have been able to change a lot more.

But go ahead and believe your fellow progressives about what they believe.

I do not care.

You obviously don't know how Congress works. For one thing, you need a super majority if you want to bulldoze the opposition (or end a filibuster, or cloture debate). Of course, if you do that, you pay down the road. Like George Washington said, the whole operating principle behind our government is "accommodation." Bulldozing opponents breeds enemies, although it doesn't appear that McConnell or Boehner give a damn about the old manners.

Obama only had a supermajority in the Senate for seven weeks, from the time Franken was sworn in to the time Ted Kennedy died. And since Kennedy couldn't even participate the last few months of his life, that supermajority was only on paper. I think Byrd was also unable to show up during that period of time. He never had a supermajority in the House. You need a percentage of 67. Obama never had better than 59.

Romney goes around the country claiming Obama had "...a supermajority for two years and didn't get anything done." It's just another of his flat-out lies.

[Requiem]

Lonestar doesn't know much of anything.

[lonestar]

I see mr 47% has most likely jerked off another fellow liberal.

[barryr]

The liberals need those that won't vote for Obama to stay home and not vote, plus make sure like they are trying right now to see the overseas military vote won't count, and make sure as few states as possible have laws that limit people to only voting once.

[lonestar]

The liberals need those that won't vote for Obama to stay home and not vote, plus make sure like they are trying right now to see the overseas military vote won't count, and make sure as few states as possible have laws that limit people to only voting once.

:thumbs:

for that matter that those dead voters do not show up and vote straight/stiff dumocrat ticket..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lonestar doesn't know much of anything.

Including the fact that he doesn't know much of anything - which is what makes him such an embarrassment.

[TonyR]

Over the next few days, post-debate polls could show Romney taking a narrow lead in states like Virginia, Colorado, or Florida. But to know whether Romney has upset the president's Electoral College advantage, follow the polls in Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Iowa. If Obama retains his lead in Wisconsin and Ohio, then Romney needs to win both Nevada and Iowa to win the presidency. If Romney can fight back in Ohio, then Obama leads in Nevada and Iowa would allow him to prevail with any additional state, like Ohio, Colorado, or Virginia, where the polls will probably still show an extremely tight race. But if Obama retains a clear edge in Ohio, Nevada, and Iowa, then the Romney campaign still has much more work to do. http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/108223/iowa-nevada-and-wisconsin-prevent-romney-conceding-ohio

[DBruleU]

Of the 4 tracking polls today, Romney gained in 3/4 of them. RCP avg. now Romney +1.5%

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420496_541945555830960_634248599_n.jpg

[Requiem]

If I ever have a chance to fart on Mitt Romney, I will. A hard queef.

[DBruleU]

If I ever have a chance to fart on Mitt Romney, I will. A hard queef.

I always figured you had a vagina.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I always figured you had a vagina.

That would explain your animosity toward him. :mullet1:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/397305_542280429130806_2077894654_n.jpg

[BroncoInferno]

The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Romney made some gains in Virginia and Ohio. He's up 1% in VA, a three point swing from the previous poll (kind of a modest gain here since this poll and the previous are within the margin of error). In Ohio, he's still down 6 points (2 point improvement), though there's some statistical variariation in the poll that the article explains. It could be a couple of points closer there. Florida is basically the same. Obama still up one point there:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14352371-nbcwsjmarist-poll-romney-gains-in-key-swing-states?lite&ocid=msnhp

[TonyR]

Mr. Romney continues to rocket forward in our projections. The forecast model now gives him about a one-in-three chance of winning the Electoral College (more specifically, a 32.1 percent chance), his highest figure since Aug. 22 and more than double his chances from before the debate. Mr. Romney may have increased his chances of becoming president by 15 or 20 percent based on one night in Denver.

The more troubling sign for Mr. Romney, however, is that although he’s made gains, he does not seem to have taken the lead in very many state polls. That trend, if anything, has become more entrenched. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/oct-10-is-romney-leading-right-now/

[Old Dude]

I didn't bother watching the debate, but whatever Romney did, he sure gained a lot of momentum. It's like watching someone convert on a third and fifteen in the final 5 minutes of the game.

[Kid A]

I didn't bother watching the debate, but whatever Romney did, he sure gained a lot of momentum. It's like watching someone convert on a third and fifteen in the final 5 minutes of the game.

It's like letting Danny Woodhead go for 19 on 3rd and 17...

[Rohirrim]

For the average American, maybe it should all just come down to, "Haven't the rich got enough?"

What did Senator Welch say to McCarthy at the end of the Army-McCarthy hearings? "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

[razorwire77]

It's like letting Danny Woodhead go for 19 on 3rd and 17...

When it's all said and done, I think it's more like Romney getting 16 yards on 3rd and 18. Enough to put a serious scare into the defense, but not enough to convert. We'll see though, if Obama brings the same combination of meekness and piss poor body language to debate # 2, all bets are off. Seriously doubt that happens though, and Obama has huge ground game and canvasing advantages in the swing states (as do most incumbents.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Potentially Ominous Sign For Romney In Today’s Gallup Numbers


http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/detail_page/Romney%20october%209.jpgJim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

While the twitter-verse was ablaze with the news that Romney seized the lead in Gallup’s tracker of likely voters, the underlying data hinted at troubling news for Romney. After making big gains among registered voters following the debates, Gallup’s most recent days of tracking (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157955/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx) have shown a shift back in the president’s direction, with Obama returning to pre-debate levels.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/r0gbcixd4ua-jqxkv_laow.gif

Similarly, Gallup’s 3-day approval tracker found the president reaching 53 percent, suggesting that the president fared pretty well in interviews on Saturday, as well.

Ultimately, this is just two nights of tracking, but it’s consistent with the movement in Rasmussen’s tracker, Obama’s strong performance in Colorado and Iowa in Rasmussen’s Sunday polls, and PPP’s tweets about the evolution of their samples. If confirmed by other pollsters, there’s a chance that Romney’s impressive bounce might prove short-lived.

[DBruleU]

Potentially Ominous Sign For Romney In Today’s Gallup Numbers


http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/detail_page/Romney%20october%209.jpgJim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

While the twitter-verse was ablaze with the news that Romney seized the lead in Gallup’s tracker of likely voters, the underlying data hinted at troubling news for Romney. After making big gains among registered voters following the debates, Gallup’s most recent days of tracking (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157955/romney-obama-among-likely-voters.aspx) have shown a shift back in the president’s direction, with Obama returning to pre-debate levels.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/r0gbcixd4ua-jqxkv_laow.gif

Similarly, Gallup’s 3-day approval tracker found the president reaching 53 percent, suggesting that the president fared pretty well in interviews on Saturday, as well.

Ultimately, this is just two nights of tracking, but it’s consistent with the movement in Rasmussen’s tracker, Obama’s strong performance in Colorado and Iowa in Rasmussen’s Sunday polls, and PPP’s tweets about the evolution of their samples. If confirmed by other pollsters, there’s a chance that Romney’s impressive bounce might prove short-lived.

Leads in LV's and Gallup changed their minority makeup in order to get Obama above 50% approval. I like how they are changing the make up of their polls to please Obama Campaign.

[BroncoInferno]

Leads in LV's and Gallup changed their minority makeup in order to get Obama above 50% approval. I like how they are changing the make up of their polls to please Obama Campaign.

LOL I love it. You dopes are so predictable. If the polling favors Romney, it's gospel. If it's favorable to the President, it's a liberal conspiracy.

Do you realize that Gallup is a for profit organization? They're a consulting firm. They're paid to do this stuff. That means it's in their best interests to provide accurate polling. It would be bad business to produce polls that prove inaccurate.

[DBruleU]

LOL I love it. You dopes are so predictable. If the polling favors Romney, it's gospel. If it's favorable to the President, it's a liberal conspiracy.

Do you realize that Gallup is a for profit organization? They're a consulting firm. They're paid to do this stuff. That means it's in their best interests to provide accurate polling. It would be bad business to produce polls that prove inaccurate.

So what?

The fact is they did change their methodology. As early as Oct 1 they changed it.

Fact is he (Romney) is still up with LV's. RV's is crap.

[The Lone Bolt]

I'm not surprised. I said earlier that once the shine wears off on Slick Willard's con job people will go back to Obama.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL I love it. You dopes are so predictable. If the polling favors Romney, it's gospel. If it's favorable to the President, it's a liberal conspiracy.



Ha! :yep:

Just like the BLS and jobs numbers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/61447_480882795266924_1588724853_n.jpg

[Requiem]

http://i46.tinypic.com/99hulw.png

[barryr]

I'm not surprised. I said earlier that once the shine wears off on Slick Willard's con job people will go back to Obama.

Yeah, Obama knows the truth LOL What is the story we get next week about Libya?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What is the next story will we get next week about Libya?

Knowing you, it will be a story you get from breitbart.com. :mullet1:

[DBruleU]

Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/15/swing-states-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/

http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_notches/5ba2fe5f-5c7f-4ec2-8791-a9bcca67be42-01O.png

3:20PM EDT October 15. 2012 - WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney leads President Obama by five percentage points among likely voters in the nation's top battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and he has growing enthusiasm among women to thank.

As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee now ties the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-48%, while he leads by 12 points among men.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This morning, Obama is back to a 1.3-point lead, 48.5-47.2.

But what's more, most of the States That Matter never looked as bleak as the national polling did. PPP's national numbers will be the most pessimistic for Obama this week, by far. Yet their Ohio poll, conducted over pretty much the same time frame, gave Obama a 51-46 lead—compared to a 49-45 lead before the debate. NBC/Marist gave Obama a 51-45 Ohio lead, while CNN a 51-47 lead. Including all the crap GOP baby Rasmussens, Obama still leads the state 48.4-45.5 (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-ohio-president-romney-vs-obama#%21).

Indeed, Ohio is symptomatic of the Midwest, where Romney has been unable to claw his way back into serious contention in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Without those four states, Romney has to run the board on every other remaining battleground to win—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia. Narrow Romney leads in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia won't be enough.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Florida Dems rocking the absentee vote: Republicans "nervous", "not good news" (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/15/1144854/-Dems-well-positioned-in-Florida-outworking-Republicans-relative-to-2008)

In 2008, half of all Floridians voted early or by absentee ballot, and Obama beat McCain by about 200,000 total votes. And "4.3 million people cast votes during early voting and absentee balloting; Democrats outnumbered Republicans by almost 360,000 among those voters" (link (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/fl.htm)). Those 360K votes were thanks to our huge advantage in early voting more than offsetting Republican's advantage in absentee ballots. This year, early GOTV can again make the difference. “It’s not good news for Republicans,” said Brad Gomez, a political science professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee, who studies voter turnout.

[snip]
The Obama campaign has 102 offices, up from 58 in Florida four years ago, and has registered about 320,000 new voters, up from about 200,000 in 2008

[snip]
Republicans have signed up about 49,000 new voters in Florida, state data show, and have 47 offices for the presidential campaign

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420564_10151099595081275_34992465_n.jpg

[DBruleU]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

First post 2nd debate poll from Gallup.

Romney up 52-46. 1 point higher than yesterday.

[barryr]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

First post 2nd debate poll from Gallup.

Romney up 52-46. 1 point higher than yesterday.

The more people hear Obama talk and have to explain himself, unlike what he had to do in 2008, the less people like him. The liberal media is trying its best to help him, but it only works for those who were going to vote for Obama no matter what.

[DBruleU]

Poll shows Romney leading in blue Pennsylvania

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UICAIYYUQto

If this is true, then Obama in bigger trouble than anyone could have imagined.

[barryr]

Poll shows Romney leading in blue Pennsylvania

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UICAIYYUQto

If this is true, then Obama in bigger trouble than anyone could have imagined.

Hopefully, more and more people are finally seeing the light about this guy. He basically got a free pass from 2007-2011 and into early 2012. Without the internet, Obama would be winning easily since the bad news happening in this country would have been silented and not reported. So, thanks Al Gore :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Latest Presidential Polls: Obama Holds Insurmountable Lead in the Electoral College

http://media1.policymic.com/site/articles/16812/photo.jpg

Despite the best efforts of Mitt Romney's campaign to close the gap, it may be impossible for the Republican challenger to overcome what has become a numbers game in the Electoral College. Understanding how the Electoral College works, particularly in light of conflicting daily polling results, is a task that is even more daunting than predicting the election itself. With 17 days until the election, the combination of confusing polling data and the memory of Obama’s margin of victory in swing states in 2008, make it very difficult to bet on a Republican candidate. The deck just seems stacked.

Let’s start by looking at a swing state that is not in play. Michigan, a state in which Romney would have undoubtedly liked to mount a serious challenge, was abandoned by the McCain campaign in 2008. The Obama campaign has deftly pushed the perception that its administration has saved the auto industry in Detroit. Given that in the latest Rasmussen Poll has Romney trailing by 7 points, even the most adamant Romney supporter would have a hard time arguing the campaign is really competing in the state.

Looking at the broader picture, Real Clear Politics currently puts 10 swing states in play for the 2012 Presidential Election. Excluding Michigan, the states (in order of electoral size) are Florida (27), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Nevada, (6), Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4).

273towin.com is a very useful site that shows electoral maps for all U.S. Presidential elections, as well as providing an interactive map that predicts the electoral college for the 2012 election. If the October 15 polls become a reality in the forty non-swing states, Obama holds a 217 to 191 edge over Romney in the Electoral College, thus leaving 130 electoral votes from the remaining ten swing states up for grabs.

273towin.com also has the latest polling (http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/) for then ten swing states listed above. If the election were held today, and those polling numbers became a reality, President Obama would defeat Mitt Romney 270 to 268 in what would be the closest presidential election ever. Even with the ever-changing polls, the intricacies of the Electoral College, and the unpredictability of elections in the United States, where is Mitt Romney going to get the votes necessary to drastically change the outcome of this electoral map?

Lets start in Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin. While the Republicans have been quick to point Ryan’s congressional record, as well as the re-election of Scott Walker after a recall, the state has not voted for a Republican in the general election since Ronald Reagan won his first term in 1984. In the 2008 election, Obama had a 13.91% margin of victory, winning the state by 412,293 votes. Combine this number with the fact that Obama is up 4 points in the latest American Research Group Poll

(270towin.com), and the Romney campaign might have to look elsewhere for those ten electoral votes.

The hottest state in which the Obama camp seems to be losing ground is Pennsylvania. Forget the fact that the state hasn’t voted for a Republican to take the oval office since 1988, or the fact that Romney is trailing Obama by roughly four points according to The Morning Call Muhlenberg. In 2008 Obama’s margin of victory was 10.4%. With the number of Democrats in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, that margin of victory was 405,820 in actual votes.

While Republicans have cited possible voter fraud in the state of Pennsylvania, studies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-day-impersonation-an-impetus-for-voter-id-laws-a-rarity-data-show/2012/08/11/7002911e-df20-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_story.html) have proven that there is no credible evidence that upholds the idea that conclusive voter fraud cases have affected recent election results in the state. The new voter registration laws upheld in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will make it difficult for some citizens to register to vote, and will help to decrease Obama’s stronghold over the state. Yet, it is still unlikely to definitively swing the state in Romney’s favor.

While pundits waste their time talking about how no Republican has won the White House without Ohio, this election’s most important state is easily Florida. According to the latest Public Policy Poll, Romney holds a one-point edge in the state. While Obama only won the state by a mere 2.5% margin, the Romney camp faces two critical issues in the state.

First, according to the latest ImpreMedia & Latino Decisions Poll, 67% of Latino voters are fairly certain they will vote for Obama. That number compares to only 23% of Latinos who are fairly certain they will vote for Romney.

According to the U.S. Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html), in 2011, nearly 23% of the population of Florida is of Hispanic or Latino origin. If the national trend translates over to the state level, coupled with the fact that 16.5% of the population in Florida is African-American, then you could estimate nearly 31.4% of the population are highly likely to vote for Obama (assuming they vote).

Paul Ryan’s Catholicism should bring back some independent Hispanics back into the fold, but his threatening views on Medicare create a second problem. According to the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, Florida has 4,720,799 people between the ages of 45 and 64. Medicare is clearly a cause for concern among these voters.

According to The Sun-Sentinel (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-22/news/fl-medicaid-florida-seniors-ryan-20120821_1_medicaid-cutbacks-medicaid-plan-laura-goodhue) “Florida's fast-growing Medicaid program — which cares for the state's impoverished children and for most senior citizens in nursing homes — would lose roughly a third of its federal money under budget plans embraced by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan.” If Romney is polling less favorably with Hispanics than John McCain (who also lost Florida), and his vice president is driving away arguably the state’s most important voting block, where does his campaign hope to make up ground?

Romney also needs to close the 11% gap (Gallup polling) that Obama held over McCain in winning independent voters. Given the state of the economy, the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, and Obama’s performance in the first debate, the Romney campaign has swiftly seized the opportunity to reduce the overall seven point lead Obama held in most polls as late as the month of July.

In 2004, Democratic challenger John Kerry missed out on the Presidency by losing the state of Ohio. For Kerry to prevail in that election, he would have only needed twenty states plus the District of Columbia to do so.
For Romney, the ideal Republican victory map would have him winning a whopping seven of the ten swing states, with Obama holding onto just Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. That means, that counting the last election, Romney would need to win back those seven states plus Indiana (which went for Obama in 2008), thus marking more than a one hundred point swing in the electoral college.

It is clear that Romney’s campaign, for numerous reasons, has gained ground in this election season. It is equally transparent that the Obama campaign is a shadow of a 2008 campaign that was supposed to be a paradigm for future presidential campaigns. Will this combination of factors be enough?

The blame for Romney’s plight extends further back than just the previous Republican administration. The electoral strategy of cementing the socially conservative southern and mid-western base voters is not a new concept. That idea was started by Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns and further solidified by both Bushes and John McCain. While successful in the short term, the strategy will limit this Republican candidate’s ability to win this election.

Couple the Republican’s limited strategy with Obama’s electoral domination in 2008, which increased the number of target states (North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, and Indiana) for the Democrats, and you are left with a Republican campaign that is exponentially more challenging.

Is it possible, that voter turnout (a number that has gone up at least fifteen million votes since 2000) could negatively affect Obama? Is it also possible that economic hardships knock out Obama just as they did with the re-election campaigns of Presidents’ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush? Is it possible that thousands of independent voters in ten very different swing states see Mitt Romney as the moderate who was Governor of Massachusetts, rather that the right wing-pleasing Republican that has muddled his message? The answer to all of these questions is, yes, it is possible.

Yet, given the state of the electoral map, the current volume of polls, the remaining political issues facing his campaign, and the path that was forced on him since the Reagan era, it is difficult to imagine a Romney victory. The fact is, in this election, the results are not about what is fair, possible, or even right, but rather what the numbers gap says is almost certain.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/16812/latest-presidential-polls-obama-holds-insurmountable-lead-in-the-electoral-college

[BroncoInferno]

Poll shows Romney leading in blue Pennsylvania

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UICAIYYUQto

If this is true, then Obama in bigger trouble than anyone could have imagined.

RCP poll average has Obama up +5 in that state. It was at 4.7% yesterday. Also up +5 in Michigan. And Ohio still Obama at 2.4%. Electoral college still looking bad for Romney.

[TonyR]

The more people hear Obama talk and have to explain himself, unlike what he had to do in 2008, the less people like him. The liberal media is trying its best to help him, but it only works for those who were going to vote for Obama no matter what.

I usually just roll my eyes and chuckle at the stupidity and ignorance of your posts but for some reason felt compelled to respond to this particularly idiotic crap.

On your first point, Obama was very well spoken in this second debate. If anyone had trouble "explaining himself" in this debate it certainly wasn't the president.

On your second point, the "liberal media" declared Romney the winner of the first debate. So now that the same media has given Obama the nod in the second debate they're "helping" him?

[BroncoInferno]

On your second point, the "liberal media" declared Romney the winner of the first debate. So now that the same media has given Obama the nod in the second debate they're "helping" him?

It's the same thing with these guys saying Crowley was helping Obama out by fact-checking Romney on the "terror" quote. First of all, she wouldn't have spoken up at all had Romney not broken the rules he agreed to by trying to ask Obama direct questions in a "gotcha" attempt that backfired. Second, they ignore that the fact that she IMMEDIATELY qualified her statement by saying that Romney was correct that the youtube video received the brunt of the blame for the following two weeks. Sounds pretty even handed to me, but of course if the other side scores a point it must be the result of some vast conspiracy. They're no better than Gaffney.

[Kid A]

Good day of swing state polling has Obama with a solid bounce in the 538 forecast: Now 70% (up from about 65% the day before). 7%+ swing to Obama in the odds on Colorado, too. Will we see stabilization now heading dow the stretch, or some more dips and dives? Nate Silver himself has said for a while he predicts it settling to Obama a smallish +2 (in the popular vote forecast) as we head into election day.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

[barryr]

I usually just roll my eyes and chuckle at the stupidity and ignorance of your posts but for some reason felt compelled to respond to this particularly idiotic crap.

On your first point, Obama was very well spoken in this second debate. If anyone had trouble "explaining himself" in this debate it certainly wasn't the president.

On your second point, the "liberal media" declared Romney the winner of the first debate. So now that the same media has given Obama the nod in the second debate they're "helping" him?

Funny, that is what I do with your posts too. Obama was well spoken? I guess like how Biden described Obama as "articulate and clean" as though apparently blacks typically aren't that in Biden's world. Even the liberal media couldn't hide Obama's crap performance since he couldn't explain himself unless given another week or 2 to find out what the questions are likely going to be. We know Obama doesn't do well without teleprompters or when have to give answers on the spot, explaining why he's hidden on the golf course and not spending much time answering questions from reporters for 4 years. But I know, in your little world, Obama is doing a bang up job LOL

[BroncoInferno]

Obama "firewall" holding in the midwest. Per new NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, Obama leads 51%-45% in Wisconsion, 51%-43% in Iowa, and 51%-45% in Ohio, all basically unchanged from a month ago:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556668-first-thoughts-obamas-midwest-firewall?lite

Regarding Iowa, the article does point out that polling is difficult:

*** Romney camp: The Iowa race is much closer: The Romney campaign insists, however, that the contest is MUCH closer in Iowa than our NBC/WSJ/Marist poll shows. The X-factor here may very well be early voting. Per our poll, 34% of likely voters say they have already cast their ballots, and the president is winning those people, 67%-32%. Another 11% say they are planning to vote early, and Obama is up with them, 55%-39%. On the other hand, Election Day voters have Romney ahead, 54%-39%. But Republicans have pointed out that 285,000 early and absentee ballots have been received in Iowa, which is about 19% of the 2008 electorate in the state -- so less than the 34% in our poll. But an overall total 463,000 absentee ballots have been REQUESTED in the state, and that comes to 30% of the 2008 electorate, which is much closer to that 34%. So what’s going on here? Are likely-voter models overstating those who have voted early? Are Democrats just more apt to say they’ve voted early (even if they haven’t), because Obama is asking them to do so? Are these requested absentee ballots already in the mail but haven’t been received by the Iowa secretary of state? These are all fair questions to ask. And, yes, it makes polling in these heavy early-voting states much harder.

[razorwire77]

Obama "firewall" holding in the midwest. Per new NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll, Obama leads 51%-45% in Wisconsion, 51%-43% in Iowa, and 51%-45% in Ohio, all basically unchanged from a month ago:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/19/14556668-first-thoughts-obamas-midwest-firewall?lite

Regarding Iowa, the article does point out that polling is difficult:
Not good math for Mitty. He basically needs one of these three states and a clean sweep of the swing states still in play. Of those swing states, as best as I can tell Florida is leaning Romney, but Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia are statistical ties. Mitty needs all to win all three.

Nate has Mitty's chances at about 30 percent. Again the electoral college math is really tough. But don't let that get in the way of a good media daily national tracking poll horse race.

[TonyR]

On Thursday, that story was one of President Obama continuing to hold leads in most polls of critical states. Of the 13 polls of swing states released on Thursday, Mr. Obama held leads in 11 of them. In contrast to most days since the first presidential debate in Denver, the state polls did not necessarily show a decline for Mr. Obama. As compared with the previous edition of the same survey, instead, he gained ground in five of the polls, and lost ground in four others. (Two of the polls showed an exactly unchanged margin, while two were published for the first time.) http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/oct-18-obama-gains-in-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/

[BroncoInferno]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/oct-18-obama-gains-in-forecast-on-resiliency-in-swing-state-polls/

As I expected, Romney got a modest initial bounce from the 1st debate, and now the numbers are starting to normalize. That's way it always goes, whether you're talking about convention or debate bounces. Of course, the lemmings will be here any moment to tell us the polls that were gospel a week ago now reflect a socialist plot afoot.

[TonyR]

The reality in the states – regardless of how close the national polls may make the election seem – is that Obama is in the lead. At the Huffington Post, Simon Jackman notes “Obama’s Electoral College count lies almost entirely to the right of 270.” Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium recently put the election odds “at about nine to one for Obama.” The DeSart and Holbrook election forecast, which also looks at the current polls, places Obama’s re-election probability at over 85%. Romney would need to move opinion by another 1%-2% to win – but voter preferences have been very stable for the past two weeks. And if 1%-2% doesn’t seem like much, consider that Romney’s huge surge following the first debate was 2%, at most. http://votamatic.org/into-the-home-stretch/

[TonyR]

It's mostly about one state at this point: Ohio.

Unlikely does not equal impossible, but Ohio is central enough in the electoral math that it now seems to matter as much as the other 49 states put together. I am not sure whether I should be congratulating you or consoling you if you happen to be reading this in Toledo. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/oct-22-ohio-has-50-50-chance-of-deciding-election/

[Rohirrim]

I wonder if it will come down to the AARP vote going against the Romney/Ryan ticket? From what I heard on NPR yesterday, the young vote is really not coming out for Obama the way they did in 2008. It sounds like the minority vote, especially among Latinos, is very strong for Obama. I keep hoping the American people will regain their senses and let this Right Wing extremist movement fade into our past, but I've been hoping that for twenty years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<header class="entry-header"> Reuters Predicting Obama Landslide (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/23/reuters-reporting-obama-landslide/)

Posted by Nathaniel Downes (http://www.addictinginfo.org/author/downix/)
</header>


http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/obama-romney-electoral-map-300x229.png (http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/obama-romney-electoral-map.png)

The newest Reuters/Ipsos poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE89K0A920121023) has come out with a remarkable prediction. They now hold that Obama is holding enough of an edge that he is looking to be able to take 332 electoral votes.


On top of this, the initial impression of the debate on Monday is showing Obama (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5848) as the solid winner, with numbers mirroring the Microsoft X-Box (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/22/following-x-box-live-polling-of-the-debate/) polling results, this is forming in to a very good week for Obama. With only two weeks to go, however, this is crunch time.

[DBruleU]

<header class="entry-header"> Reuters Predicting Obama Landslide (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/23/reuters-reporting-obama-landslide/)

Posted by Nathaniel Downes (http://www.addictinginfo.org/author/downix/)
</header>


http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/obama-romney-electoral-map-300x229.png (http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/obama-romney-electoral-map.png)

The newest Reuters/Ipsos poll (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE89K0A920121023) has come out with a remarkable prediction. They now hold that Obama is holding enough of an edge that he is looking to be able to take 332 electoral votes.


On top of this, the initial impression of the debate on Monday is showing Obama (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5848) as the solid winner, with numbers mirroring the Microsoft X-Box (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/22/following-x-box-live-polling-of-the-debate/) polling results, this is forming in to a very good week for Obama. With only two weeks to go, however, this is crunch time.

LOL

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.

And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The national polls--with the exception of Gallup, which is undersampling minorities--are very close, but as always, it is the electoral college that matters. If Obama wins the states the Democrats have won in the last five elections (which seems likely) plus New Mexico (which is almost certain), he has 247 electoral votes. Throw in Ohio and he is at 265. From there, winning just one swing state bigger than New Hampshire is enough. Without Ohio, Romney has no chance. If Romney wins only his base plus Ohio, he's not home free yet, but if he wins Ohio, he is very likely to win North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida as well, and that would get him very close to 270. So in the last two weeks, there will be a lot of focus, energy, and money poured into Ohio.

http://electoral-vote.com/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oct23 Obama Leads Among Ohioans Who Have Already Voted (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#item-4)

Four polls (http://www.nationalmemo.com/is-the-race-in-ohio-already-over/) of people who have already voted in Ohio all show Obama in the lead there. SurveyUSA has him up by 19 points. Rasmussen puts Obama ahead by 29 points. The WSJ/NBC poll has Obama in the lead by 26 points. Finally, PPP gives Obama a 52-point lead among early voters. But Democrats should not break out the champagne yet. Democrats tend to vote early whereas Republicans are more inclined to vote on election day. Still, a vote banked is a vote that cannot be changed by events in the next two weeks.

[Kid A]

LOL

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.

And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

I agree that FL is looking likely Romney (though not so far from the margin of error). But, honestly, by nearly every account Romney has the narrower path to victory, especially considering Obama's lead in OH has steadied following the tightening during the debates.

Obama could actually lose both OH and FL and still win if he still got IA, CO, WI and VA. That isn't the most likely scenario, as a OH loss wouldn't bode great for IA and CO, but it's well within the realm of possibility. 4 states, all but 1 that he has had a lead in (forecasts of CO seem to swing differently each day).

For Romney to win without OH (in which scenario we could safely assume he isn't closing even bigger gaps in PA or WI) he would need to sweep every other close swing state: VA (trails), CO (tied), IA (trails), NV (trails), NH (trails).

So, basically, either guy is in tough position without OH, but Obama may be in slightly better shape for a non-OH win.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

New Polls Show Obama Maintains Lead in Ohio; Closes Gap Nationally with Romney (http://news.yahoo.com/polls-show-obama-maintains-lead-ohio-closes-gap-201500364.html;_ylt=As4ocHvAmBvx4PQhBBP8PlPNt.d_;_ ylu=X3oDMTVxbWFma210BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3Mg Zm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDZjQ0YzNlNDItYz gwMS0zYzkwLWI5NmItZjUwZTIzZGYwNzAwBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNu ZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzBjYzk5NzkxLTFlMTktMTFlMi1iZm Q2LTI5NDQ5N2I3NjRiNA--;_ylg=X3oDMTM5NmIwMTlmBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDMTZhZTg4YjYtNDYxZC0zMzM2LWEzZGQtNmM3ODg3Mz MzZWQ1BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3xlbGVjdGlvbnMyMDEyBHB0 A3N0b3J5cGFnZQ--;_ylv=3)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fox News had a poll backfire when the majority of people answered they are much better off now than they were a year ago. How could that be if, according to Fox, President Obama is doing such a bad job?

Fox News poll finds more people are better off now than they were a year ago

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-poll-finds-more-people-are-better-off-now-than-they-were-a-year-ago

[BroncoInferno]

Fox News had a poll backfire when the majority of people answered they are much better off now than they were a year ago. How could that be if, according to Fox, President Obama is doing such a bad job?

Fox News poll finds more people are better off now than they were a year ago

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-poll-finds-more-people-are-better-off-now-than-they-were-a-year-ago

Not surprising, considering all economic indictators have improved as well. But let's not let that get in the way of good right wing yarn. I'm sure someone will be in here soon to tell us how Fox News is in the bag for Obama Ha!

[BroncoInferno]

LOL

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.

And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.

I agree that Florida looks favorable for Romney, but the RCP average there is 1.8%. If you are willing to put Florida in the bag for Romney, then intellectual consistency would require you to acknowledge that states that show a similar lead for Obama are likely to go to him. Of the states that RCP has listed as "toss ups," Obama has RCP average lead of 2.0% or greater in six of them.

Wisconsin: +2.7%
Pennsylvania: +4.8%
Ohio: +2.1%
Nevada: +2.7%
Michigan: +4.0%
Iowa: +2.0%

That's a total of 76 electoral votes, which based on the RCP map would put Obama over 270. Romney, meanwhile, only leads in two of the toss ups, Florida (+1.8%) and Colorado (a scant 0.2%....not sure why you are certain he's going to win there). Viriginia is a tie. Even if you give Romney FL, CO & VA, he's got a lot more ground to cover if he wants to win. The problem is the numbers have pretty much stabilized in the last couple of weeks.

BTW, all of these numbers are as of 10/25 in the AM. RCP updates daily, so there may be some variance on those numbers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

And the response from DBruleU and the right-wing peanut gallery?

http://thetyedyediguana.com/product_images/l/343/097612400410_ZM-41_Can_O%27_Crickets__78458_zoom.jpg

[peacepipe]

LOL

FL? nah. CO? nah again.

This will come down to OH. If Mitt wins it, it's over. If Obama wins it, Mitt still has a chance but much harder.
And that Xbox poll is pathetic. I've seen how it's done. Anyone and everyone who signs into their Xbox can vote in that poll. I'm willing to bet a massive number of those who do vote aren't even eligible to vote. Either by age, or whatever.romney has a hard path regardless,If obama wins ohio,then it is over for romney.Romney won't win without ohio.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Republicans Desperate to Spin Romney as the Front-Runner Are Becoming 'Nate Silver Truthers'

What do you do when reality doesn't look good for your team? Republicans just create their own alternate reality.

October 24, 2012

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/silver.jpeg

We are looking at a very tight race right now, with a virtual tie in national polling. But we don't elect presidents by popular vote, and Obama has enjoyed a lead in the race to get 270 votes in the Electoral College every single day of this campaign – Romney has never led in any of the Electoral College projections.

But in recent days, the Romney-Ryan campaign has claimed that it's moving ahead. As Jonathan Chait noted (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-says-hes-winning-its-a-bluff.html), “This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Despite zero evidence that Romney has made any gains since receiving a healthy bounce from the first debate, reporters appear to be buying it, with a raft of lazy stories (https://www.google.com/search?q=romney+momentum&aq=0&oq=romney+momentum&sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=romney+momentum&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=Xg2IUPzCDerJigLow4DACg&ved=0CA0Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=351c185f12dae851&bpcl=35466521&biw=1079&bih=507) about Mitt Romney's supposed “momentum.”

A significant problem for conservatives bent on spinning this alternate reality is New York Times ' polling guru Nate Silver and his 538 forecast model, which called 49 out of 50 states accurately in 2008 and is considered the industry's gold standard (the model also pretty much nailed the 2010 mid-terms). As I write, Silver's model gives Barack Obama a 68 percent chance of winning reelection, with a projected 288 Electoral College votes.

As one might expect in such circumstances, Silver is now becoming a target of the Right. We've seen 'poll truthers' who think all the big pollsters are intentionally skewing their results in Obama's favor, and 'debate truthers” who insist that moderators are in the tank and the questions are rigged to make Romney look bad. Now we're seeing the emergence of 'Nate Silver truthers,' who attack the numbers-cruncher as if he's a pundit expressing a personal opinion rather than a statistics geek who developed a very robust computer model. And they're using the same tactics they deploy to deny climate change – launching ad hominem attacks on an expert -- calling him corrupt -- rather than offering a criticism of the methodology of his model, a criticism they don't have the technical knowledge to come up with.

Robert Stacey McCain, a notably dense right-wing blogger who nonetheless holds some influence in conservative circles, framed it (http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/23/signs-and-omens-obama-campaign-and-the-graveyard-whistling-choir/) like this: “Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard Whistling Choir, raising Obama to a 70.3% likelihood of victory based on . . . what? I dunno.

I’m not an expert with a New York Times column or anything, much less a Magical Forecasting Model™ that can divine future events with the precise scientific exactitude of 1/10 of one percent.”

McCain only reveals his own impressive ignorance with this passage. Silver's quite transparent about his methodology. He built a computer model that uses state and national polls and a number of economic metrics to determine the likelihood of an outcome. It isn't magical, and it doesn't “divine” anything. Any statistical models will result in a number that can be rounded to however many digits one wants. A likelihood, by definition, is not a prediction.

At the National Review , Josh Jordan drew the short straw and got the sorry task of going after Silver (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331192/nate-silver-s-flawed-model-josh-jordan). He shows quite clearly the fundamental error of the right's emerging narrative:

While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.

On September 30, leading into the debates, Silver gave Obama an 85 percent chance and predicted an Electoral College count of 320–218.

Today, the margins have narrowed — but Silver still gives Obama a 67 percent chance and an Electoral College lead of 288–250, which has led many to wonder if he has observed the same movement to Romney over the past three weeks as everyone else has. Given the fact that an incumbent president is stuck at 47 percent nationwide, the odds might not be in Obama’s favor, and they certainly aren’t in his favor by a 67–33 margin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Continued from previous page

The main reason that Silver feels Obama is still an overwhelming favorite is that while Romney has surged in the polls to tie (or lead) Obama nationally, the challenger is still, in Silver’s opinion, a long shot to pull together enough battleground states to get to 270 electoral votes. This is the real problem with Silver’s model in the eyes of many Romney backers — the “weighting” he puts into state polls gives an edge to Obama, and the distribution of that weighting is highly subjective.

Jordan is confused about how Silver's model works. He believes that Silver is tinkering with his projection along the way, no doubt because he's “rooting for Obama.” He says Silver "gave Obama” an 85 percent chance of winning, he asks if Silver “observed” movements in the polls, he cites “Silver's opinion” and talks about what “Silver feels.” He calls Silver's weighting of state polls “subjective.”

But here's the thing: Silver isn't a pundit. He doesn't adjust his model once a campaign gets underway -- even if he sees a way to refine it -- because he believes a model should be consistent in its methodology throughout a campaign. It's the model that weights certain polls more heavily than others – based on pollsters' past track records – it's the model that weights the state polls, and it's the model that gives decreasing weight to the economic data as the election grows nearer. No model is perfect -- as Nate Silver would be the first to admit -- but his 538 model is the result of years of statistical numbers-crunching. Having created it long before this election got underway, Silver simply inputs the data from every poll published – not selecting which confirm his view of the race – and the economic data, and runs thousands of simulations per day using those numbers.

He only very occasionally makes a judgment call, and in those cases he's very transparent and his rationale is quite easy to understand. For example, he chose to exclude a poll that was released this week because it was actually conducted in September. He made note of the omission, and he's right not to add September data into the mix in late October.

He does offer analysis of what his model is telling him, but the projections are done by a computer that doesn't have a horse in this or any race. Its microchips and software are neither Democratic nor Republican. It's all based on cold, dispassionate computing of statistical probabilities.

So while desperate Republicans who have convinced themselves that Obama is universally loathed try to stave off cognitive dissonance by insisting that Romney's the clear front-runner, remember that while no model is 100 percent accurate, Silver's has one of the best track records in the game. And that means that while things could change -- and Romney certainly has a good chance of winning (according to Silver, a 32 percent chance as I'm writing) -- Obama's leading where it counts right now.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/republicans-desperate-spin-romney-front-runner-are-becoming-nate-silver-truthers?page=0%2C1

[Rohirrim]

It's science. And we all know how Republicans "feel" about science. Ha!

[houghtam]

It's science. And we all know how Republicans "feel" about science. Ha!

Exactly. Using math to predict future results is referred to as "divining".

Hilarious!

This isn't reading tea leaves, you lackwit Republicans. We call it "solving a problem". Granted, it's a story problem, and we all know your hatred for any text that doesn't start with "the Book of".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Latest Ohio Poll Shows Trending for Obama and a Continued Four Percentage Point Lead (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/10/ppp-ohio-poll-obama-romney-147531.html?hp=r2_b1)

http://www.bartcop.com/romney-hindenburg.jpg