An Unbiased Poll With obama DOWN... BIG...

[Claudette]

LOL Carter was leading as well. At least according to the polls.

As I recall Reagan won in a landslide.

Food for thought to all those poll watchers.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Hmmm... seems your 'reality' doesn't jive with the experts...

Michael Berry and Ken Bickers of the University of Colorado System Predict Romney to Win 320 Electoral Votes in November | TheBlaze.com

Why Romney Will Win | RealClearPolitics

First I've heard of anyone predicting a Romney win of 320 electoral votes. 320 means he takes nearly all of the swing states, and there's just no way that's happening.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

LOL Carter was leading as well. At least according to the polls.

As I recall Reagan won in a landslide.

Food for thought to all those poll watchers.

Best you can do if you're disregarding the polls is guess. The polls represent the only data we have right now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

At this stage (around September 11) in the polls, Republican candidates are generally behind. Reagan was substantially behind Carter. George H.W. Bush was 20 points behind Dukakis. It was virtually a dead heat in September 2000 between Bush and Gore. In 2004, with memories of 9/11 being run on TV, Bush was ahead of Kerry by 10 pts, but the gap rapidly closed to a statistical dead heat by late October.

All this is to say that the polling reflects people's gut feelings at any given point in time and are widely influenced by the demographics polled as well as the time of day the poll is taken, but the polls very often do not translate to election results, most especially this far out from the election.

I agree. Good post.

Carter was leading till Reagan won in a landslide.

One of the reasons I don't pay any attention to polls.

They aren't worth the time it take to do em in my book. Way to many variables.

I'll wait for Nov to see who's really ahead. LOL

Dukakis didn't have a 20 point lead on Bush in September.

He had a 17 point lead in May.

Then he tanked

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Yes, the pollsters with less integrity are unable to keep up the illusion that Obama is substantially winning the popular vote overall, so they are now focused on giving him an advantage in the swing states and trying to convince us all that it is already a done deal in the electoral college.

The Electoral College is all that ever mattered. The fact that there are folks focusing on it isn't because they've given up on the national poll results, it's because the national poll results never actually mattered.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, the pollsters with less integrity are unable to keep up the illusion that Obama is substantially winning the popular vote overall, so they are now focused on giving him an advantage in the swing states and trying to convince us all that it is already a done deal in the electoral college.

The Electoral College is all that ever mattered. The fact that there are folks focusing on it isn't because they've given up on the national poll results, it's because the national poll results never actually mattered.

Actually though they do matter because they influence campaign contributions and voter turnout. Which of course provides a strong incentive to manipulate them. And if the probable projected electoral vote is the one that is easier to manipulate, that is what unethical pollsters will focus on.

But the point I have been making is that polling results in September are more often going to be heavily influenced by how a given person is feeling at the time the pollster calls rather than on any intentional reasoned criteria. Whether Dukakis was ahead of George H.W. Bush by 17 pts or 20 pts following the 1998 Democratic convention, that is still a substantial amount. But closer to the election, when people were finally really paying attention to the issues and more substantive factors, those polls proved to be only a fleeting illusion.

Right now I think Obama numbers are more likely to be a fleeting illusion based on people's general feelings at this time while Romney's numbers, given his questionable likability factor, are far more likely to be based on intentional and deliberated criteria.

We'll have a better feel for how close the election will likely be by focusing on the most reputable pollsters much closer to the actual vote.

 

[EriktheRed]

Why Romney Will Win | RealClearPolitics


Clicked on the link above. First thing I see:

By Dick Morris

That made me feel a bit better about November. Dick Morris hasn't been right about shit for quite a while, if ever.

 

[candycorn]

At this stage (around September 11) in the polls, Republican candidates are generally behind. Reagan was substantially behind Carter. George H.W. Bush was 20 points behind Dukakis. It was virtually a dead heat in September 2000 between Bush and Gore. In 2004, with memories of 9/11 being run on TV, Bush was ahead of Kerry by 10 pts, but the gap rapidly closed to a statistical dead heat by late October.

All this is to say that the polling reflects people's gut feelings at any given point in time and are widely influenced by the demographics polled as well as the time of day the poll is taken, but the polls very often do not translate to election results, most especially this far out from the election.

I agree. Good post.

Carter was leading till Reagan won in a landslide.

One of the reasons I don't pay any attention to polls.

They aren't worth the time it take to do em in my book. Way to many variables.

I'll wait for Nov to see who's really ahead. LOL

Newsflash...it will be Obama by about 5,000,000 votes.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, the pollsters with less integrity are unable to keep up the illusion that Obama is substantially winning the popular vote overall, so they are now focused on giving him an advantage in the swing states and trying to convince us all that it is already a done deal in the electoral college.

The Electoral College is all that ever mattered. The fact that there are folks focusing on it isn't because they've given up on the national poll results, it's because the national poll results never actually mattered.

Well, at least you tried to explain it to that dingbat. It didn't sink in but you tried.

 

[AceRothstein]

Im just wondering how many times Im going to be posting up THIS...................

.........in here on election night!!!

Looks like it wasn't posted at all, dum dum.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why Romney Will Win | RealClearPolitics


Clicked on the link above. First thing I see:

By Dick Morris

That made me feel a bit better about November. Dick Morris hasn't been right about shit for quite a while, if ever.

 

[candycorn]

We can make it interesting if you have the 'nads for it:

I have this bet already with Tea Party Samurai

If Obama wins, you change your sig line to, "All hail President Obama, your President, my President, our President."

If Governor Romney wins, I change my sig line to, ""All hail President Romney, your President, my President, our President."

Blue font, bold face, size 3.

And we each agree to leave it there until 1/1/13.

Do we have a deal?

Well, where you at boy?

Man, I'd love to see a whole bunch of these bets. I wonder why there have been so few, especially given the amount of people already taking their victory lap.

Gosh, I wonder...

.

Because the chest thumpers on the right refuse to put anything on the line other than hot air.

They've been challenged over and over and over when they get like this but when push comes to shove they almost always refuse to accept the wager.

It speaks volumes about their confidence heading into the election.

Romney is done for.

2016 is confirming your post in spades.

 

[AceRothstein]

LOL, the thread that pushed me to join this site. What a dumb thread.