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

[AceRothstein]

I've belonged to a polling site called YouGov for a few years now. They send me a poll about once a week and the polls will cover just about anything political to social to commercial. About two months ago they started a page for a personal profile and for all the YouGov members to interact and give personal ratings and opinions of any and all public and political figures. I would say that YouGov is as good of a NON BIASED, cross section of America as one can get, so the results of this page are not tainted by an agenda. It is simply the members of YouGov freely giving their opinion, and oh what an opinion it is. It has obama down by don't like and really don't likes, to like and really likes by 5274 to 3219. That's getting close to a TWO TO ONE MARGIN AGAINST obama. I think it's safe to say that yes, obama will lose the election in November. The only question left is how bad will he get his ass kicked?

link to the "polling organization"?

you know better than that pale

Um, I think he was pretty clear that YouGov IS the polling organization and was making the case that the demographics are pretty much across the board among those recording their preferences there.

This was an online poll that you or I could have voted on. That is why this thread is a joke.

 

[Foxfyre]

Poll is meaningless, just like any other.

No offense bro. The only poll that matters to me is done on Nov 7th.

Polls are far from meaningless

Both Romney and Obama are captive to the polls. Polls tell them which states are in play, they influence donors and dictate changes in campaign strategy.

This is true to a certain extent. They may or may not be meaningless as to how people will vote on election day--remember that the week of the election, all the major polls except one or two showed Kerry to be the predicted winner in 2004--but they do affect how the candidates campaign and how the money is distribted.

The GOP recently pulled one million dollars from the Heather Wilson (GOP) senate race here in New Mexico because the polls showed she could not beat the Democrat incumbant. I personally think that was short sighted as the gap has continued to narrow since then.

 

[Rinata]

Democrats made up a frivolous lawsuit so they could threaten Gallup to coming up with favorable polls. They did it to Gibson Guitars, to Sheriff Joe Arapio, they do it all the time. The whistleblower was himself an obama plant. He worked for the obama campaign in 2008.

Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like at DickMorris.com

Now all of a sudden, Gallup has obama up in their polls. This is not a coincidence.

That is just crazy and not true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats made up a frivolous lawsuit so they could threaten Gallup to coming up with favorable polls. They did it to Gibson Guitars, to Sheriff Joe Arapio, they do it all the time. The whistleblower was himself an obama plant. He worked for the obama campaign in 2008.

Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like at DickMorris.com

Now all of a sudden, Gallup has obama up in their polls. This is not a coincidence.

That is just crazy and not true.

Katz is the least intelligent poster on this board. Every board has one.

 

[candycorn]

Yep, as much as I would love to Believe it, I will stick to RCP, a Poll like this with no info about who they Sampled is meaningless.

I could make it look like Obama was ahead by 90 Points if I only Asked Liberal, African Americans who they planned to vote for.

lol

It's not really even a poll. It's randomly selected people without mention of political leanings that are freely giving their opinion of obama, which by default is a very credible cross section of America. It's also backed up by comments left on any website that offers a comment section following news articles.

obama is losing and his popularity is a sinking ship. It's just that simple. It shouldn't take coming from NASA rocket scientists for people to see it. The indications are everywhere.

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?

Did you ever answer?

 

[Claudette]

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

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama 237 Governor Romney 191

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

Florida President Obama 2.0

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Florida: Romney vs. Obama

Ohio President Obama 3.0

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama

 

[jillian]

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.

nice... except that's false. mccain was ahead at this point... right after picking sawwah and before the economy crashed.

i don't recall kerry ever being up by 10. every time he moved up in the polls, bush called an 'orange alert'... which always evened things out. i could be wrong about that, but i don't think so. plus, the swiftboat liars had already taken their toll by this point.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

nice... except that's false. mccain was ahead at this point... right after picking sawwah and before the economy crashed.

i don't recall kerry ever being up by 10. every time he moved up in the polls, bush called an 'orange alert'... which always evened things out. i could be wrong about that, but i don't think so. plus, the swiftboat liars had already taken their toll by this point.

I don't believe I mentioned John McCain? And whether you remember it or not does not change the facts that existed, and that makes my interpretation of those facts at least as good as yours.

PRINCETON, NJ -- In a hypothetical presidential contest, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry leads President George W. Bush by 12 percentage points among likely voters, 55% to 43%, while North Carolina Sen. John Edwards leads Bush by 10 points, 54% to 44%. According to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, these figures represent a significant improvement in the Democratic candidates' strength from 10 days ago, when Bush had a one-point lead over Kerry and a four-point lead over Edwards. At the end of January, Kerry enjoyed a seven-point lead and Edwards a one-point lead.
Kerry, Edwards Lead Bush by Double Digits Among Likely Voters

 

[mamooth]

-remember that the week of the election, all the major polls except one or two showed Kerry to be the predicted winner in 2004--

Reality disagrees with your memory.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2004 - General Election: Bush vs. Kerry

10 polls show Bush winning, 2 show a tie, 2 show Kerry winning.

 

[Foxfyre]

-remember that the week of the election, all the major polls except one or two showed Kerry to be the predicted winner in 2004--

Reality disagrees with your memory.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2004 - General Election: Bush vs. Kerry

10 polls show Bush winning, 2 show a tie, 2 show Kerry winning.

How about actually reading my post and actually seeing what I said? That would be the honest and honorable thing to do when evaluating 'my memory' don't you think?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

OMG, a website shows who will win in November? Game over folks, Game over. Call off the election.

The biggest surprise here though is that it isn't Ron Paul winning. Ron Paul usually wins every single internet everything ever.

 

[dschere]

As Joseph Stalin said, "Its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes that counts".

 

[Foxfyre]

OMG, a website shows who will win in November? Game over folks, Game over. Call off the election.

The biggest surprise here though is that it isn't Ron Paul winning. Ron Paul usually wins every single internet everything ever.

Yes he does, because his followers are well trained to spam every internet poll with multiple screen names to create that illusion. And that is unfortunate because it reflects manipulative dishonesty on him when he probably had nothing to do with that. But I do believe such tactics increase his difficulty in gaining real traction in the polls--the illusion created is too often a wild eyed fanatic and extremist dealing in unethical practices.

Equally unfortunate are those news organizations who go out of their way to manipulate their polls to create an illusion about one candidate versus another.

Reputable polling organizations do a better job; Rasmussen utilizing a rolling poll of likely voters only is one of the most reliable in showing honest results.

And again, the most reliable at all are the internal polls that we never see.

 

[007]

OMG, a website shows who will win in November? Game over folks, Game over. Call off the election.

The biggest surprise here though is that it isn't Ron Paul winning. Ron Paul usually wins every single internet everything ever.

Yes he does, because his followers are well trained to spam every internet poll with multiple screen names to create that illusion. And that is unfortunate because it reflects manipulative dishonesty on him when he probably had nothing to do with that. But I do believe such tactics increase his difficulty in gaining real traction in the polls--the illusion created is too often a wild eyed fanatic and extremist dealing in unethical practices.

Equally unfortunate are those news organizations who go out of their way to manipulate their polls to create an illusion about one candidate versus another.

Reputable polling organizations do a better job; Rasmussen utilizing a rolling poll of likely voters only is one of the most reliable in showing honest results.

And again, the most reliable at all are the internal polls that we never see.

Speaking of which... looks like the kenyan's bump is all gone and once again he's sucking hind tit...

ROMNEY BACK IN THE LEAD...

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 46% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

 

[mamooth]

How about actually reading my post and actually seeing what I said?

I did. That's why I repeated it verbatim, without changing any meaning or context. You specifically stated most polls said Kerry was ahead. You were wrong. It's not a big deal, which is why it's surprising to see you so worked up over a minor correction. If you'd like to explain how you didn't really mean most of the polls said Kerry was ahead when you stated most of the polls said Kerry was ahead, please tell us what you really meant.

That would be the honest and honorable thing to do when evaluating 'my memory' don't you think?

"-remember that the week of the election, all the major polls except one or two showed Kerry to be the predicted winner in 2004-"

That very strongly implies that you were going by your memory, so I made the assumption that what you said was what you honestly remembered to be true. Was I incorrect to assume you were honestly mistaken? I prefer to start out by assuming a mistake instead of dishonesty, but I can change my judgement if you insist.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Reputable polling organizations do a better job; Rasmussen utilizing a rolling poll of likely voters only is one of the most reliable in showing honest results.

Typically during an election cycle I pay attention only to the sites tracking the Electoral College, and only then when they use a running average of all the available polls. There's a lot of bias, left and right, even in the statistical samples and even then, the only real math that matters is the electoral math.

That's why I've been pretty consistently saying Obama is likely to win. I don't particularly feel he deserves to, but I haven't seen much that shows that Romney's fairly dire electoral college position has changed, and plenty to show that his campaign has started already to write off some of the swing states.

Electoral-Vote.com does a fairly good job tracking this, despite the fact the blogger running it is fairly obviously left leaning, as does 270towin.com and Real Clear Politics. If you're running averages that include guys like Rasmussen, it's surprising how close to reality you get.

Unfortunately, the reality is that its looking like Obama has a fairly strong lock on about 230 or so electoral votes to Romney's about 190 or so. That means it doesn't take much from the swing states for Obama to walk out of this the winner.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about actually reading my post and actually seeing what I said?

I did. That's why I repeated it verbatim, without changing any meaning or context. You specifically stated most polls said Kerry was ahead. You were wrong. It's not a big deal, which is why it's surprising to see you so worked up over a minor correction. If you'd like to explain how you didn't really mean most of the polls said Kerry was ahead when you stated most of the polls said Kerry was ahead, please tell us what you really meant.

That would be the honest and honorable thing to do when evaluating 'my memory' don't you think?

"-remember that the week of the election, all the major polls except one or two showed Kerry to be the predicted winner in 2004-"

That very strongly implies that you were going by your memory, so I made the assumption that what you said was what you honestly remembered to be true. Was I incorrect to assume you were honestly mistaken? I prefer to start out by assuming a mistake instead of dishonesty, but I can change my judgement if you insist.

My post didn't say Kerry was ahead. And I was also relating polls at this particular time of that campaign as opposed to the final polls, which you posted, just before the vote. So no, neither Jillian nor you read what I wrote correctly and neither of you have presented my opinion accurately. Thanks for trying though.

 

[007]

Reputable polling organizations do a better job; Rasmussen utilizing a rolling poll of likely voters only is one of the most reliable in showing honest results.

Typically during an election cycle I pay attention only to the sites tracking the Electoral College, and only then when they use a running average of all the available polls. There's a lot of bias, left and right, even in the statistical samples and even then, the only real math that matters is the electoral math.

That's why I've been pretty consistently saying Obama is likely to win. I don't particularly feel he deserves to, but I haven't seen much that shows that Romney's fairly dire electoral college position has changed, and plenty to show that his campaign has started already to write off some of the swing states.

Electoral-Vote.com does a fairly good job tracking this, despite the fact the blogger running it is fairly obviously left leaning, as does 270towin.com and Real Clear Politics. If you're running averages that include guys like Rasmussen, it's surprising how close to reality you get.

Unfortunately, the reality is that its looking like Obama has a fairly strong lock on about 230 or so electoral votes to Romney's about 190 or so. That means it doesn't take much from the swing states for Obama to walk out of this the winner.

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

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/12/why_romney_will_win_115414.html

 

[Foxfyre]

Reputable polling organizations do a better job; Rasmussen utilizing a rolling poll of likely voters only is one of the most reliable in showing honest results.

Typically during an election cycle I pay attention only to the sites tracking the Electoral College, and only then when they use a running average of all the available polls. There's a lot of bias, left and right, even in the statistical samples and even then, the only real math that matters is the electoral math.

That's why I've been pretty consistently saying Obama is likely to win. I don't particularly feel he deserves to, but I haven't seen much that shows that Romney's fairly dire electoral college position has changed, and plenty to show that his campaign has started already to write off some of the swing states.

Electoral-Vote.com does a fairly good job tracking this, despite the fact the blogger running it is fairly obviously left leaning, as does 270towin.com and Real Clear Politics. If you're running averages that include guys like Rasmussen, it's surprising how close to reality you get.

Unfortunately, the reality is that its looking like Obama has a fairly strong lock on about 230 or so electoral votes to Romney's about 190 or so. That means it doesn't take much from the swing states for Obama to walk out of this the winner.

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

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.

We can only hope that his continued indifference to what matters to most of us, his continued ineptness at handling issues, and his obvious distaste for the less glamorous aspects of his responsibilities will continue to invigorate those of us who want a real President and who will go to the polls to elect one.