New Fox News Poll- Obama 46, Romney 39

[Avorysuds]

All these polls are so meaningless.... A single debate can change everything, or nothing. Romney is such a horrible candidate all he has to do is slightly say the wrong thing and people will tune out.

WHo cares who's up and who's down tis far out, it is all for show from the pollers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That this 7 point lead for Obama shows up in a FOXNEWS poll is a thing of beauty.

The usual chorus of liberal bias!! squawkers sits in stunned silence.

Faux News is now credible to the leftanistas?

Oops, there goes Foxnews' pollster under the bus...arrrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!!!

 

[Buford]

I wouldn't even waste my time on polls until after the debates.

 

[Avorysuds]

Here's what is sad to me.

Obama is one of Americas biggest war Presidents, bigger than Bush was and yet Liberals support him because whelp, he's a Dem.

Romney is one of the most liberal Governors in US history bringing his state Romneycare and yet "Conservatives" support him (not many to be fair) because he is a Rep.

These are the uber short lists, there is so much more it simply gets old to post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Poll is of registered voters not likely voters.

Rasmussen has it Romney +1 and it's of LIKELY Voters. Likely voters will always be the most reliable poll.

Interesting that AP has Obama +8 but their sample is only of "general population."

Anytime you see a poll and it's not "likely voters" it's immediately suspect. Registered voters is good, but it's not as accurate as "likely voters."

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Rasmussen's Sep 5th 2008 LIKELY VOTER poll had McCain winning by TEN POINTS.

You think that was reliable?

 

[Dr.House]

This Pure Libroid Paradox is too fucking funny...

Poll has Dear Leader up big...

Poll is FauxNews...

 

[rightwinger]

Poll is of registered voters not likely voters.

Rasmussen has it Romney +1 and it's of LIKELY Voters. Likely voters will always be the most reliable poll.

Interesting that AP has Obama +8 but their sample is only of "general population."

Anytime you see a poll and it's not "likely voters" it's immediately suspect. Registered voters is good, but it's not as accurate as "likely voters."

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Rasmussen's Sep 5th 2008 LIKELY VOTER poll had McCain winning by TEN POINTS.

You think that was reliable?

Rassmussen doesn't release its reliable poll till right before the election. That is how they protect their accuracy

 

[teapartysamurai]

Rasmussen has it Romney +1 and it's of LIKELY Voters. Likely voters will always be the most reliable poll.

Interesting that AP has Obama +8 but their sample is only of "general population."

Anytime you see a poll and it's not "likely voters" it's immediately suspect. Registered voters is good, but it's not as accurate as "likely voters."

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Rasmussen's Sep 5th 2008 LIKELY VOTER poll had McCain winning by TEN POINTS.

You think that was reliable?

Rassmussen doesn't release its reliable poll till right before the election. That is how they protect their accuracy

And your evidence for that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wouldn't even waste my time on polls until after the debates.

The best way to think of polls is to think of the election as a ball game. If Obama is leading by 7 points in the 5th inning, like maybe now is,

it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it does give an accurate measure of how much the other 'team' has to make up to take the lead.

 

[Dr.House]

There ya have it folks, FoxNews is now a trusted lib source...

 

[Liability]

I wouldn't even waste my time on polls until after the debates.

The best way to think of polls is to think of the election as a ball game. If Obama is leading by 7 points in the 5th inning, like maybe now is,

it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it does give an accurate measure of how much the other 'team' has to make up to take the lead.

Only if the polls are accurate (more or less).

But if they are distorted and biased and generally bullshit (as so many polls tend to be), then it's more akin to getting your "news" from Baghdad Bob. Go ahead. Base your action on that kind of "reporting."

 

[Liability]

Rasmussen's Sep 5th 2008 LIKELY VOTER poll had McCain winning by TEN POINTS.

You think that was reliable?

Rassmussen doesn't release its reliable poll till right before the election. That is how they protect their accuracy

And your evidence for that?

Well, he's made that "claim" before.

So it MUST be true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This Pure Libroid Paradox is too fucking funny...

Poll has Dear Leader up big...

Poll is FauxNews...

So your view is that Opinion Dynamics, which polls for Fox, is not an accurate pollster?

 

[Sallow]

Rasmussen has it Romney +1 and it's of LIKELY Voters. Likely voters will always be the most reliable poll.

Interesting that AP has Obama +8 but their sample is only of "general population."

Anytime you see a poll and it's not "likely voters" it's immediately suspect. Registered voters is good, but it's not as accurate as "likely voters."

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

Rasmussen's Sep 5th 2008 LIKELY VOTER poll had McCain winning by TEN POINTS.

You think that was reliable?

McCain WAS ahead until he did the stupid thing of "suspending" his campaign. That tanked him. So much for the "Maverick."

That wasn't stupid at all.

It allowed him to move the debates..and appear to be concerned about the economy after saying that it was "fundamentally" in good shape.

The problem was what he did after "suspending" the campaign.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wouldn't even waste my time on polls until after the debates.

The best way to think of polls is to think of the election as a ball game. If Obama is leading by 7 points in the 5th inning, like maybe now is,

it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it does give an accurate measure of how much the other 'team' has to make up to take the lead.

Only if the polls are accurate (more or less).

But if they are distorted and biased and generally bullshit (as so many polls tend to be), then it's more akin to getting your "news" from Baghdad Bob. Go ahead. Base your action on that kind of "reporting."

So is this poll one of them? Can we reject Opinion Dynamics as a pollster because it polls for Foxnews, which must mean it has pro-Obama bias?????

 

[Liability]

The best way to think of polls is to think of the election as a ball game. If Obama is leading by 7 points in the 5th inning, like maybe now is,

it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it does give an accurate measure of how much the other 'team' has to make up to take the lead.

Only if the polls are accurate (more or less).

But if they are distorted and biased and generally bullshit (as so many polls tend to be), then it's more akin to getting your "news" from Baghdad Bob. Go ahead. Base your action on that kind of "reporting."

So is this poll one of them? Can we reject Opinion Dynamics as a pollster because it polls for Foxnews, which must mean it has pro-Obama bias?????

No, stupid. You are free to accept or reject whatever the fuck you want for any reason however churlish, childish, biased or partisan.

Makes no difference.

But the facts remain. And it is a fact that The ONE is starting to see some signs of difficulty. That which he has been assuming is a "gimmee" may turn out not to be so much his.

And the States which were merely "in play" may turn out, before much longer, to be leaning Red or firmly in the ABO camp.

He has been a simply atrocious President and polling bullshit can't hide that fact.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Rasmussen's Sep 5th 2008 LIKELY VOTER poll had McCain winning by TEN POINTS.

You think that was reliable?

McCain WAS ahead until he did the stupid thing of "suspending" his campaign. That tanked him. So much for the "Maverick."

That wasn't stupid at all.

It allowed him to move the debates..and appear to be concerned about the economy after saying that it was "fundamentally" in good shape.

The problem was what he did after "suspending" the campaign.

Doesn't matter. We know who won.

Besides, Carbiner is either deliberately lying or very mistaken about Rasmussen's polls for September of 2008.

It started out at McCain +7 at the beginning of the month and ended with McCain +1. Which ACCURATELY showed he was TRENDING DOWN.

Don't believe me, look it up: RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Ohio: McCain vs. Obama

The fact is Rasmussen turned out to be the most accurate poll at the time of the elelection in November, so Libs better be careful to not ignore Rasmussen this time around.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Rassmussen doesn't release its reliable poll till right before the election. That is how they protect their accuracy

And your evidence for that?

Well, he's made that "claim" before.

So it MUST be true.

Pretty much, yeah!

 

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't even waste my time on polls until after the debates.

The best way to think of polls is to think of the election as a ball game. If Obama is leading by 7 points in the 5th inning, like maybe now is,

it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it does give an accurate measure of how much the other 'team' has to make up to take the lead.

Only if the polls are accurate (more or less).

But if they are distorted and biased and generally bullshit (as so many polls tend to be), then it's more akin to getting your "news" from Baghdad Bob. Go ahead. Base your action on that kind of "reporting."

You can put your fingers in your ears and scream...I cant hear you

But the polls provide a spot check of where we are now. You can also look at polls from a historical red/blue state perspective. Texas will probably remain red, California will remain blue. Anyway you cut it, Obama has an advantage going into reelection in terms of red/blue states

Polls are supporting the fact that there has not been a major shift in red/blue states

 

[The T]

I wouldn't even waste my time on polls until after the debates.

The best way to think of polls is to think of the election as a ball game. If Obama is leading by 7 points in the 5th inning, like maybe now is,

it doesn't mean he's going to win, but it does give an accurate measure of how much the other 'team' has to make up to take the lead.

Only if the polls are accurate (more or less).

But if they are distorted and biased and generally bullshit (as so many polls tend to be), then it's more akin to getting your "news" from Baghdad Bob. Go ahead. Base your action on that kind of "reporting."