Obama's Support Weaker Than Poll Numbers Appear

[teapartysamurai]

LOL according to radical right wing propaganda outlets like fox and rasmussen, what a joke!

Rasmussen was the most accurate as to how the election turned out in 2008, dum dum!

 

[Katzndogz]

obama is losing and he knows it. That's why he has abandoned the majority in favor of pandering to the aggreived minorities. He's betting that there are more public benefit recipients than there are tax payers, and among those tax payers are those who would prefer to be public benefit recipients.

 

[candycorn]

No bets?

They sound more confident than they actually are. Perhaps Governor Romney's support is exactly where his poll numbers appear....LOL

 

[Black_Label]

LOL according to radical right wing propaganda outlets like fox and rasmussen, what a joke!

Rasmussen was the most accurate as to how the election turned out in 2008, dum dum!

No they weren't, about 8 different polls were the same as rasmussen with others being more accurate, though claiming "they were kinda accurate 4 years ago!" is laughable.

On the flip side Rasmussen was the most biased and inaccurate in 2010

dum dum dum!!!!



Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

 

[Black_Label]

No bets?

They sound more confident than they actually are. Perhaps Governor Romney's support is exactly where his poll numbers appear....LOL

Big time. The right wing trolls know fox and rasmussen lies to them, just they love the distorted trash they feed them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the Bradley Effect.

White people don't want to tell a pollster they aren't going to vote for the black guy to avoid any possibility of being thought of as a racist.

The Obamanation is way, way behind.

Ah yes, the Bradley Effect.

That was why the rightwing nuts said that Obama wasn't going to beat Hillary or McCain, even when the polls said otherwise.

You should be embarassed to post something that stupid. If you had any self-esteem whatsoever.

Dude it's NOT 2008.

Obama then was a blank slate.

He now has a record to run on and it's NOT a very good record.

You libs can keep clinging to the 2008 election for signs of hope. But 2010 has happened since then.

We conservatives are moving "Forward." And to us that's not just a slogan.

Oh, so people have finally found out he's black?

Why would you say something that stupid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama hasn't lost a major poll to Romney since about the middle of May. That's over a time period when every rightwing idiot on this board was pissing themselves in glee over all the supposed bad news that was hitting Obama.

 

[SniperFire]

Obama hasn't lost a major poll to Romney since about the middle of May. That's over a time period when every rightwing idiot on this board was pissing themselves in glee over all the supposed bad news that was hitting Obama.

It is going to be fun watching your head explode in November.

Better see if you can get an advance on your Food Stamps, because we are coming for them!

 

[teapartysamurai]

No bets?

They sound more confident than they actually are. Perhaps Governor Romney's support is exactly where his poll numbers appear....LOL

Helloooooooooooooo!

I'm going beyond that!

I say the side that loses leave the board!

ANY TAKERS?????????

 

[teapartysamurai]

LOL according to radical right wing propaganda outlets like fox and rasmussen, what a joke!

Rasmussen was the most accurate as to how the election turned out in 2008, dum dum!

No they weren't, about 8 different polls were the same as rasmussen with others being more accurate, though claiming "they were kinda accurate 4 years ago!" is laughable.

On the flip side Rasmussen was the most biased and inaccurate in 2010

dum dum dum!!!!



Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

The NY Times!

Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
—Initial Report, November 5, 2008—
Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Fordham University​

For inquiries: [email protected] or (917) 405-9069

For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.​

Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see

​

​

Public Opinion​

Quarterly​

, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from​

these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain​

support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.

Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were

perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection​

polls (as reported on pollster.com).​

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**​

1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)​

​

​

20. Newsweek (10/22-23)​

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf​

FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[16]The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[17] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[18][19][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[18] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[20]​

In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)"[21] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.[22] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[23]​

A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads,"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."[24]​

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

​

 

[teapartysamurai]

Ah yes, the Bradley Effect.

That was why the rightwing nuts said that Obama wasn't going to beat Hillary or McCain, even when the polls said otherwise.

You should be embarassed to post something that stupid. If you had any self-esteem whatsoever.

Dude it's NOT 2008.

Obama then was a blank slate.

He now has a record to run on and it's NOT a very good record.

You libs can keep clinging to the 2008 election for signs of hope. But 2010 has happened since then.

We conservatives are moving "Forward." And to us that's not just a slogan.

Oh, so people have finally found out he's black?

Why would you say something that stupid?

I think we see who's saying something stupid if that's all you have to in which to reply!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dude it's NOT 2008.

Obama then was a blank slate.

He now has a record to run on and it's NOT a very good record.

You libs can keep clinging to the 2008 election for signs of hope. But 2010 has happened since then.

We conservatives are moving "Forward." And to us that's not just a slogan.

Oh, so people have finally found out he's black?

Why would you say something that stupid?

I think we see who's saying something stupid if that's all you have to in which to reply!

Look up the Bradley effect, trailer trash.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rasmussen was the most accurate as to how the election turned out in 2008, dum dum!

No they weren't, about 8 different polls were the same as rasmussen with others being more accurate, though claiming "they were kinda accurate 4 years ago!" is laughable.

On the flip side Rasmussen was the most biased and inaccurate in 2010

dum dum dum!!!!



Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

The NY Times!

Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
—Initial Report, November 5, 2008—
Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Fordham University​

For inquiries: [email protected] or (917) 405-9069

For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.​

Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see

​

​

Public Opinion​

Quarterly​

, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from​

these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain​

support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.

Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were

perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection​

polls (as reported on pollster.com).​

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**​

1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)​

​

​

20. Newsweek (10/22-23)​

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf​

FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[16]The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[17] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[18][19][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[18] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[20]​

In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)"[21] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.[22] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[23]​

A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads,"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."[24]​

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

​

Obama didn't win by 6 points as Rasmussen had it.

He won by 7.3 points and CNN and Foxnews were the closest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama hasn't lost a major poll to Romney since about the middle of May. That's over a time period when every rightwing idiot on this board was pissing themselves in glee over all the supposed bad news that was hitting Obama.

It is going to be fun watching your head explode in November.

Better see if you can get an advance on your Food Stamps, because we are coming for them!

I'll bet a thousand bucks on Obama right now, pussy. And I'll put the money with a neutral party we agree on,

via PayPal.

How about it?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The people won't have the wool over their eyes this time. We know what a miserable, deceitful failure Obama is and will continue to be. Almost everyone has been burned by Obama's BS. This shouldn't even be close IMO.

Just look at the people sitting in 110 degree weather with no power. What'd Obama do? Did he give a speech on restoring energy? No. He took it as an opportunity to sell $30 tank tops LMAO.

Gay marriage, Keystone, Obama Care, a $15 trillion debt, robbing medicare, 20 percent real unemployment, a deficient Mid East Plan, the Arab Spring failure, two complete morons put on the SC, class warfare, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, union shell games, no leadership during OWS, telling Boeing where they can build plants, socialist czars, high gas prices.

Yea, I'd say the people have had enough.

 

[Some Guy]

It's hard to say that Obama is positioned anywhere close to as well as he was in 2008. Back then, he was new, no one really knew him. He spoke well. He's black so he could get the minority and sympathetic votes more easily. He could basically say anything he wanted and people would believe him since he didn't have a track record to prove it right or wrong. Add that into the animosity toward Bush and a +70 year old opponent.

Now: Obama has a record of a disastrous economy, very high unemployment, record deficits, pursuit of far left policies. Not to say there aren't some positives but +$1 trillion deficits and a real unemployment rate of ~16-18% outweighs gettin' Bin Laden, at least to a lot of people.

Where in 2008, plenty of people in the middle gave Obama the "anti-Bush" vote, Romney will get plenty of "anti-Obama" votes this time around.

 

[sobejamie]

Only a fool would think there's a difference between the Dembos and Repugs. Both are big government warmongering liberals taking this country off the cliff.

Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

This country deserves none.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Oh, so people have finally found out he's black?

Why would you say something that stupid?

I think we see who's saying something stupid if that's all you have to in which to reply!

Look up the Bradley effect, trailer trash.

I KNOW what the bradley effect is.

BUT all you can do is reply "well he's black!"

People may be afraid to say to a pollster they aren't voting for the guy, but you look at the approval polls, or the generic poll and there is a huge difference.

So, something is going on.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No they weren't, about 8 different polls were the same as rasmussen with others being more accurate, though claiming "they were kinda accurate 4 years ago!" is laughable.

On the flip side Rasmussen was the most biased and inaccurate in 2010

dum dum dum!!!!



Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

The NY Times!

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%20election.pdf​

FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[16]The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[17] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[18][19][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[18] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[20]​

In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)"[21] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.[22] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[23]​

A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads,"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."[24]​

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

​

Obama didn't win by 6 points as Rasmussen had it.

He won by 7.3 points and CNN and Foxnews were the closest.

And your evidence?

(notice I have it, and he doesn't)

 

[teapartysamurai]

Obama hasn't lost a major poll to Romney since about the middle of May. That's over a time period when every rightwing idiot on this board was pissing themselves in glee over all the supposed bad news that was hitting Obama.

It is going to be fun watching your head explode in November.

Better see if you can get an advance on your Food Stamps, because we are coming for them!

I'll bet a thousand bucks on Obama right now, pussy. And I'll put the money with a neutral party we agree on,

via PayPal.

How about it?

I'm betting loser leaves the board.

You want to do that one pal? Can you afford the loss of income??????