Exactly, and that backs up my claim that the independents vote for the challenger, just as Kerry was the Challenger to Bush in 2004.
The empirics show that independents vote for the challenger, not necessarily that they determine the outcomes of elections.
Bush won, but Kerry got the independent vote. What I am saying now is, Romney is ahead, or tie, and if he gets the independent vote, he will surely win.
I think Seth Meyers put it pretty well on SNL this weekend. The polls are showing the preferences of the percentage of the population that will actually pick up a landline call from a blocked number.
Actually the exit polls were so FUBARed in that election I dont think we will ever know how the demographics turned out. Remember the exit polls had Kerry winning in a landslide.
Ah actually that is sort of not true. Gallop mostly has posted their "registered" not "likely voter" polls. Even now Obama is leading that poll 49% to 46%. Traditionally "likely voter" polls are far more accurate. Gallop has recently (like the last week or so I think) started publishing "likely voter" polls. Since Gallop just started posting the more accurate "likely voter" polls one can't say they "didn't notice... (us) posting Gallup polls when Obama was leading Romney."
The closer we get to the election....as we are right now.....the more relevant polls become. That's because people are not engaged early on. They are now. They have been since Romney won BIG in that first debate.
makes sense, fox news has been having astronomically high ratings for a while now - haters make up a big part of the viewers, i think - its not as intersting to view politics and be happy maybe
Your explanation doesn't relate to my post. I stated that the OP didn't post Gallup results when they showed Romney was not in the lead. And after yesterday, he probably still isn't.
Ill give you the whole history. I wont be surprised if it doesnt help though! To which you replied: Which led to this question that caused your memory loss: Then your dodge I make reference to the question that has you so confused So, lets see if you can figure out the question now.
As usual, ignoring what I wrote. How would you know about the media outside of the USA? I doubt you realise it even exists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/mitt-romney-barack-obama-debate - United Kingdom http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=255084 - Australia http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ama-wins-by-one-internet-meme/article4623632/ - Canada Even The Voice of Russia is claiming it. http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_10_23/Obama-wins-final-election-debate-with-Romney-CNN-CBS/ - The perceived enemy.
No, I can't. Why don't you just ask it instead of raising your blood pressure with endless previous quotes that only raise the need to refer to even more previous quotes?
So you didn't see one comment that had a question mark at the end of it? Don't worry, based on previous comments, I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't have had anything like a compelling answer.
But you still didn't post the question, did you? Probably because you don't want a compelling answer which is all too easy with internet research these days but I'd much rather have you posting non entities instead.
I'm not surprised that you don't, living in that never never land of yours. When faced with reality, I notice you tend to resort to the invective. You really should stop showing yourself up in front of your Republican comrades. They want rational responses to their liberal enemies and you appear to be failing on all fronts.
