Before anyone (on either side of the political fence) decides to make too much of the most recent CNN/ORC poll, showing President Obama with an impressive six-point lead over Mitt Romney, one might want to consider its methodology. From The Washington Examiner: Here is the link to the full article: Mitt Romney would lead eight in unskewed data from newest CNN/ORC poll - Arlington Conservative | Examiner.com
Technically any poll is first subject to respondent or volunteer bias, those people with a political interest will submit to any telephone poll rather than those who are not so political; no poll can really grasp the correct mindset of the nation. Second, most of the polls show 48 percent obama, 47 percent romney or vice versa, you can just throw these out the window, the confidence interval of most of these is around +/- 3-4 percentage points either way. You can assume nothing at this juncture except that most polls are full of crap. I think the only stark contrasts in any polls I have seen thus far is Romney having an 18 point lead with the high school educated white males and Obama having a bigger advantage with the young female vote.
Generally speaking, national polls are not very meaningful at this stage. We already know that each candidate has certain states locked up so the only meaningful polling comes from swing states. That being said, I highly doubt that poll was so skewed that 'un-skewing' it would result in a 14 point swing.
Polls do not mean anything, a sample of 100 people does not accurately portray the electoral landscape. The 2010 Elections were the most important aspect of this Election. Major shifts occurred, with numerous counties reverting to Republican leaning after diverting in 2008. Polls mean nothing, look at Kelly Ayotte... She won over 63% in Hillsborough County, the main determinant of New Hampshire. The only County she did not garner of 50% was Grafton. The two counties that matter in NH are Hillsborough (63.33%) & Rockingham (55.49%). President Obama won over 50% in both of these traditionally Republican Counties in 2008. I expect these to revert to Republican leaning in 2012. Simple evaluation of the fact reveals more than polls of 100 people.
Polls are a way to sway public opinion as most folks think they are objective. They are not...Check this out.. Internal emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, obtained by The Daily Caller, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempting to subtly intimidate the respected polling firm when its numbers were unfavorable to the president. Yeah that's the Obama mob puttin' da thumb on Gallup. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/j...r-axelrod-criticized-pollsters/#ixzz2693H9AsR
Get some bacon, and we could have bacon and eggs..... if we had eggs. If ifs and and's were pots and pans...
This thread could have just as easily been called "He's still gonna lose, right............right?" Don't worry Pjohns, the bad man probably will lose. Or will he? Yeah, he probably will. MAYBE? Definitely. POSSIBLY NOT! Almost certainly. MAKE THE BAD MAN STOP!
last week or so, some democrat analyst tried to point out that polls are useless on CNN's Situation Room. Wolf Blitzer gave him this look like NOOO don't tell the audience about this, I won't be able to talk about Romney leading Obama by 1 point!
On one level, this is a good observation. After all, the presidential election is determined by the electoral vote--which is a state-by-state matter--not by the popular vote. Still, if one major-party candidate were to actually win the popular vote by a whopping six percentage points, it is very doubtful that the other major-party candidate would win the electoral vote...
RUSH: Here's some polling data from October 24-26, 1980, 'cause I heard Brit Hume today say... By the way, folks, on this whole business of you being despondent and depressed... I don't know how many of you are, but I'm telling you: The conservative media out there need the vapors. They're about ready to toss it in. You know, they live in this media bubble. They live and work in it, and consider themselves part of it, and they're totally freaked out. They believe every poll that comes out. To the extent that you read them and access them, I just want to warn you: You're gonna be hit with fatalism like you haven't seen before. For example, Hume said on Fox this morning, "Well, you gotta keep in mind that the candidate who is ahead in the polls in mid-September rarely loses." Well, does anybody remember Carter and Reagan? It wasn't until the week before the election that the polls started showing the truth of that election. An October 24th, 25th, 26th, 1980, Gallup poll had Carter leading Reagan by three among likely voters; eight points among registered voters. Reagan ends up winning by ten percentage points. So Gallup was off by 13 to 18 points just a week and a half before the election -- two weeks -- which shows me how much Gallup wanted Reagan to lose. Incumbent Democrat presidents usually aren't reelected. Do you know Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president to be reelected since FDR? Did you know that? Now, you might want to count LBJ being reelected as JFK's second term, but there obviously were mitigating, extenuating circumstances there. LBJ did not run for a second term. He quit. (impression) "I will not seek, and I shall not accept, the nomination of my party to be yo' president. Lady Bird and I would rather go back t'Texas and kick the beagles." Incumbent Democrats are usually not reelected. Clinton in 1996, if it weren't for Perot, who knows? Remember the Scott Walker situation in Wisconsin? What were they saying about the Scott Walker recall election against Tom Barrett before the election? If you remember, they were saying, "This is too close to call. It could be that Walker's gonna lose the recall." They were all -- all of them in the Drive-By Media -- talking about this. Yet Walker won with 53% of the vote. The Loser, Michael Dukakis, had a 17-point lead over George H. W. Bush in 1988 after the Democrat National Convention. On July 26th, 1988, the New York Times said, "This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by Gallup. Telephone interviews took place July 21st," which was the last night of the convention. Fifty-five percent said they preferred to see Dukakis win. Thirty-eight percent said Bush. They had Dukakis up 17 points; Bush ended up winning by eight. Jimmy Carter led Reagan by four points after his convention in 1980. If there's precedent here, it's not on Obama's side. >> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/10/some_presidential_poll_history
