Decision 2012
Quote: JohnnyQI will go with Karl Rove as an "evil UNETHICAL genius".
...and I suppose Rahm Emmanuel is the evil ethical genius, right? These guys are both on the edge of the dark side...can you admit that?
Quote: BozAgain...one word.....ORCA. If you don't know what it is, you will next Wed.
Oh boy, I googled it and now I know. I think they'll
have four more years to get organized !
Quote: JohnnyQOh boy, I googled it and now I know. I think they'll
have four more years to get organized !
Really? I think there has been nothing like it and I believe it will make difference in getting out the GOP vote.
ORCA is about making sure Mitt knows who has voted and allows them to direct resources to areas they are needed.
Quote: rdw4potusGallup? No, they aren't. with a name like Gallup, BELIEVE ME, we'd see the polls published by someone if they existed.
They'd need to actually talk to 1000 people, which means calling between 15,000 and 25,000. And you can only call between about 5pm and about 9pm local time, usually excluding weekends. That's daunting. It's also why a good state-level poll - say by PPP or Public Opinion Strategies - costs $25k.
People who pay $25k for a good poll don't share it. The "big" poll Gallup publishes for free is for them to generate buzz to sell their other polls. Gallup will even poll your employees if you like. They do much more than politics.
Quote: AZDuffmanPeople who pay $25k for a good poll don't share it. The "big" poll Gallup publishes for free is for them to generate buzz to sell their other polls. Gallup will even poll your employees if you like. They do much more than politics.
Yes, they do MUCH more than politics. But also, the national tracker is the only political poll that they do.
Except for a handful of internal polls that don't show what the candidate wanted to see and can't be spun, all polls are released. People pay $25K for a poll TO show it, they're buying something to publicize.
Quote: rdw4potus
They'd need to actually talk to 1000 people, which means calling between 15,000 and 25,000.
Of people who actually answer the phone, only
8% will do the survey. Thats the average for all
pollsters. To get 1000 completed surveys, you
need to talk to 12,500 people. Computers do
all the dialing.
Thats 92 out of 100 people saying no to you. Its
a crap job. Once they get the results, they
then have a model to run them thru and
adjust them. The models are closely kept secrets,
like Col Sanders chicken recipe.
Quote: EvenBobOf people who actually answer the phone, only
8% will do the survey. Thats the average for all
pollsters. To get 1000 completed surveys, you
need to talk to 12,500 people. Computers do
all the dialing.
And that just gets you a survey of all adults. Then you need to adjust for whatever likely or registered voter screen you're running. So if you want 1000 LV...
Quote: EvenBob
Thats 92 out of 100 people saying no to you. Its
a crap job. Once they get the results, they
then have a model to run them thru and
adjust them. The models are closely kept secrets,
like Col Sanders chicken recipe.
It is the greatest temp job in the history of civilization. Check it out, EB, you just can't have any electronics on the floor with you, but if you want to read the paper, read the paper, do a crossword book, do the book, Sudoku, you name it!!! You sit there, and when a call is, "Answered," you get a little beep in your ear, you look at the screen and ask the same questions in the same order. You also have a click-list of pre-scripted answers to questions that callers may ask you, if there is no applicable answer, "Thank you for your time, if you have any questions about this call, please call 1-8xx-xxx-xxxx."
It's great.
92:100 do not say no, either, by the way. That stat is misleading, and looks only at connections. Sometimes you have, "Answering machine," or, "No Adult present," as potential call dispositions and sometimes you don't. In other cases, you may only disposition a call as, "Survey accepted/completed," or, "Survey refused." In the latter case, if I get a message saying a number doesn't work, that's, "Survey refused." If I get an answering machine, "Survey refused," sometimes you leave a message and sometimes not, depends what the client wants. If a kid answers the phone, "Survey refused," if there is a mistake and someone says they are not registered to vote, "Survey refused."
Anyway, you sit there, you do your Sudoku, you make $8.00-$10.00/hr and get a ten minute break every hour or so when the computer, "Recycles," the lead list, which simply means that the computer removes completed surveys, randomizes the calling list, and starts dialing again when the, "Campaign," (All Call Lists are grouped into things called, "Campaigns," which is simply the reason why you are calling...regardless of whether or not it is a political campaign) is fully recycled.
I actually got offered to come in and supervise (I used to supervise telemarketing) this year for political by a guy I used to work with on credit cards. He'd have paid $12.00/hr, and I would have done it...it's fun anyway...but he wasn't flexible enough on shift end time and I'm not going to come to my regular job later than usual at the behest of some temp job. I would have went and made some calls for them on Sundays, but that's my only day off, so I didn't do it. If I could have found a sitter for this Sunday and had my wife come work with me (2x the money) then that would have been worth it and she and I could have kept each other company between calls.
Quote: Mission146
Anyway, you sit there, you do your Sudoku, you make $8.00-$10.00/hr
And thats the reason so many polls are crap. You get a
lot of low lifes for that wage and some of them will
fudge results, screw up questions, and not even speak
English worth a crap. Thats why you have to stick with
the well known pollsters and not the ones that pop up
out of nowhere every 4 years. A newspaper might pay
for a poll and you think its legit, when it was done by
Bill and Bob's Poll Dicks, who disappear the day after
the election.
Quote: Mission146It is the greatest temp job in the history of civilization.
Doesn't sound so great to me, Mission146. Sounds down right horrid and depressing.
Now back to the election. A lot of polls released today over at Real Clear Politics. National presidential polls, State presidential polls, Senate races. I just don't see a lot of good news for Romney and the repubs.
Pa senate. Casey +9. Why do people think this race is close?
Missouri senate. McCaskill +4. I guess still within reach for Mr Akins, but he has been about 45% in almost every poll since his Abortion remarks. BTW This was a slam dunk Repub pickup before their candidate shot himself in the foot.
Wisconsin senate. Baldwin +4. Still within reach for repub Thompson, but seems to be trending the wrong way.
Ohio senate. 3 polls. Brown +2, Brown +5, Brown +9. I am sure my repub friends will take the +2 poll. I, myself take the average and say +5. Trending the wrong way for repubs.
Florida senate. 2 polls. Nelson +13, Nelson +3. Pretty big differential there. Either way, Nelson seems to have a lead. I'll split the difference and say +7 or 8.
Nevada senate. Heller +6. Hey, here ya go, my repub friends. Ya got one. lol Shelly Berkley is a witch. Even I voted for Mr Heller. :)
Virginia senate. 2 polls. Kaine +4, Allen +5. Interesting. Looks about even to me. I think this race will go as Virginia presidental race goes. You got a shot here, repubs.
Now on to state presidential polls:
Let's stay with Virginia. 2 polls. Obama +2, Romney +5. Edge Romney. (could effect senate race, see above)
Minnesota President: Obama +7. Why are the Repubs saying this is close and buying time here?
North Carolina: Tie 49-49. This single polls is by PPP, left leaning. Even I will concede this is not likely. I have already marked NC for Romney.
Iowa: 2 polls. Obama +2, Romney +1. Looks like a true toss up to me.
Wisconsin: Obama +8. wow! This poll is by Marquette University. I don't know if they lean left or right. I do know that they had a poll 2 weeks ago that was Obama +1. So whatever polling method they use, it appears Obama has gained.
Pennsylvania: Obama +4. Seems close. I will be surprised. Karl Rove called it fools gold 2 weeks ago, but he now seems to be chasing. lol
Colorado: Obama +3. he is at the magical 50% mark, but still close.
Florida: 3 polls. Obama +1, Romney +1, Romney +3. Here ya go repubs. Close, but slight edge Romney. I also have already marked this for Romney. If it isn't.....nothing else matters. Game, set, match.
Ohio: 2 polls. Obama +5, Obama +2. Ohio got close after the first debate, but Obama never lost the edge. he still has that edge and appears to be stretching it just a hair.
And Finally, National Poll (popular vote): 4 polls. 49-49 tie, 46-46 tie. Obama +5, Romney +2. Looks pretty even to me. Of course this group does not include Gallup, which suspended polling for a few days. As everyone knows by now, they have been an outlier, favoring Romney for the past few weeks. This group does include right leaning Rasmussen (Romney +2) and Fox News (tie). I think Romney still has a slight lead in National polls, but ya know what...doesn't matter...that's not how we elect the president.
Final thoughts. Two things have hurt Romney in the last week. Unfortunately, for him, one was an act of nature, that he had nothing to do with. The president has looked presidential the past few days, with top republicans in New York and New Jersey, publicly praising him. Chris Christie continually praising the President, really hurts. This guy has been one of the Presidents biggest critics and gave the key note speech at the repub convention. I think it helps both Obama and Christie and hurts poor Mitt, through no fault of his own. Second issue is a self inflicted wound by Mr Romney, in the biggest of swing states, Ohio, when he said late last week, that "he read somewhere, that Jeep was closing their Ohio plant and moving it to China". "HE READ SOMEWHERE"...lol Jeep immediately came out with a statement saying this was not true and now Jeep is even running ads, saying this was not true. It is one thing to have the fact checkers say you misspoke, but to have the Company come out and say this guy doesn't know what he is talking about, looks even worse.
Bottom line for me, I see many of the polls rebounding to close to where they were before Romney's big win in the first debate or at least trending that way. I see all of the prediction markets, rebounding towards those same pre-debate numbers. Predict wise, now back up above 70%. Even Intrade, which has always been the one market which always leaned just a hair more favorable toward Romney is back to 68% Obama, better than 2-1. Now my repub friends on this site, will say The markets are wrong. They will say the polls are wrong, with the exception of gallup and one or two outlier polls that they want to cherry pick. Anyone credible uses averages. Maybe our repub members here are right. Maybe the whole world is wrong and Romney is not only on his way to a win, but 320-330 electoral votes. The whole world has been wrong before, 1948. But it's not 1948 anymore. :) I hear the fat lady warming up. :)
Quote: EvenBobA newspaper might pay
for a poll and you think its legit, when it was done by
Bill and Bob's Poll Dicks, who disappear the day after
the election.
That's why newspapers are careful about the pollsters they choose...
Quote: EvenBobAnd thats the reason so many polls are crap. You get a
lot of low lifes for that wage and some of them will
fudge results, screw up questions, and not even speak
English worth a crap. Thats why you have to stick with
the well known pollsters and not the ones that pop up
out of nowhere every 4 years. A newspaper might pay
for a poll and you think its legit, when it was done by
Bill and Bob's Poll Dicks, who disappear the day after
the election.
With all due respect, I am not going to let this go without commenting.
I don't understand how we are going to call people low-lifes when they are just trying to make a few extra bucks, or make a few bucks at all that aren't being provided to them by the Welfare System. How are they lowlifes? They see an opportunity to make a few dollars, and they take it.
Many people are also retained into FT telemarketing jobs on the credit card campaigns from doing this, or identity theft protection, stuff like that. The ones who do a great job, enunciate well, have a nice voice and professional demeanor are usually asked what they are doing (occupationally) and if the answer is that they are unemployed, they are offered a job on the spot. About half of those make it more than thirty days, the others try, but usually can't sell and can't be taught to sell.
I don't know anything about people fudging results, screwing up questions, or not speaking English worth a crap, but other places may have lower standards than we did, so I'm not sure. For example, if I had people bringing friends, then the friends would have to sit in front of me and read all the questions from a piece of paper to my liking on the first try, or they weren't doing it. I will also say that, if anyone were to ask the wrong questions or disposition calls incorrectly, they get ONE Warning. If they make any other mistake throughout the course of that temp employment, they are gone. We were pretty strict when it came to quality, mainly because these campaigns and survey firms are paying us a shitload of money.
Honestly, we were usually contracted by a specific campaign to do the polls, so they were these, "Internal polls," we're always hearing about. I think we only did polls for a survey firm on one-two occasions. The vast majority of the time we weren't contracted to do polls at all, but just to call people, get a Registered Voter on the phone, and give them some kind of spiel about the candidate and thank them for their time. Same thing with the clicklist of questions if they asked any.
Anyway, I apologize for the digression, I just didn't appreciate some of the people being called lowlifes...but yes...I freely admit that a few of them are, maybe one out of ten...the other nine are really good people and loyal employees...
http://www2.ohio-votes.com/news/local/govt_politics/poll/
I'm only throwing this poll out there because I was actually called on it two days ago and took the poll. I know it is the same poll because of the associated station and because the questions are in the same exact order.
The only thing that surprises me about this poll is, "Brown has gained ground among both men and women, young and old," because when they called me, the automated system was very specific about wanting the youngest registered MALE voter in the household. At the end, though, it did ask if you were male or female, but I'm surprised that any females hadn't hung up at that point.
In any event, I am the only registered male voter in my household, and therefore the youngest, so I took the survey. I'd be the youngest registered voter in my house anyway, my wife is eight months older than I am.
I will now tell you how I answered the questions. I do not want to quote too much material, so I am just going to enumerate my answers and give my responses.
1.) Barack Obama
2.) Sherrod Brown
3.) Optimistic and Hopeful
4.) Support (Auto Bailout)
5.) Jobs (Most important issue)
6.) Mitt Romney (Best to Balance Budget)
7.) Barack Obama (More in Touch)
8.) Not Sure (Best to Keep America Safe)
9.) Voter Fraud (Bigger Concern)
10.) Oppose (ObamaCare)
11.) Both Campaigns (Who has contacted you?)
Quote: Mission146
The only thing that surprises me about this poll is, "Brown has gained ground among both men and women, young and old," because when they called me, the automated system was very specific about wanting the youngest registered MALE voter in the household. At the end, though, it did ask if you were male or female, but I'm surprised that any females hadn't hung up at that point.
Pretty much the only way to get enough responses from young voters and from married men is to try to force the issue. They also ask for the oldest female, oldest male, most regular voter, newest voter, etc in rotation. SUSA's system is plug-and-play, so the screening question is separate from the gender ID question at the end of the poll. SUSA is probably the most flexible of the major pollsters, in that their system can be configured to rotate options within a question, rotate questions within a poll, and even rotate questions in and out of a poll. I haven't seen them do it this cycle, but in 2004 and 2008 they were toying with using area codes and prefixes to help steer questions about congressional races. But overlays and cellphones make that a real pain in the ass.
Quote: rdw4potusPretty much the only way to get enough responses from young voters and from married men is to try to force the issue. They also ask for the oldest female, oldest male, most regular voter, newest voter, etc in rotation. SUSA's system is plug-and-play, so the screening question is separate from the gender ID question at the end of the poll. SUSA is probably the most flexible of the major pollsters, in that their system can be configured to rotate options within a question, rotate questions within a poll, and even rotate questions in and out of a poll. I haven't seen them do it this cycle, but in 2004 and 2008 they were toying with using area codes and prefixes to help steer questions about congressional races. But overlays and cellphones make that a real pain in the ass.
Thank you for the information. I had assumed that the rotation (sometimes Obama was the first option, and sometimes it was Romney) was just in the hopes that people would actually be paying attention to how they were answering.
The only thing that irritated me about the survey was that it was to take, "Approximately one minute," so I figured five minutes, and it ended up being ten. It would take five minutes just to listen to the automated thing read the options without any breaks, so I'm guessing that the, "Approximately one minute," includes people who were screened out of the survey. I was just about to leave for work at the time it called, otherwise, I wouldn't have cared too much about the ten minutes. The problem was that the automated thing made you listen to all of the options (even though I knew what they were) before it registered you hitting your keypad to select an option. If Barack Obama is option #1 for President, and I know I am voting for Obama, then it really doesn't matter to me what the other options are...just let me press, "1," and let's get on with the next question...I've got stuff to do here!!!
Quote: Mission146Thank you for the information. I had assumed that the rotation (sometimes Obama was the first option, and sometimes it was Romney) was just in the hopes that people would actually be paying attention to how they were answering.
The only thing that irritated me about the survey was that it was to take, "Approximately one minute," so I figured five minutes, and it ended up being ten. It would take five minutes just to listen to the automated thing read the options without any breaks, so I'm guessing that the, "Approximately one minute," includes people who were screened out of the survey. I was just about to leave for work at the time it called, otherwise, I wouldn't have cared too much about the ten minutes. The problem was that the automated thing made you listen to all of the options (even though I knew what they were) before it registered you hitting your keypad to select an option. If Barack Obama is option #1 for President, and I know I am voting for Obama, then it really doesn't matter to me what the other options are...just let me press, "1," and let's get on with the next question...I've got stuff to do here!!!
But what if the 5th option was lizard people? You wouldn't have taken the opportunity to press 5? c'mon...:-P
Now Dick Morris, to his credit is using an average of the last 4 elections. Now anyone that has read my posts, here, knows that I am a guy who loves averages. I like using the average of many sources. But Morris, is taking the non-white averages from the last 4 elections, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010. Problem is....2006 and 2010 WERE NOT presidential elections. Minorities vote less in midterms! So he is still doing the same thing. Comparing apples to oranges. Comparing midterm election models to presidential election models.
Quote: rdw4potusBut what if the 5th option was lizard people? You wouldn't have taken the opportunity to press 5? c'mon...:-P
Why would they put Mandel as an option twice?
Quote: kewljAs near as I can figure the biggest difference in polls that lean right and polls that lean left is what they think the 2012 electorate will look like. Republican leaning polls, like Gallup, Rasmussen, Fox, Dick Morris, and Karl Rove think the electorate will more closely resemble the breakdown from the 2010 mid-term election. CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN think the electorate will more closely resemble the 2008 presidential election. Sadly the big difference in these electorates is the Non-white vote, which of course favors Obama. In the 2008 presidential election the non white vote was 27% and that is the figure CBS, NYT, WP, CNN are using. In the 2010 midterm election the non white vote was about 20%, so that is the figure the repub polls are using. I thought everyone knew that turnout in the midterms is lower than presidential election, especially among Latinos and blacks. To use that 2010 model makes absolutely no sense. 20% is not only far below 2008 presidential election, but below the 2004 presidential election and the minority population has grown substantially since then.
Now Dick Morris, to his credit is using an average of the last 4 elections. Now anyone that has read my posts, here, knows that I am a guy who loves averages. I like using the average of many sources. But Morris, is taking the non-white averages from the last 4 elections, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010. Problem is....2006 and 2010 WERE NOT presidential elections. Minorities vote less in midterms! So he is still doing the same thing. Comparing apples to oranges. Comparing midterm election models to presidential election models.
That's share of the vote? Why should it be expected to drop in midterm elections? Turnout drops, of course, but why share? In any case, I'd be surprised if it's as high as 2008's 27% (for obvious reasons), or lower than 2004's 23% (due to the general upward trend).
Obama: -310
Romney: +273
That is a change on Obama from about -200 pre-Sandy.
Quote: WizardWow, here are the current Pinnacle lines:
Obama: -310
Romney: +273
That is a change on Obama from about -200 pre-Sandy.
Say again, wizard. I can't hear you over the fat lady's singing. lol
So you have been following the lines pretty regularly. At anytime during the process did you buy into a position?
Quote: WizardWow, here are the current Pinnacle lines:
Obama: -310
Romney: +273
That is a change on Obama from about -200 pre-Sandy.
Looks like a line set by the same guy who made the Jets such big underdogs way back when.
Who makes the guy behind in the polls a favorite?
Quote: AZDuffman
Who makes the guy behind in the polls a favorite?
Good question. With Romney trailing in WI, NV, and OH, how can anyone consider him the favorite? :-)
Quote: Mission146It is the greatest temp job in the history of civilization.
For a second I thought you guys were referring to the Presidency! Now THAT'S a temp job. 8 years, max.
Quote: rdw4potusGood question. With Romney trailing in WI, NV, and OH, how can anyone consider him the favorite? :-)
Any poll I have seen has Romney tied or ahead in oh and wi. Obama is below 50% in both. NV voters seem to be doing what their unions tell them despite Obama telling people not to visit Vegas.
Quote: AZDuffmanAny poll I have seen has Romney tied or ahead in oh and wi. Obama is below 50% in both. NV voters seem to be doing what their unions tell them despite Obama telling people not to visit Vegas.
LOL! Do you literally only look at the Rasmussen Reports polls?
Quote: rdw4potusGood question. With Romney trailing in WI, NV, and OH, how can anyone consider him the favorite? :-)
Latest from Rasmussen:
Ohio: Romney 50% Obama’s 48%.
Iowa: Romney 49%, Obama 48%
Wisconsin: Romney 49% Obama 49%
You really can't rely on Felix and Henry's Whizbang Election Poll
as much as you do. They pay their workers in food
stamps and bus tokens.
Quote: EvenBobLatest from Rasmussen:
Ohio: Romney 50% Obama’s 48%.
Iowa: Romney 49%, Obama 48%
Wisconsin: Romney 49% Obama 49%
You really can't rely on Felix and Henry's Whizbang Election Poll
as much as you do. They pay their workers in food
stamps and bus tokens.
You are impressively disconnected from reality.
Oscar
Quote: oscar33You are impressively disconnected from reality.
Oscar
I prefer to call it "well misinformed" myself.
Quote: EvenBob
You really can't rely on Felix and Henry's Whizbang Election Poll
as much as you do. They pay their workers in food
stamps and bus tokens.
Sure. So let's just stick to pollsters that have been around longer than Rasmussen. SUSA, PPP, ARG, Quinnipiac, Mason-Dixon, Marquette...
Quote: kewljYes, Bob, I too am REALLY worried about you and your alternate reality. .
Guess we'll find out Tuesday, huh. The talk
will talk and the bullshit will run and hide
under the bed..
Quote: rdw4potusLOL! Do you literally only look at the Rasmussen Reports polls?
They have been the most accurate. Like Fnc the left thinks anything that does not fawn all over Obama is biased.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey have been the most accurate. .
Yes. If you notice, Rasmussen doesn't jump all
over the board. Thats how accurate polls work.
They move like glaciers one way or the other.
But in the end, they're always the most accurate.
Quote: AZDuffmanThey have been the most accurate. Like Fnc the left thinks anything that does not fawn all over Obama is biased.
Over what period are you claiming that accuracy? They whiffed pretty hard in 2010, using the same logic they're applying now. They were spot-on in 2008 (and 2004), using the model that they're now railing against.
I don't think they're biased in the classical sense. I think their model is wrong, but I don't think there's any motivation behind it. I just think they're badly misreading the situation. I trust Rasmussen - maybe even more than any other individual pollster, that's why I pay for a membership there - I just trust the collected abilities of SUSA, PPP, Marist, Quinnipiac, Mason-Dixon, AP-GFK, Marquette, and ARG more.
Quote: rxwineI predict Rasmussen will start leaning towards Obama, even if it's the day before. How else can they maintain their record?
The thing is, I don't believe any of the polls set out to be misleading, with the exception of polls paid by the campaigns. I mean they all want to get it right don't they?
The problem with this election is the models they are looking at. The republican organization believes the electorate and turnout will look like the 2010 midterm elections, while Dem organizations believe it will more like the 2 previous PRESIDENTIAL elections, 2008 and 2004. I suspect it will be somewhere in the middle but closer to 2008 and 2004. Probably closer to 2004 than 2008, but still far different than 2010.
What we are talking about is the non-white vote that favors Obama. 23% in 2004, 27% in 2008, only 20% on the 2010 midterm elections. the last time the non-white vote was 20% in a presidential election was 12 years ago in 2000. The latino population has grown by 50% since then, so why would you possible think it is going back to that level as the republican organizations do? They are simply comparing apples to oranges by comparing a presidential election to mid-term election.
Too be fair, I think the non-white vote will not hit the 2008 mark. Probably somewhere between 2008 (27%) and 2004 (23%). Lets say 25%. That has the republicans off by 5%. Huge miscalculation!
people like Morris and Beckel and Trippi,
who have been doing this for decades, said
that if its tied close to the election, Obama
loses. If its 50/50, its really 52 Romney
and 48 Obama because the undecideds
ALWAYS break 80% for the challenger.
When they say their undecided, they really
mean they won't vote for Obama, and don't
know if they can vote for Romney.
Today RCP is tied at R 47.4 O 47.4...
You seem very passionate about Obama. Is there an Obama plan to get the economy back on track that has you excited?
Why do you feel that he's good for this economy and country?
I've asked several Obama supporters these questions, and to date, none of them have any real answers. They seem to be voting based only on their emotions. Perhaps you're the one with the answers?
-Keyser
Quote: kewljThe thing is, I don't believe any of the polls set out to be misleading,
What's your opinion of the following: (more at link)
Quote:Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.
here
Quote: rxwineWhat's your opinion of the following: (more at link)
Quote:Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.
here
That's bias with a lowercase b. Scott certainly didn't set out to fail or to mislead. He just over-estimated the extent of the wave in the 2010 election. Just like (I think) he's doing again now.
Rasmussen may be the most accurate pollster in the last decade, but that's due to the strength of their polls in 2004 and 2006. They were average in 2008 and worse than average in 2010.
It's like Rasmussen is the only pollster out there.
I feel like a broken record here, but THE POLLS DON'T LIE. Specifically, the aggregation of all the various state polls. Obama leads in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire when you average all the recent polls (INCLUDING Rasmussen!) together. How is it possible for Romney to win without any of those states?!
The opinion of anyone who tries to rebut this post by citing Dick Morris is officially void, IMO.
Quote: KeyserKewlj,
You seem very passionate about Obama. Is there an Obama plan to get the economy back on track that has you exicited?
Why do you feel that he's good for this economy and country?
I've asked several Obama supporters these questions, and to date, none of them have any real answers. They seem to be voting based only on their emotions. Perhaps you're the one with the answers?
-Keyser
Well, Mr Keyser, I have said before that I personally am much better off than 4 years ago. Now this isn't due to anything that Obama has done. This was my own fortunate circumstances. But what it does do is leave me free to focus more on social issues and what my view of the government is and I find myself more closely in line with the democrats at this point in time.
As for Mr Obama specifically, I think he inherited a mess unlike anything we have seen in the last 75 years and inherited a situation, where things were not only bad, but had to get worse before they got better. I don't use that as an excuse and don't like him continually using it as an excuse because he signed up for the job knowing the situation. But, in my mind he deserves a little more time to get things turned around.
As for Mr Romney specifically, I don't like him. He is very wealthy. I don't hold that against him, but I don't like people that get so at the expense of others. Sort of the Richard Gere character in Pretty women. I don't like how he changes positions at the drop of a hat, beginning back in the 90's senate run, when he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy. lol He claims to be more businessman than politician, but he is the quintessential politician, saying different things to different group at different times. Does he not realize there is a video record of everything said. lol
Also, one of my biggest gripes with the republicans, does not involve Mr Romney. It involves Mitch McConnell. I am sure you can guess. When a man elected to the United States Senate stands up a states that his primary objective is not to improve the econemy or create a jobs bill or try to work together on deficit reduction or any other project, but rather to unequivocally oppose anything the president wants to do. His single objective is to make the president a one term president, even if that means making the counrty worse off to do so, well....I have a big problem with that. That is not the job he was elected to do. I hope the good people of Kentucky feel that way as well. I don't care if they elect someone even more conservative than McConnell. Of course you have differences but the goal is to find the common ground that you have and work on those things to the betterment of the country. So I don't want to see McConnell and the republicans rewarded for this effort.
I think Jeb Bush or Tim Pawlenty would have been a better candidate. Not saying I would have supported either, but there is a better chance than Romney.
Quote: ams288
I feel like a broken record here, but THE POLLS DON'T LIE. Specifically, the aggregation of all the various state polls. Obama leads in Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire when you average all the recent polls (INCLUDING Rasmussen!) together. How is it possible for Romney to win without any of those states?!
The most likely map looks like this You could flip PA and MI and get pretty much the same thing. But either of those scenarios is about a 100 to 1 longshot.
Quote: kewljI think he inherited a mess
Translation: Its Bush's fault and Obama has
no plan, so its 4 more years of the same
if he gets re-elected.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote: rdw4potusThe most likely map looks like this You could flip PA and MI and get pretty much the same thing. But either of those scenarios is about a 100 to 1 longshot.
Pure fantasy. there is a natural progression to things. Ohio is more conservative than either Michigan or Pa. A republican would win Ohio before he wins Pa or Michigan. If Romney can't win Ohio, He doesn't win either Pa or Michigan.
Furthermore Romney's biggest obstacle in Ohio is his opposition to the auto bailout that saved the auto industry and jobs. You think that opposition plays better in Michigan? You do know Detroit is in Michigan right? lol
So far, I haven't found anyone (including you) that can answer questions similar to the ones below.
Why do you feel that Obama is good for this economy and country? What plans does he have in place that will save the economy and help create jobs?
@ Evenbob,
Can you see the trend? Obama supporters vote based more on emotion, rather than the facts and qualifications of the candidate.
