2012 Presidential Election Polls

[Comish]

The only way that could possibly be skewed is if they intentionally called people they knew were Democrat and Republican, and ignored Independents. That's not how Gallup works, last time I checked.

 

Also, isn't this the same Gallup that the DOJ is suing because they're producing skewed results that are damaging to Obama. Coulda swore that's what I heard....

And then miraculously changed the results immediately to favor BO (after a threatening call from Axelrod)...............Coulda swore that's what I heard....

 

It's a nice fiction, isn't it? Especially when dozens of other polls report much the same as the Gallup polls.

 

But no, the real story, as told to us by our conservative blogger friends, is true - that Gallup's polling data (and Gallup's alone, apparently), is being skewed. Every other polling place that shows Obama in the lead.... those we just ignore. It's the polls by the company named in a DOJ lawsuit that are being coercively changed.

 

I like the terminology........"nice fiction"..............it very well could be........

 

But just for accuracy's sake, my original link was NOT pertinent to Gallup, but to the CNN poll, and my only comment was that not ALL pollsters are in agreement. That is a far cry from ignoring the other polls. So are you subtly twisting my intent for a nefarious perceived edge in this discussion?

[knapplc]

Ah. I appear to be mixing my conversations. Thanks for the correction. The Gallup issue has nothing to do with this poll, or this data. My apologies.

 

 

 

I'll still use the word "fiction," though, since the website we're originally discussing contains facts that aren't supported by the documentation they cited.

[knapplc]

Anyone paying any attention to the polls lately? It's getting more and more grim out there for Team Romney.

 

General Election:

Obama leads by 6%

 

Some key states

 

Ohio

Obama +10

 

Florida

Obama +9

 

Pennsylvania

Obama +9

 

Massachusetts

Obama +15

 

LINK

 

I listed Massachusetts as a "key state" since that's Mitt's former state. Obama +15 in Massachusetts? That's crazy.

 

The other states listed, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, represent 67 electoral votes. 270 electoral votes are needed to win the election. HuffPo has Obama winning in a landslide on their electoral map, 347 to 191.

 

CNN's latest article says Obama has topped 50% in the key battleground states vs. Romney.

 

 

Remember, there are three debates scheduled between Obama and Romney between now and the election. These debates represent Romney's last best chance to make a push against Obama. The schedule:

 

Wednesday, October 3rd

Topic: Domestic policy

Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates

Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)

 

The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

 

 

Tuesday, October 16th

Topic: Town meeting format including foreign and domestic policy

Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Location: Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York (Tickets)

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates

Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

Moderator: Candy Crowley (CNN Chief Political Correspondent)

 

The second presidential debate will take the form of a town meeting, in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Candidates each will have two minutes to respond, and an additional minute for the moderator to facilitate a discussion. The town meeting participants will be undecided voters selected by the Gallup Organization.

 

 

Monday, October 22nd

Topic: Foreign policy

Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Location: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida (Tickets)

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates

Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney

Moderator: Bob Schieffer (Host of Face the Nation on CBS)

 

The format for the debate will be identical to the first presidential debate and will focus on foreign policy.

 

 

 

 

There will also be one Vice-Presidential debate:

 

Tuesday, October 11th

Topic: Foreign and domestic policy

Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time

Location: Centre College in Danville, Kentucky (Tickets)

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates

Participants: Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan

Moderator: Martha Raddatz (ABC News Chief Foreign Correspondent) The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine time segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the question.

 

Link to above information source

 

 

 

Personally, I think the debates will do nothing but hurt Mitt Romney. He is not as accomplished a public speaker as Obama, and as we saw in the Primary debates, he has a propensity to say outrageous things. Any more "$10,000 bet" statements and he's done for, and I think he's good for at least one in these three debates.

 

I don't know why they're doing the VP debate. As usual, it's a dog-and-pony show with very little solid info provided. Although, last election cycle we were treated to a very entertaining series of answers by Sarah Palin, so who knows - maybe this will be worth watching.

[Comish]

The polls are all over the place. There may be indications internal polls are showing things somewhat differently since candidates are allocating resources in states they didn't think they would have to.

 

As for the debates, B.O. has also shown a propensity for gaffes without a trusty teleprompter guiding him. (I know you discount that, but I'm willing to wait and see).

 

If I was advising Romney, I'd stress that he doesn't have to win the debate so much as challenge/goad B.O. into a loss of composure.

[knapplc]

We don't have to "wait and see" about the myth of the teleprompter. Go back and look at the 2008 debates. Obama shredded McCain.

 

The polls aren't all over the place. If you can find some from reputable sources that show Romney is in the lead, I'd love to see them. But the major, trusted pollsters have Obama in the lead, and gaining.

 

And if all Romney tries to do is goad Obama into losing his composure, he'll have a hell of a time at it. First, the public will see right through that. Romney isn't Mr. Smooth that could just subtly pull something like that off. Second, we've witnessed four years of Republican attempts to put Obama into a loss of composure and it hasn't worked yet. Mitt isn't the guy to get that done.

[carlfense]

It's not looking good for Romney. ~6 weeks to go...

-trailing by 4 points nationally

-trailing by 3.1 in FL

-trailing by 5.2 in OH

-trailing by 7.8 in WI

- . . . well . . . trailing in every single toss up state according to RCP averages. Every one. Also, the trend is mostly away from Romney.

 

All RCP averages. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

[Comish]

We don't have to "wait and see" about the myth of the teleprompter. Go back and look at the 2008 debates. Obama shredded McCain.

 

The polls aren't all over the place. If you can find some from reputable sources that show Romney is in the lead, I'd love to see them. But the major, trusted pollsters have Obama in the lead, and gaining.

 

And if all Romney tries to do is goad Obama into losing his composure, he'll have a hell of a time at it. First, the public will see right through that. Romney isn't Mr. Smooth that could just subtly pull something like that off. Second, we've witnessed four years of Republican attempts to put Obama into a loss of composure and it hasn't worked yet. Mitt isn't the guy to get that done.

Didn't expect you'd agree, but the forum is a place for all opinions.

I don't happen to share your belief in the oratorical supremacy of B.O.

[krc1995]

Free market....that is a novel idea.

unregulated markets, that is an old idea of predictable disastrous results.

 

Did I say that it was a good idea? Let me check, nope I didn't. But over regulated markets are empire killers. USSR, Rome, the UK to name a few. Our economy needs to have some regulation, but I would argue over regulation is more harmful than under regulation to a nation's economic longevity.

 

Over regulation kills an economy when you are in a world market and the rest of the world don't have those regulations that drive up costs.

yes. Particulary when the regulation benefits only a small percentage of the people and is at the expense of the rest.

[carlfense]

We don't have to "wait and see" about the myth of the teleprompter. Go back and look at the 2008 debates. Obama shredded McCain.

 

The polls aren't all over the place. If you can find some from reputable sources that show Romney is in the lead, I'd love to see them. But the major, trusted pollsters have Obama in the lead, and gaining.

 

And if all Romney tries to do is goad Obama into losing his composure, he'll have a hell of a time at it. First, the public will see right through that. Romney isn't Mr. Smooth that could just subtly pull something like that off. Second, we've witnessed four years of Republican attempts to put Obama into a loss of composure and it hasn't worked yet. Mitt isn't the guy to get that done.

http://unskewedpolls.com/

 

If you change the dynamics of every poll they clearly show that Romney is going to win in a landslide.

 

(I wonder what will happen when that particular echo chamber collapses in on itself. When reality and fantasy meet . . . it might not be pretty. I'm predicting widespread claims of voter fraud . . . probably perpetrated by George Soros.)

[Comish]

It's not looking good for Romney. ~6 weeks to go...

-trailing by 4 points nationally

-trailing by 3.1 in FL

-trailing by 5.2 in OH

-trailing by 7.8 in WI

- . . . well . . . trailing in every single toss up state according to RCP averages. Every one. Also, the trend is mostly away from Romney.

 

All RCP averages. http://www.realclear...obama-1171.html

I've read that almost all polls are using the last presidential contest of 2008 as a baseline. If that is accurate, it will certainly skew Obama because of the unprecedented turnout of the youth vote then. Also, (supposedly), the "enthusiasm" factor is now presumably in MR's favor. Whether any of this is true or not, remains to be seen. What I don't believe, however, is that all of a sudden (especially with the Libyan fiasco still festering) BO has a much LARGER lead.

[knapplc]

Holy crap. Have you ever read the reasoning behind Unskewed Polls? These guys are legit:

 

The national polls of the presidential race remain skewed and this is an issue that remains important for following the political process and truly understanding what is taking place. The Gallup tracking poll, which has been over-sampled Democrats in the past, has released its latest numbers today showing President Obama leading 48 percent to 45 percent for Mitt Romney. But the non-skewed uses a sample weighted by the expected partisan makeup of the electorate, the QStarNews Daily Tracking poll, shows Romney leading over Obama by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin. The difference is the sample or the weighting, the latter result is based on a weight of 37.6 percent of the electorate being made up of Republican voters while 33.3 percent is made up of Democratic voters. The Gallup survey likely bases it's numbers on an expect turnout, or an “over-sample” of Democrats by a four to six percent margin.

 

LINK

 

How can a place making the claim that they're "more accurate" have that many egregious errors in one paragraph? While they're busy checking the poll data, how about running your own site's statement through some editing, huh?

[knapplc]

I've read that almost all polls are using the last presidential contest of 2008 as a baseline. If that is accurate, it will certainly skew Obama because of the unprecedented turnout of the youth vote then. Also, (supposedly), the "enthusiasm" factor is now presumably in MR's favor. Whether any of this is true or not, remains to be seen. What I don't believe, however, is that all of a sudden (especially with the Libyan fiasco still festering) BO has a much LARGER lead.

 

 

Wut.

 

Can you explain the methodology behind using 2008 polling numbers as a baseline for a 2012 poll? I'm not sure I follow this, especially when Gallup explains their polling methodology, and it says nothing about 2008.

 

In fact, this whole "flawed polling" mantra seems to be a right-wing construct, designed specifically to combat something I said would happen some time ago (but searching for it is defeating me): I said that, the longer this election goes on, the more Republicans will get discouraged about Romney and they won't even come out to vote. I still believe this is true, all the more so because this is exactly what the Republicans are afraid of:

 

The best way to ensure that your vote counts is not to get discouraged from poll results and refrain from voting, but to ignore the polls and register to vote on November 6. Research and vote enthusiastically for the candidate of your choice. You can look up any relevant information about voting in Augusta-Richmond County including how to register, where polling places are located, and frequently asked questions about voting by visiting the official Augusta, Georgia Government Website. Register now! Time to register will expire on October 9, 2012.

LINK

[Comish]

Joe Trippi, a democratic pollster, explained that polls rely heavily on the previous elections to set their samplings Thus, 2004 was the baseline for sampling 2008 and 2008 becomes the baseline for 2012. I don't have a direct link (just saw him a few weeks ago on the tube), so discount it if you want, I'm just trying to answer your question.

 

I believe the flawed polling mantra you site is exactly designed to combat a biased media doing everything they can to discourage republicans from voting be making it look like a slam dunk for their favored candidate.

(I post this response knowing full well it will be interpreted as a paranoid response blaming biased media, but the fact is they ARE biased). For proof, ask why no one is asking the President about his ever-evolving explanation for Libya). It took an interview with foreign press to actually see someone press him with something other then softballs.

[knapplc]

Joe Trippi, a democratic pollster, explained that polls rely heavily on the previous elections to set their samplings Thus, 2004 was the baseline for sampling 2008 and 2008 becomes the baseline for 2012. I don't have a direct link (just saw him a few weeks ago on the tube), so discount it if you want, I'm just trying to answer your question.

 

I believe the flawed polling mantra you site is exactly designed to combat a biased media doing everything they can to discourage republicans from voting be making it look like a slam dunk for their favored candidate.

(I post this response knowing full well it will be interpreted as a paranoid response blaming biased media, but the fact is they ARE biased). For proof, ask why no one is asking the President about his ever-evolving explanation for Libya). It took an interview with foreign press to actually see someone press him with something other then softballs.

 

What would be helpful, regarding the bold, is if you could name which of the pollers is doing this.

 

More with the "liberal media bias." The single-most-watched news source is Fox News. "The media" is not biased - some are, some less so. Some lean right, some lean left, the reputable ones lean neither direction. Everyone, from Fox News to MSNBC, is reporting Obama in the lead in the major polls. Only the right-wing hardcore folks are attempting to "debunk" these polls. "The media" are not left-leaning. They lean everywhere.

 

Joe Trippi is best known for working on the campaigns of six or seven different Democratic presidential candidates - all of whom were roundly trounced in their elections. He's no insider and he's certainly not connected with the mainstream democrats. He last surfaced with Howard Dean - he of the scream - and fell off the face of the earth when Dean screamed. Trippi is not a "Democratic pollster." In fact, he's been a Fox News employee for the last several months at the very least since 2009.

 

I've been following presidential elections for going on 30 years now. This is the first time I've seen such a concerted attack on the methodology of pollsters, and (not surprisingly) it's coming from the Right. Why would they do that? I'm certain it has nothing to do with the fact that their candidate is losing in the same polls they're attacking.

 

 

EDIT - see italicized in my post...

[carlfense]

Holy crap. Have you ever read the reasoning behind Unskewed Polls? These guys are legit:

 

The national polls of the presidential race remain skewed and this is an issue that remains important for following the political process and truly understanding what is taking place. The Gallup tracking poll, which has been over-sampled Democrats in the past, has released its latest numbers today showing President Obama leading 48 percent to 45 percent for Mitt Romney. But the non-skewed uses a sample weighted by the expected partisan makeup of the electorate, the QStarNews Daily Tracking poll, shows Romney leading over Obama by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin. The difference is the sample or the weighting, the latter result is based on a weight of 37.6 percent of the electorate being made up of Republican voters while 33.3 percent is made up of Democratic voters. The Gallup survey likely bases it's numbers on an expect turnout, or an “over-sample” of Democrats by a four to six percent margin.

 

LINK

 

How can a place making the claim that they're "more accurate" have that many egregious errors in one paragraph? While they're busy checking the poll data, how about running your own site's statement through some editing, huh?

The scary part is that you will see that site referenced either directly or in the comments on almost every conservative outlet.

 

Epistemic closure. Completely unable to see the crazy from within the crazy.