• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Skewed polls indicate Obama's in trouble - not Romney

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
September 27, 2012
Skewed polls indicate Obama's in trouble - not Romney
Keith Edwards

Certain media polls indicating Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney by as much as 10 to 12 points in swing states seem to spell disaster for Romney, but what they really say about the Obama campaign may just surprise you?

The absurdity of the skewed sample models in those polls is one thing, but what conservatives need to understand is that polls skewed to heavily favor Democrats logically point to one very important fact - Obama is in big trouble.

For one thing, Democrats and the liberal media are taking a huge chance by touting polls showing Obama up by double digits in crucial swing states as if these polls were totally valid. Obviously designed politically to depress and suppress Romney voters, these media driven and heavily reported polls can also backfire and suppress the Obama vote. Naturally, if you support Obama and are treated every day to wall-to-wall news headlines showing Obama so far ahead of Romney in the polls that the election is basically over, then you're less likely to go out of your way to vote in November. So there's a really fine line between turning out your voters and turning off your voters when using polling data like this. In this case, it is probably safe to say that internal Democrat polls show low enthusiasm and turnout expectations for Obama supporters across the electorate demographic, so the skewed poll strategy is worth the risk for the campaign.

This risky strategy also indicates that internal Democrat polling is probably more in line with Rasmussen and Dick Morris, showing that Obama is running even or maybe even losing ground to Romney in swing states. Conventional political wisdom makes this evident because a campaign wouldn't waste time and money in states where their candidate is up by 10 or more points, but Obama has a full schedule in all the swing states and you can bet it's not because he's trying to build a 20 point lead before the election. Obama is spending a lot of time and money in those states precisely because his campaign knows it's either very close or he is running behind.

Furthermore, these polls showing huge leads for Obama are not showing any signs of discouraging Romney supporters. In fact, this aspect of the strategy may also backfire and intensify fervor and enthusiasm for Romney just like the attacks on the Tea Party did in 2010 and the attacks on Governor Scott Walker did in Wisconsin turning out record Republican and conservative voters.

Don't be fooled, these skewed polls only show that the Obama campaign and the liberal media are running on empty and desperate enough to try anything to win this election.

Fortunately for America it's not going to work.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/skewed_polls_indicate_obamas_in_trouble_-_not_romney.html
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Funny thing these polls. Just who are these misterious people that are polled and where because I have never been polled and I have even asked others and no one has as well.
I'm curious - has anyone on this forum been polled lately?
The one thing I remember hearing from my parents and grandparents is that there were 3 things folks never discussed except in private - sex, religion, and politics. IMO if I were polled I would not give my real answer and most I know today won't even answer the phone with a 800 or 888 number.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Romney Cratering on Intrade


Participants on the betting site intrade.com are dumping stock in Romney-2012 with no end in sight. During most of August, Romney's chances fluctuated in a narrow band from 38% to 44%. In the past week it has dropped to 27%. If you are convinced Romney is going to win, here is a chance to quadruple your money in the space of 6 weeks. Not even Bain Capital could come up with an investment that good.

Actually this is a few days old- I think the investing/betting now gives Romney a less than 25% chance of winning...

These folks that put their money behind what they think- along with all the elderly, senior citizen, and soon to be senior citizens on Social Security that I've heard felt slapped in the face after their years of working and paying taxes-- to have Romney arrogantly tell them they were leeches on the government- and which hee did not want represent is more indicative .... :???: :( :(
 

Larrry

Well-known member
The guy is downright senile. He still doesn't get it that the conservatives laugh at him and the obama regime laughs at him for following their lead to destruction.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Now if the pollisters are using 2008 turn out rates to skew the polls in Obama's favor One has to wonder what this is going to do to those Liberal Bias Scewed poll results?

Democrats’ Advantage in Voter Registration Slipping in Key States
By Jim Geraghty
September 24, 2012 4:20 P.M.

This news release – announcing that there are now roughly 20,000 more registered Republicans in Iowa than registered Democrats – suggests that Hawkeye state Republicans can crow about a dramatic turnaround, pointing out that back in January 2009, Iowa Democrats enjoyed a 110,000 voter registration advantage.

In terms of how many voters are registered with each major party, Democrats continue to hold advantages in several key swing states, but in all of those states, their advantage is considerably smaller than it was in 2008.

In Florida, as of last month there are 4,627,929 registered Democrats and 4,173,177 registered Republicans, which amounts to a a 454,752-voter advantage for Democrats. (Keep in mind, Florida has 11.5 million registered voters, so there are a lot of unaffiliated and third-party voters.)

In 2008, there were 4,800,890 registered Democrats in Florida and only 4,106,743 registered Republicans, a 694,147-voter advantage. So while the number of voters who registered with the GOP is up from four years ago, Democrats are down roughly 170,000.

In Nevada, there are 447,881 registered Democrats to 400,310 registered Republicans, a split of roughly 47,000. (Keep in mind, the state has 1.4 million registered voters right now.) In 2008, the state split 531,317 registered Democrats to 430,594 registered Republicans, a split of roughly 100,000.

In New Mexico, as of July 31, there are 582,656 registered Democrats to 385,898 registered Republicans, a Democrat advantage of 196,758 voters. In 2008, there were 594,229 registered Democrats and 375,619 registered Republicans, an advantage of 218,610 voters.

In North Carolina, as of Friday, there are 2,778,535 registered Democrats and 2,008,609 registered Republicans, a 769,926-voter advantage. But on Election Day 2008, there were 2,866,669 registered Democrats and 2,002,416 registered Republicans, an 864,253-voter advantage. This is another state where Republicans have already gotten more voters registered with their party than the preceding cycle.

In many states, residents who wish to cast ballots must register to vote within 25 to 28 days before an election.

In Pennsylvania, as of today, there are 4,185,377 registered Democrats to 3,099,371 registered Republicans, a 1,086,006-vote advantage for Obama’s party. But as daunting as that sounds, it’s smaller than in 2008, when there were 4,479,513 registered Democrats to 3,242,046 registered Republicans, a 1,237,467-vote advantage.

Virginia does not register voters by party.

One state where the GOP had and continues to have a small advantage is in Colorado. In that state, as of September 1, there are 837,732 active registered Republicans and 739,778 active registered Democrats, about a 98,000-voter advantage. On Election Day 2008, the GOP had 1,065,150 registered Republicans and 1,056,077 registered Democrats, about a 9,000-voter advantage.

With a known drop in Democrat registered voters in 2012 from 2008 why do pollisters believe they can use 2008 numbers to gage the 2012 election?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Does ANYBODY believe the anal leakage that old Whiskeybreath spews? (Besides flounder?)

Yep- the new Republicanism- when you are scared and have no argument for reply - attack the messenger and make it sound big using schoolyard verbage :roll: :p :lol: :(

Can you not see why these new Republicans are moving more and more from out from under their tent :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
when you are scared and have no argument for reply - attack the messenger and make it sound big using schoolyard verbage :roll: :p :lol: :(

Can you not see why these new Republicans are moving more and more from out from under their tent :???:

Is that what is happening when you call me tammyfaye Oldtimer, you are scared and have no reply other than to ATTACK THE MESSENGER? :? :wink:

And according to the article, I posted the Dems are the ones slipping in registered voters numbers. Or is that because their tent has not found a big enough cemetary to prop up their voters list YET?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Speaking of attacking the messenger--

Busted OT!!
this was in the thread that I started whereby the taxpayers have
had to pay $1.4 billion to support the Obama family:

(quoting you):
"The comedy is if this old fart worked for the Eisenhower administation he must by older than old FH -- or in his 80's and senile..."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
What John McLaughlin Sees in the Polls Right Now
By Jim Geraghty
September 21, 2012 8:27 A.M.

I reached out to Republican pollster John McLaughlin for yesterday’s piece on how undecided voters are likely to break, and he made some separate comments about polls, their impact on motivation for each side, and how the campaigns want to use skewed poll numbers to depress the opposition.

How he’s defining likely voters right now: “For the most part we’re polling likely voters. It’s a loose screen. We keep people who say they’re only somewhat likely to vote. But the vast majority say that they are definitely or very likely to vote. They’re voting.”

How campaigns try to sway polling results: “In a close race, the operatives are trying to manipulate the turnout through their paid and earned media. The earned media includes lobbying and trying to skew the public polls. Historically the most egregious case was the 2000 Gore campaign’s lobbying the networks’ exit pollsters for an early, and wrong, call in Florida. This suppressed the Florida Panhandle and Western state turnout.” (Polls close at different times in different parts of the state, because the state stretches into two time zones.) “In our post-election Florida poll, we found that thousands of Panhandle Floridians heard the call and although their polls were still open for an hour in a close national race decided not to vote. Panhandle voters went two-to-one for Bush. The CBS early wrong call nearly triggered a national crisis.”

On what a realistic partisan breakdown would look like: “The 2004 national exit polls showed an even partisan turnout and Bush won 51–48. Had it been the +4 Democratic edge of 2000, John Kerry would have been president. 2008 was a Democratic wave that gave them a +7 partisan advantage. 2010 was a Republican edge. There’s no wave right now. There are about a dozen swing states where in total millions of voters who voted in 2008 for Obama are gone or have not voted since. There are also hundreds of thousands of voters in each of several swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, and others who voted from rural, exurban or suburban areas in 2004 for Bush who did not vote in 2008, because they were not excited by McCain or thought he would lose. They are currently planning to vote mainly as a vote against President Obama.”

What Obama and his allies are doing now: “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR [Interactive Voice Response] polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want. Some polls have included sizable segments of voters who say they are ‘not enthusiastic’ to vote or non-voters to dilute Republicans. Major pollsters have samples with Republican affiliation in the 20 to 30 percent range, at such low levels not seen since the 1960s in states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and which then place Obama ahead. The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias. We’ll see a lot more of this. Then there’s the debate between calling off a random-digit dial of phone exchanges vs. a known sample of actual registered voters. Most polls favoring Obama are random and not off the actual voter list. That’s too expensive” for some pollsters.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/327982
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Romney Cratering on Intrade


Participants on the betting site intrade.com are dumping stock in Romney-2012 with no end in sight. During most of August, Romney's chances fluctuated in a narrow band from 38% to 44%. In the past week it has dropped to 27%. If you are convinced Romney is going to win, here is a chance to quadruple your money in the space of 6 weeks. Not even Bain Capital could come up with an investment that good.

Actually this is a few days old- I think the investing/betting now gives Romney a less than 25% chance of winning...

These folks that put their money behind what they think- along with all the elderly, senior citizen, and soon to be senior citizens on Social Security that I've heard felt slapped in the face after their years of working and paying taxes-- to have Romney arrogantly tell them they were leeches on the government- and which hee did not want represent is more indicative .... :???: :( :(


But he didn't say that dufus. Please go back and read what he actually said and put it in context if you know how. As for the bookies..you have to wonder as well "what is the spread"???? Depending on that I might put some money on Little "O" as well.
 
Top