Romney/Obama Poll Coverage
 

Man, thank gawd for Nate Silver....

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

If I were going off just press headlines, I'd be SURE that Romney was headed for a win. It sure seems like every headline is suggesting he's ahead. Misleading headlines are not a service to either side, cause if you like Romney you'll have false hope, if you like Obama it's depressing and disspiriting.

TRUTH is... the race is, nationally, DEAD EVEN, and Romney's got electoral math problems in the battleground states. Anyhow, take a look at Silver's latest blog update that lists ALL the latest national and BG polls. No sign of one side on some big upswing.

This is gonna be CLOSE....

Yeah, those battleground states will most likely get Obama to 270.

You can just go to realclearpolitics.com and see all of the polls. I don't know what this guy is so upset about. Everyone can see it for themselves. Obviously it's a tie.





.

The only poll that counts...

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.co...ma-receipt.jpg

Obama +1 :)

ADG

Dead even.

Polls are only polls, but I would feel pretty pathetic if I were Obama and crew.

Where Obama has the advantage is in the battleground states. If he wins all the states that democrats have won in the last 4 elections plus New Mexico which is polling strongly for him he almost has enough EV's to win. If he then wins Florida it is over. If he doesn't win Florida he basically only has to win 2 or 3 of the remaining battleground states (the number depends on which states he wins) and he wins. Romney pretty much has to win all the battleground state or pull of some major upset and steal a state that everyone assumed would go democrat. That is not going to be easy to do and it is why he is a 2-1 underdog still.

I won't be shocked if we see an election where one guy wins the popular vote and the other wins the electoral college.

I wouldn't be surprised if Romney gets Ohio and Pa.

Yes, Republicans, rest assured that Romney is leading in all the polls so no need to bother going out to vote. He's already winning, you can stay home.

As implied by the title this thread need more gay pics.

Who ever designed that site should be shot. I mean, that's just bad web design right there.

I already voted, so it's a done deal for me and it's out of my hands. I'm surprised Romney has come as far as he has, and I'll be surprised if he wins.

Polls are designed to drive traffic to media outlets. They need the polls to be close and they need the polls to create a narrative that keeps people tuning in to their newscasts. If a poll said Obama was clearly in the lead, or Romney was clearly in the lead... nobody would watch CNN. Pollsters are funded by media outlets. The media doesn't care who wins, as long as it remains close (i.e. 'within the margin of error' of the poll and represents a back and forth 'race').

After the campaign is over NOBODY will go back and see which polls were inaccurate 3 months or 5 months before election day. Even if someone did, the pollsters would just claim public opinion must have changed a lot in the interim. They have zero accountability and are just in it to drive traffic.

I'm amazed webmasters who drive traffic for a living with polls, hot or not content, controversial publicity stunts etc can not see political polls for exactly what they are... traffic tools.

Each result is within the margin of error except Gallup today I think and that's just a national poll which you can't even tell where they called. Did they call in NY state where Obama is +26? Or North Dakota where Romney is +a billion? Who knows.

Also don't underestimate the power of momentum. If your team just won a huge game and you answered a poll the next day you would give high praise. After a crushing defeat you might be down in the dumps and say they sucked. Those are the likely / unlikely outcomes in general and it matters and polls don't reflect it.

In any case, looks like it's a race for king of Ohio once again.

Actually sites like fivethirtyeight.com and electoral-vote.com do exactly that. In their algorithm they take into consideration how accurate previous polls were as well as previous results in elections.

The major pollsters are very accurate, but there are some out there that skew one way or the other or have flawed techniques.

Oh, were coming out in droves! Obama's goin down.:thumbsup

Obama goes to Cleveland Ohio gets 12 thousand people to show up.

Romney goes to a small town Defiance Ohio and gets 12 thousand people to show up.

Dude, don't say that on here, you could give old man Baddog a heart attack

Has anyone mentioned how the vote usually breaks for the incumbent on election day among undecided.

Look at the Bush/Kerry election. It was very close going in and Kerry actually had a slight lead. But as the votes came in, things broke for the incumbent about 1 or 2 %.

Don't incumbents usually get booted out? They rarely get forced out on razor close elections. That's because on close elections, the undecided usually end up breaking for the incumbent.

Based on that, plus the electoral problem Romney has. Obama has good chance of winning.

Every analyst on CNN says the exact opposite. That undecided always break for the challenger.

Incumbents rarely lose. Since 1900 19 presidents have sought reelection and 15 of them won. It is hard to beat the incumbent.

Are there any examples they give? Like I said, incumbents rarely lose close elections. Even if you go down to other non-presidential races. The close race usually goes to the incumbent because incumbency gives you about a 1% bump on election day as people just go with what they know along with a few other advantages.

Also, while Romney was wasting time in that stupid Republican primary arguing with idiots like Michelle Bachman, the incumbent is able to build up their ground game and get out the vote campaign. Not having to fight through a nomination process gives you an advantage as well to get a better turn out.

I don't have any proof of this and I'm not spinning it for Obama, but just watching elections over the years, that's how it always seems to play out. Being the incumbent gives you a built in 1 or 2 % bump on election day. So the challenger needs at least more than that lead to win

No it doesn't, the vote usually breaks against the incumbent on election day among undecided voters.

Obama is kicking redneck Romney ass in Austin......

Especially when a challenging candidate is trying to paint a picture of apocalypse to voters, and that he'll save us from it -- and most people know that he's full of shit.

But that's the always because because you know the track record of the guy in office. Romney is a wild card.

Exactly. When you are the incumbent you run on your record. If you are the challenger to the incumbent you have to convince people that you will do a better job than they have done. If things are going reasonably well many people will not risk what they have for the unknown.

um...

Obama record = failure
Romney record = success

better check your facts and the polls boys! :winkwink:

The Austin Chronicle has made a Halloween Mask of Romney.....Perfect!:thumbsup

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/8fc2/cover.jpg

Once you go Romney, you sold your soul.

It's a college town..young people are easily swayed by *more*hope and change.

US people usually like to vote for their president. Obama is coming back any way.

Yah, thats going to win the election... :1orglaugh

Candid Camera.....:2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

There are a lot of people who think Obama has done a decent job otherwise he wouldn't be polling at around 50% job approval.

Romney had success in business, but many think he was a shitty governor.

The polls have it very close, but Obama has the advantage in the electoral college.

This could be a very close election with the outside possibility of a tie. We may also see one guy win the popular vote and another win the electoral college.

I was at a costume store yesterday here in Austin and I saw quite a few Mitt masks, no Obama. I don't know if they were sold out or if that's not a popular thing or what. Maybe it would be considered racist to wear an Obama mask? I have no clue, just thought it was kind of strange to see one and not the other.

The only poll I need to know about is "VEGAS" they have obama favored. It's done deal.

That's a study of only 155 polls and published in 1989. Not exactly comprehensive. There have been 155 polls in the last few weeks probably in the current election. So studying 155 polls from decades ago is hardly definitive. It's a study, but nowhere near conclusive or even close to that. That's the problem with the internet, you can cut and paste a study of almost anything. Just Google "undecided voters break for incumbent" and you'll get studies that contradict the ones you posted.

There is no proof either way and you will never prove it either way. We are essentially talking about gambling here. Just like stocks, you can use the numbers up to a certain point, but at some point it gets fuzzy and the numbers can't help you anymore. That's where the skill and the art of something comes into play. The stock market is a collection of people, not a collection of numbers. Just like the electorate, you can use numbers to analyze them up to a certain point, but the final one or two percent is where the magic happens.

I guess we'll see on election day :)

I only see one of two things happening:

1) Obama wins a close election.

2) If Romney does win, it will be a landslide nobody saw coming that leaves everyone in shock. Basically he rolls the table.

Obama has fallen flat on his face. His class warfare ad campaign fail miserably. So now he is running his war of the sex ad campaigns. That too is backfiring and many women are starting to get upset with Obama for him making the impression that women only care about their pussies.

It's still a lot closer than I figured it would be, which tells me fewer people are buying into Obama's shit that got him elected 4 years ago. The fact that Republicans nominated someone who pretty handily lost to McCain 4 years ago who himself lost to Obama and that person actually has a chance of winning is pretty incredible.

What kind of shocks me is that Romney now is a completely different candidate than he was back in May. Back during the primaries he made the remark about shaking the Etch-A-Sketch and starting over with the general election and the rest of the candidates in his party savaged him over it. That is exactly what he has done and it is working. He was given a gift from Obama in that first debate though.

Three weeks ago I would have said the election was Over, but that debate mattered and Romney finally found a message that worked with the independents.

The election will likely come down to which party does a better job of getting their base out to vote. I wonder if some of the far right wingers will think he has moved too much to the center and end up not voting for him after all.

On this I agree with you.

If raping businesses, selling off the assets and laying off workers is success -- the Romney is a huge success.

It's not incredible to me. The guy spent the last four years campaigning and cursing
everything Obama did.

He had 4 years of people crying about a birth certificate and other conspiracies and
no other president had this crap. Oh yeah, and then there is the race thing.

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...2020121013.gif

Shouldn't be a shock. Romney is a pathological liar with zero integrity. He's so morally and ethically corrupt, he doesn't even care half the people in his party know he's of full of shit, but just want to get that liberal coon out of the white house -- so they'll begrudgingly vote for him.

He's the type of guy who cheats at paintball. You shot him in the chest and clearly see your paint spattered on him, but he'll swear up and down you missed, then shoot you and claim a win (that actually happened to me before).

Ronald Reagan lost to Gerald Ford in 1976.

Nixon lost to Kennedy in the general election back in 1960.

Losing an election doesn't mean much. It's all a matter of timing.

Reagan came back in 1980 and blew Carter out of the water. Nixon came back in 1968 and beat Humphrey.

Not really they do this same shit every election. The media tries to make it look like it's closer than it is. They did same shit when it was Obama vs McCain and that wasn't even close.

The only thing that matters is the electoral votes and I can't see Romney even getting close with them.

There are too many "alternate realities" that need to happen for Romney to win the electoral college.

Yea, it's pretty much all a horse and pony show, so people think their vote matters. If everyone already knew that one guy or the other was going to win there wouldn't be many people watching it on the news. They get a lot of advertising money trying to keep people interested.

The math just doesn't add up for the electoral vote for Romney. It's just not gonna happen.

Romney praying is "ET phone home."