| Obama | Romney |
| 99.2% probability of winning | 0.8% probability of winning |
| Mean of 308 electoral votes | Mean of 230 electoral votes |
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney by a mean of 325 to 213 electoral votes. In an election held then, we would have expected Obama to win with a 99.8% and Romney with a 0.2% probability.
In the last two days there have been a plethora of polls released—16 covering 13 states. Here’s what I’ve found:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CT | Rasmussen | 21-Aug | 21-Aug | 500 | 4.5 | 51 | 43 | O+8 |
| FL | Quinnipiac | 15-Aug | 21-Aug | 1241 | 3.0 | 49 | 46 | O+3 |
| FL | Foster McCollum White | 17-Aug | 17-Aug | 1503 | 2.5 | 39.1 | 53.3 | R+14.3 |
| GA | 20/20 Insight | 15-Aug | 18-Aug | 1158 | 2.9 | 44 | 47 | R+3 |
| MA | PPP | 16-Aug | 19-Aug | 1115 | 2.9 | 55 | 39 | O+16 |
| MI | Glengariff Group | 18-Aug | 20-Aug | 600 | 4.0 | 47.5 | 42.0 | O+5.5 |
| MO | PPP | 20-Aug | 20-Aug | 500 | 4.4 | 42 | 52 | R+10 |
| MT | Rasmussen | 20-Aug | 20-Aug | 500 | 4.5 | 38 | 55 | R+17 |
| NV | SurveyUSA | 16-Aug | 21-Aug | 869 | 3.4 | 47 | 45 | O+2 |
| NM | Rasmussen | 21-Aug | 21-Aug | 500 | 4.5 | 52 | 38 | O+14 |
| OH | Ohio Poll | 16-Aug | 21-Aug | 847 | 3.4 | 49 | 46 | O+3 |
| OH | Quinnipiac | 15-Aug | 21-Aug | 1253 | 3.0 | 50 | 44 | O+6 |
| PA | Muhlenberg | 20-Aug | 22-Aug | 422 | 5.0 | 49 | 40 | O+9 |
| VT | Castleton Poll | 11-Aug | 21-Aug | 477 | — | 62 | 25 | O+37 |
| WI | Quinnipiac | 15-Aug | 21-Aug | 1190 | 3.0 | 49 | 47 | O+2 |
| WI | Marquette | 16-Aug | 19-Aug | 576 | 4.2 | 49.8 | 44.3 | O+5.5 |
The unsurprising Obama polls are from Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Likewise, Romney makes a strong showing in Montana and Missouri.
Romney makes a surprisingly weak +3% showing in Georgia, where he has been typically been doing high single digit or double digit leads.
There is a big surprise in Florida. A Quinnipiac poll gives Obama a +3% edge over Romney. That’s not the surprise. A second poll by Foster McCollum White has Romney up by an amazing (unbelievable?) +14%. This poll requires some discussion.
This poll has triggered a lot of chatter among poll collectors. Is it real? Is it honest? Is it an “outlier.” One of the thing I noticed is that the raw tallies in the poll add up to more than 100%—102.13%, to be exact!
I went to the source; I had a chat with the firm’s pollster Eric Foster. Eric was friendly and most helpful. The poll is not sponsored by anyone. Rather, they firm did the poll on their own, as a way to get their feet wet in Florida (so to speak). It is an independent poll. I asked about the percentages summing to greater than 100%, he suggested this is a result of their weighting. I proposed renormalizing the numbers to proportionately reduce them to 100%, and he agreed this was a good strategy.
We then had a discussion about their weighting method. They went to each county to get voter turn-out information by age group and race/ethnicity and used that to weigh the poll (some of the details were lost in our lousy cell phone to cell phone connection). He stands by the numbers.
In other words, a polling firm that is new to Florida used an elaborate and unorthodox turnout model to weight the poll, and ended up with some kind of error that resulted in percentages totaling greater than 100%. I cannot say that I am convinced that what they have done was done correctly. Even so, it meets my poll criteria and it could be correct. (They’ll look like geniuses if Florida goes double digits for Romney!) So I include it here, and recognize that Florida will be reddish for the next month. But Georgia is not quite red enough and we still need a new poll in South Carolina! That’s the way the polls roll.
Earlier this week two polls in Michigan split between the candidates. The new poll swings back in Obama’s favor (+5.5%).
Nevada has Obama up by a fragile +2%, but Obama has maintained the edge since the start of the year:
New Mexico loves Obama, giving him a +14% lead over Romney this poll.
Two new Ohio polls both go for Obama by +3% and +6%. Likewise, Pennsylvania seems to prefer Obama over Romney by +9%.
Finally, Ryan may have had a small effect on Wisconsin, where Obama scored a +2% in one poll and +5.5% in another. The race has certainly tightened but a lasting effect is not obvious based on these newest polls:
Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 99,173 times and Romney wins 827 times (including the 175 ties). Obama receives (on average) 308 (-17) to Romney’s 230 (+17) electoral votes. In an election held now, Obama would be expected to win with a 99.2% (-0.6%) probability; Romney would have about a 0.8% (+0.6%) probability of winning.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Obama:
- 312 electoral votes with a 4.26% probability
- 297 electoral votes with a 3.92% probability
- 306 electoral votes with a 3.80% probability
- 313 electoral votes with a 3.20% probability
- 307 electoral votes with a 3.14% probability
- 303 electoral votes with a 2.91% probability
- 298 electoral votes with a 2.88% probability
- 321 electoral votes with a 2.80% probability
- 305 electoral votes with a 2.47% probability
- 296 electoral votes with a 2.34% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Obama wins 99.2%, Romney wins 0.8%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Obama: 307.6 (16.5)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Romney: 230.4 (16.5)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Obama: 307 (275, 343)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Romney: 231 (195, 263)
Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Obama | 139 | |||
| Strong Obama | 116 | 255 | ||
| Leans Obama | 42 | 42 | 297 | |
| Weak Obama | 9 | 9 | 9 | 306 |
| Weak Romney | 16 | 16 | 16 | 232 |
| Leans Romney | 39 | 39 | 216 | |
| Strong Romney | 132 | 177 | ||
| Safe Romney | 45 |
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
| 0 | 0 | EC | # | Total | % | % | Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 4 | Votes | polls | Votes | Obama | Romney | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 1 | 558 | 36.6 | 63.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AZ | 11 | 1 | 775 | 44.1 | 55.9 | 1.1 | 98.9 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 679 | 36.8 | 63.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 780 | 59.7 | 40.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 4 | 3152 | 50.1 | 49.9 | 53.2 | 46.8 | ||
| CT | 7 | 2 | 1195 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 98.1 | 1.9 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 1 | 94 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| FL | 29 | 7 | 6214 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 10.1 | 89.9 | ||
| GA | 16 | 3 | 2662 | 46.6 | 53.4 | 0.7 | 99.3 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 517 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 1* | 546 | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 1 | 344 | 40.7 | 59.3 | 0.6 | 99.4 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 450 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 37.3 | 62.7 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 442 | 45.0 | 55.0 | 6.9 | 93.1 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 528 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 6.9 | 93.1 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 542 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1* | 516 | 58.3 | 41.7 | 99.6 | 0.4 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1* | 488 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1* | 421 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 84.8 | 15.2 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1* | 792 | 62.4 | 37.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 1 | 1048 | 58.5 | 41.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 6 | 4851 | 50.8 | 49.2 | 78.1 | 21.9 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 472 | 53.6 | 46.4 | 86.9 | 13.1 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 717 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 6 | 3712 | 46.5 | 53.5 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 465 | 40.9 | 59.1 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 553 | 43.4 | 56.6 | 1.4 | 98.6 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 389 | 45.5 | 54.5 | 10.3 | 89.7 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 252 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 45.3 | 54.7 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 284 | 35.9 | 64.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 2 | 1274 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 80.0 | 20.0 | ||
| NH | 4 | 2 | 1540 | 52.6 | 47.4 | 92.6 | 7.4 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 722 | 57.6 | 42.4 | 99.7 | 0.3 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 450 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 99.0 | 1.0 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 637 | 65.3 | 34.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 2 | 1237 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 49.1 | 50.9 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 348 | 41.4 | 58.6 | 1.1 | 98.9 | ||
| OH | 18 | 8 | 6493 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1 | 431 | 33.4 | 66.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1* | 631 | 54.4 | 45.6 | 93.8 | 6.2 | ||
| PA | 20 | 3 | 2092 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 495 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 99.7 | 0.3 | ||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 1833 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 85.6 | 14.4 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 497 | 46.1 | 53.9 | 10.7 | 89.3 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 654 | 46.0 | 54.0 | 7.6 | 92.4 | ||
| TX | 38 | 1* | 460 | 38.9 | 61.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1* | 1149 | 27.7 | 72.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1 | 415 | 71.3 | 28.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 5 | 3640 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 91.8 | 8.2 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 477 | 59.3 | 40.7 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 373 | 40.8 | 59.2 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| WI | 10 | 8 | 7450 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 98.2 | 1.8 | ||
| WY | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
A Republican is someone who believes lies become truth from constant repetition.
Darryl, you really need to do something about South Carolina. You are relying on a December 2011 Marist poll.
I did a Google search and found a somewhat more recent Reuters/Ipsos poll from January 10-13, 2012 with a sample of 995 South Carolina registered voters, that found Romney with a 46-40 lead over Obama.
Since you use the most recent available poll, when no relatively recent polls exist, you should substitute this Reuters-Ipsos poll for South Carolina, which should result in about an 80% probability of Romney winning the state, instead of the other way around.
This might bump Romney into the 2% to 3% range of actually winning the overall election.
8 polls in WI and none in OR.
Grrrrrrrrr………..
@ 2
Well done, Mr. Pope. Doubt it moves the needle more than a couple of tenths, tho.
@2:
From the article you link to (emphasis added):
As I recall, Darryl excludes online polls.
Usual suspects,
Are you really worried that Romney may win? I think Obama will win, but the Reps will gain in the Senate and maintain control of the House.
@6
No. Who the president is doesn’t seem to effect my life nearly as much as who the mayor and city council of my town are. Gig Harbor could use a nearly clean sweep (Jill Guernsey’s brand new, too soon to tell with her) of our elected office holders.
While who the president is doesn’t effect me much, it does effect other people and the world and I think we’d be much better off in that regard with Obama in office, even though they both kinda suck. Plus, I think Mitt Romney’s a robotic douche nozzle. So I’m pulling for an Obama win on that front .
Am I worried that Obama might lose? No. Simply no. Obama’s set up to win and the Republican’s are the gang that can’t shoot straight. The Republican’s will have embarrassing gaff after embarrassing revelation from now until the election and will blow whatever small chance that they had of winning.
The elections have been fun for me to follow in the past, but this year it’s more habit than anything. This has been the most boring election cycle known to man.
I think unlikely, but possible. So far their campaign has been less than competent, and then have been hit by hurricane Akin. The really have a hole to crawl out of.
That’s much more up in the air over the past few days, obviously.
Seems most likely, but with Medicare injected into the campaign with the choice of Ryan, I think Mitt handed Dems a huge cudgel. Clearly Mitt was backed into a corner and had to placate/excite the base with Ryan, which I think he did, but it opened the Whole Medicare/Social Security can of worms, and the last time they did that it effectively ended the Bush administration.
Interesting times….
NSeattle @ 5
Good point, which I did not fully apprehend the first time.
So how in the heck is an on-line poll conducted? I can definitely see polling bias on this one. Lots of people don’t have internet access or don’t use the internet much.
For example, South Carolina has a very large African American population, and also a very large poverty population. I would think folks with less money use the internet less, and that would leave out a lot of folks (especially in South Carolina) who tend to favor Obama heavily. This could easily more than wipe out the six point edge that Romney had in the internet poll.
Probably senior citizens use the internet less as well. This group is probably split more evenly between Romney and Obama, but might tend to favor Obama by a few points.
So again, how does one conduct a credible on-line poll? Do the results have to be re-weighted to reflect a more reasonable demographic balance?
@5 “As I recall, Darryl excludes online polls.”
And for good reason, because in online polls, respondents are self-selecting rather than randomly or scientifically chosen.
@6 I think you’re right about the probable election results. I can’t speak for others, but I’m not worried that Romney may win; I do, however, see several trolls attempting to talk themselves into believing it’s possible for him to win. I would say it’s possible but unlikely unless something happens to change the election dynamics.
# 9: I’ve yet to see an on-line poll with any semblence of credibility. Perhaps the pollsters have some other tricks up their sleaves, but all the on-line polls I’ve seen have a catchy headline in the link which is likely to create bias within the sample all by itself, and little means to prevent multiple votes by those attempting to game the system.
Speaking of which … Republicans sure are having a run of bad luck lately.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....gop23.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Either this is an eerie series of coincidences or God doesn’t want them to win.
Remember how the Nazis went into battle wearing belt buckles engraved with “Gott Mitt Uns” (“God is with us”)? God didn’t want them to win, either.
I think the Ryan bounce is just about over, but the post-convention bounce is just about to hit. Unless the Republicans really screw things up at the convention (as the Democrats did in ’68 and ’72), Romney can expect to see some bump for a week, perhaps two at the most.
But after that, we are back to calls on Romney to release more than two years worth of tax return;, Romney trying to distinquish between himself and his running-mate, Ryan, on abortion and Medicare issues; and the long line of commercials the Democrats will air showing the different positions Romney has taken on just about every issue over the past two decades.
Romney’s going to limp into the debates as a wounded candidate, any remaining credibility in tatters.
The purpose of this analysis and many just like it in the blogosphere is a weak attempt to shape public opinion. Completely meaningless for many, many reasons.
@8 I think the GOP will make Senate gains. That should be a sure thing as Dems have more than twice as many seats up for election (21 vs. 10), plus 2 Indys who caucus with Dems so it’s effectively 23 vs. 10).
RealClearPolitics rates 47 (D) (including McCaskill’s MO seat), 46 (R), and 7 tossup of which 5 are held by (D)s and 2 by (R)s, so Dems are at a disadvantage in tossup defense. RCP’s final projection is 50 (D) and 50 (R), which would make Senate control depend on who the next vice president is.
In the meantime, Hurricane Isaac (“The Laughter of God, in Hebrew) still seems posed to swamp just about all of Florida, starting from the tip of the Penninsula northward to the Georgia line, with high winds, heavy rains, and flooding. The storm track has shifted slightly to the west over the day, so currently it looks like the center of the storm track will brush just to the west of Tampa and hit Pensacola.
Of course, there’s still plenty of time for the storm track to change, and possibly even miss Florida completely.
In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh is making some vague charges about how President Obama is making these storm predictions to upset the Republican convention, but he doesn’t explain how except to point out that the National Weather Center is part of the government, and how Floridians manage to get by these storms on a regular basis (Rush currently lives in Florida).
But the Republicans can’t expect much of a post-convention bounce if coverage of their key speaches is interrupted by correspondents reporting on the flooding outside, or reminding voters that George H.W. Bush lost Florida in the 1992 election because of his ineffective response to the hurricane which wiped out much of the Homestead Air Force Base and surrounding communities, or George W. Bush’s own problems with the response to Katrina.
So we’re exactly where we’ve been all Summer. Willard will have to run the table of all the weak states AND peel off at least two leans Obama states. So to the folks who are so confident of a Wilard win, and people like @16 who want to pretend that this is more science mumbo-jumbo where the controversy isn’t being taught, what’s Willard’s path to victory other than the political equivalent of scoring 12 in the bottom of the ninth? Not impossible, just extraordinarily improbable.
Roger @ 10
I don’t think on-line polls by credible organizations use self-selection, but they do contact their supposedly scientifically selected sample on-line. But how do they adjust this for reality?
Back in 1936, there was a telephone survey than predicted Alf Landon would beat FDR — but Landon carried only Maine and Vermont. Problem was, that only richer people had phones back then, and rich people back then voted Republican.
So if you randomly contact internet users, then I would think that the results would be skewed in favor of Republicans in the South, and perhaps in favor of Democrats in northern states that have a smaller minority population. But they must make some attempts to adjust for demographic realities.
@16 “a weak attempt to shape public opinion”
It’s not even that. Some people talk to themselves trying to feel better. Certain trolls, for example.
@20 I would think internet surveys tend to exclude a disproportionate number of elderly, poor, and minorities.
Richard,
“Darryl, you really need to do something about South Carolina. You are relying on a December 2011 Marist poll.”
I suppose I could get all HA readers to request a SC poll from PPP (they take requests)!
“I did a Google search and found a somewhat more recent Reuters/Ipsos poll from January 10-13, 2012 with a sample of 995 South Carolina registered voters, that found Romney with a 46-40 lead over Obama.”
I am well aware of the poll (I even mentioned it here), and have it in my DB, but it is excluded from analysis. Unfortunately, it fails the inclusion criteria as it is a poll conducted via an internet sample.
“Since you use the most recent available poll, when no relatively recent polls exist, you should substitute this Reuters-Ipsos poll for South Carolina, which should result in about an 80% probability of Romney winning the state, instead of the other way around.”
It changes SC to 93% probability of going for Romney.
“This might bump Romney into the 2% to 3% range of actually winning the overall election.”
It does bump Romney to a 2% probability of winning.
Believe me, it is tempting to make the decision to exclude the old SC poll or include the internet poll, but I’ve resisted that temptation to make subjective decisions and will continue to do so.
Mr. NOT Cynical @ 16,
“The purpose of this analysis and many just like it in the blogosphere is a weak attempt to shape public opinion.”
No…it is an attempt to objectively “keep score.”
“Completely meaningless for many, many reasons.”
You can think that if it makes you feel better.
My advice is that you simply not bother reading the analyses. I mean, we certainly don’t want any of our valued commenters to suffer a brain hemorrhage.
My unscientific analysis sez South Carolina is a gimme for Romney. I haven’t counted it for Obama. Based on what I read the most important takeaway from the polls is how few votes are still up for grabs. That makes Obama’s 1% to 4% leads in several of the tossup states look chasms. Romney has to be Evel Knievel to win.
Hmmm.. a 0.8% chance of Dullard (R-Money) winning..
This is MOST concerning!
Is there anyone out who can say, “the more I see Mitt Romney, the more I like him”? I think his numbers will almost inevitably drop as we get into September and October. He is not human and cannot connect with humans.
Any Ryan bump or non-bump is being controlled by the slobbering libtard media.
When the slobbering libtard media is admittedly helping Obummer what is left? Jake Tapper and Chuck Todd admitted as much yesterday!
27 – Starting WAAAAAYYY before November 4, 2008 the more our trolls absorbed right wing propaganda and lies about Barack Obama, the more they HATED him.
Let us test the effect of the following text on the right wing idiot psyche:
Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, Alinsky, Community Organizer, ACORN, socialist…
This hate is now WHITE HOT!
Sure is… Just watch slobbering libtard msm bias give Obummer his 3-5% bounce in each state by creating “news”.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@30 All you wingtards out there repeat after puddy: “It’s the media’s fault! It’s the media’s fault! It’s the media’s fault!”
It never occurs to dunces like puddy that Republicans lose because they represent only 1% of the people.
Well, Darryl — sounds like a possible methodology flaw. McCain carried South Carolina by 9 points in 2008, and you have the highly unusual (and unlikely at this point) red-to-blue shift in this one state alone — all on the basis of a single poll that is over eight months old.
After further reflection, I would agree that on-line polls are ridiculous, even when demographically adjusted, and should not be considered.
May I suggest an alternative methodology for using old polling data?
1. Preferably, use every poll within the last 30 days.
2. If no polls within last 30 days, use every poll between 31 and 60 days.
3. If no polls within last 60 days, use every poll between 61 and 120 days.
4. If no polls within last 90 days, use every poll between 91 and 180 days.
5. If no polls within last 120 days, use every poll between 121 and 240 days.
And so forth and so on — basically the same period of time for old polls, that there have not been any more recent polls.
In South Carolina, there are no valid polls within the last 240 days, so we take every valid polls between 241 and 480 days.
I believe this would include four valid polls, if your validity criteria are the same as Real Clear Politics.
Seriously, consider refining your methodology. Recent polls make sense, when there are a decent number of them within whatever period is considered “recent”. But when you use only a SINGLE old poll, you are basically held hostage to that single poll, when there could be a lot of old polls available. And you can end up with particular states — such as South Carolina — defying common sense and political reality.
Hey Roger DUMB Wabbit, you forgot (senility getting worse) the study Puddy put forth weeks ago showing how the media shapes elections by 3-5%? Ask the deleted fool above @32 for the links since your memory is slipping badly!
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the suggestion. I see the advantage of your method for the situation when pollsters consider a state stale for polling. In 2008, this issue really didn’t come up because there were many more polls. (I am hoping the pace picks up a bit for this season.)
That said, I am unlikely to monkey with the methods this election cycle, but will consider something like that if I do this in any future elections.
I am quite surprised that pollsters don’t see the odd Marist result as a reason to poll the state some more.
@35 “the media shapes elections by 3-5%”
Is that all? Are the other 95-97% insentient?
Read it and weep folks
Electoral College Prediction Model Points To A Mitt Romney Win In 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22933.html
Puddy pretends he knows nothing of FoxNews or Rassmussen polling when he complains of the ‘libtard media’ or the creation of news.
Really, a serious waste of good oxygen.
I won’t vote for Romney or Obama. I’ll just write-in Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Another reason Obama will win is that about half of us get some sort of financial support from the federal government. People will vote their wallets when it comes down to personal finances, and the Romney-Ryan team ain’t too much to those folks’ liking because the Reps will look at ways to cut that kind of government spending.
@39 “I won’t vote for Romney or Obama. I’ll just write-in Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.”
I’m not one to talk you out of throwing away your vote. You having chosen to do so, the rest of us need take no further interest in your thoughts on public policy matters.
Let’s just hope that Paul Ryan is able to serve the entire 8th term in the House of Representatives, that he will almost certainly be re-elected to come November from his pretty safe Republican district. Or, more aptly, that he will not have any incentive to resign his seat …
Well lookee here, the editors of The Economist, a conservative U.K.-based news and opinion magazine, say they agree with many of Romney’s views but wouldn’t vote for him because of the kind of man he is.
“We share many of his views … [b]ut competence is worthless without direction and, frankly, character. … [Romney] has appeared as a fawning PR man, apparently willing to do or say just about anything to get elected …. America won’t vote for that man; nor would this newspaper.”
http://www.economist.com/node/21560864
@41 It’s my understanding Ryan represents a swing district and wins by large margins because he’s personally popular. Recently I heard my nephew’s wife, a prosecutor married to a cop, almost ran against Ryan in his first congressional race — whether as a Democrat or GOPer, I don’t know, but she married into the Republican branch of my family so I assume GOPer. (I used to have two wingnut brothers, but one of them didn’t wait for the Rapture, and went to see God by swallowing a whole bottle of pain pills.)
@43-
Oh I get it, so it’s the Republicans fault your brother committed suicide. Seems like Democrats are now fixated on blaming Republicans for deaths after the sham commercial by the idiot whose wife died and he managed to blame Romney even though she had other insurance for years and died 7-8 years after Romney left Bain.
I guess it’s easier to blame Republicans than ask yourself where you were.
Ryan’s district overwhelmingly voted for Obummer Richard Pope.
Once again Lib da schmuck is a schmuck. When it comes to polling who has the noted accuracy Lib da schmuck.
ABC
NBC
CNN
or
Scott Rasmussen?
You really are a dickhead. Puddy thought you just played on on HA but now Puddy can see you ignore all facts all the time. BTW Rasmussen was the most accurate in 2004.
So we’ll see where all these other polls Da Perfessa uses end up being correct or not.
Sucks to be Lib da schmuck!
Why is the press hiding this video?
If they put this as honest news brokers instead of biased news producers Puddy bets the polls would demonstrate differing results! Another reason Obummer has higher rating than he should. The slobbering libtard press hides FACTS and they oversample DUMMOCRAPTS in their polls.
On my way in to work this morning I heard a report on the radio that said that Aiken had suddenly dropped ten points behind in a bew Rasmussen poll. His Democratic opponant said that she didn’t believe it, and laughed it off.
Then you have the slobbering libtard msm who run to Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz so she could promulgate her lies. Except Anderson Cooper caught her in her lies. Too bad CNN is the least watch news channel now. Other stations would allow her to blatantly lie and this also shapes public polled opinion when DUMMOCRAPTS lie and lie and lie.
The Koch brothers are secretly trying to buy an election.
“It’s almost like Kochs have created an alternative to the Republican Party that pushes … an economy with less regulation and one in which the government intervenes far less than it does now,” said Bill Allison of the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this before, and a lot of it is under the radar.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48779155
The Tentacles of the Koch Octupus
“AFP’s voter-canvassing is a precise operation — distilling information culled from a massive voter data warehouse, also created with the Kochs’ financial backing. …
“The conservatives’ data-gathering operation … amasses information on millions of Americans and allows political strategists with AFP and other like-minded groups to pinpoint potential supporters and bombard them in person, via the phone and Internet with personalized messages.
“‘Our geo-targeting looks at everything from voting data to Census data to consumer-purchasing information,’ Phillips said. ‘We know their magazine subscriptions … we know the websites they prefer to surf.” …
“AFP helped organize some of the raucous protests at 2009 congressional town-hall-style meetings to oppose Obama’s health care plan ….”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48779155
Roger Rabbit Commentary: It’s scary that one family can amass so much power over our democratic process and citizens. It’s almost reminiscent of Hitler’s fledgling NSDAP, which started with a few guys in a beer hall and ended up killing millions.
@49 Don’t worry the Kochs’ money will set things straight in short order. Brainwashing begins at noon.
@ 51
And Godwin smirks.
You’re not even in an argument and you need the Nazi crutch.
Weakling.
That’s a typical dumb fuck comment from BooB the cereal clownservative.