Gallup: Romney and Obama tied 47% each

[blankslate]

the election results will surprise many.

A third party candidate pulling of a surprise win? Now that would be a real surprise.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

TBH I'm not following the polling closely at this time. However, what I have read about them claimed they were basing the weighting (Dem vs Repub) on 2008 turnout. I don't claim to know what the turnout will be, but if that assumption is wrong the election results will surprise many.

Fern

Not really. Nobody is going to be surprised with the outcome in November except for brain-dead Republicans like yourself that actually believe Romney is ahead. Watch carefully where the donor money starts going in the home stretch. If the GOP starts pouring its resources into House/Senate races it is an acknowledgement that they know this election is over.

 

[chowderhead]

Civitas (a Republican pollster based in NC) North Carolina:
Obama 49% (48%)
Romney 45% (49%)

Can Romney win if he is losing North Carolina? How about winning seniors by only +4 instead of +25 like the poll in July?

 

[bfdd]

Romney has lost lol @ the "race is close" non-sense.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well if you know exactly what is going to happen then why bother discussing it, why bother commenting here at all? People like you who speak in ultimatums are hilarious.

There's no problem with discussing anything -- that's what I was doing. I'm just saying that I think that site is, well, hilarious.

Also, I would love for you to back up the bolded, in detail. Not saying that isn't true, I just want to hear your explanation.

The flawed reasoning is mostly based around bogus assumptions of party identification. The author balks at the 24% Republican ID figure used in some polls, claiming that it's outlandish, when the truth is that Pew showed exactly that figure for 2012. The reason Republican ID is low is that many conservatives don't like what the party is doing now and so call themselves independents.

Rasmussen shows a higher figure because Rasmussen is a GOP-leaning partisan polling outfit and has been for some time. Their bias has been documented many times, and resulted in them doing very poorly in the 2010 election.

But let's just say Rasmussen's split is accurate. This "unskewed" (lol) guy claims to be adjusting other polls to Rasmussen's split -- yet when he does that, he comes up with numbers 5+ points more favorable to Romney than Rasmussen himself! How can all these polls have Romney up by 7 to 10 points when Rasmussen's own tracking poll has Obama up by 1 and hasn't had Romney with a lead of that size in weeks?

If you want to believe that nonsense, be my guest. I'll stick with people who have track records and credibility.

 

[chowderhead]

There's no problem with discussing anything -- that's what I was doing. I'm just saying that I think that site is, well, hilarious.



The flawed reasoning is mostly based around bogus assumptions of party identification. The author balks at the 24% Republican ID figure used in some polls, claiming that it's outlandish, when the truth is that Pew showed exactly that figure for 2012. The reason Republican ID is low is that many conservatives don't like what the party is doing now and so call themselves independents.

Rasmussen shows a higher figure because Rasmussen is a GOP-leaning partisan polling outfit and has been for some time. Their bias has been documented many times, and resulted in them doing very poorly in the 2010 election.

But let's just say Rasmussen's split is accurate. This "unskewed" (lol) guy claims to be adjusting other polls to Rasmussen's split -- yet when he does that, he comes up with numbers 5+ points more favorable to Romney than Rasmussen himself! How can all these polls have Romney up by 7 to 10 points when Rasmussen's own tracking poll has Obama up by 1 and hasn't had Romney with a lead of that size in weeks?

If you want to believe that nonsense, be my guest. I'll stick with people who have track records and credibility.

The number 1 predictor of candidate support is party identification (85+% of the Democrats/Republicans will support their party's nominee). By adjusting the party identification %, they can increase or decrease the polling numbers to match some narrative. As the election gets closer, the pollster can "readjust" to reflect what other pollsters are seeing as well.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

Rasmussen sees a much much higher Republican voting advantage over Democrats than other pollsters. We will see once the election gets closer if he adjusts those numbers.

 

[monovillage]

An Onion media bias piece. It's a joke folks.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/media-having-trouble-finding-right-angle-on-obamas,2703/?ref=auto

WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.

"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8. "Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in. After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."

Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried."
Since the killings took place, reporters across the country have struggled to come up with an appropriate take on the ruthless crime, with some wondering whether it warrants front-page coverage, and others questioning its relevance in a fast-changing media landscape.

"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?"

"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are a million different angles on this one."

 

[Charles Kozierok]

An Onion media bias piece. It's a joke folks.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/media-having-trouble-finding-right-angle-on-obamas,2703/?ref=auto

Over three years old. Guess you had to dig pretty deep to find that one.

I saw a study done earlier this year that showed the number of negative stories about Obama was much higher than about his Republican rivals. Even among the "mainstream" outlets.

 

[woolfe9999]

An Onion media bias piece. It's a joke folks.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/media-having-trouble-finding-right-angle-on-obamas,2703/?ref=auto

Pretty funny stuff, as always.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gallup-poll-rural-whites-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-oba,29677/

LOL this one is even better:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/

Seeking to limit the fallout from a videotaped speech in which he asserts 47 percent of Americans “pay no taxes” and do not take “personal responsibility and care for their lives,” Mitt Romney hastily called a press conference today to apologize personally to the “150 million starving, filthy beggars [he] might have offended.”

Saying that he deeply regretted his choice of words at a private $50,000-a-plate fundraising function in May—during which he argued “[his] job is not to worry” about the lower-earning half of the nation’s populace—Romney personally appealed to the country’s “dirt-caked garbage pickers and toothless street urchins” for forgiveness.

“First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there. My campaign is not about dividing this nation, but about bringing all sides together—the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters.”

“I am fully committed to building a better future for every American,” Romney continued, “and that means ensuring all 150 million grease-and-urine-soaked members of our society get a fair shake.”

The Romney campaign reportedly scrambled into damage-control mode after the video leaked Monday, issuing a statement late last night stating that the intended target of Romney’s remarks was ingrained big-government largesse, not the “hordes of uneducated, loathsome scum who unfortunately populate this country.”

However, with Romney’s comments continuing to dominate the news cycle today, the campaign opted to convene a press event to allow Romney to speak directly to the nation’s “grimy panhandlers and coke-addled whores” so that he could issue an apology and explain his familiarity with their struggles.

“I know just how hard it must be to get through a miserable, destitute life that is rife with crying babies whose shrieks consistently disrupt the affluent members of society who actually contribute something to this world,” said the GOP candidate, adding that he wanted to make amends for his recent statements and reach out to what he called the country’s “snaggle-toothed street people” and “hell-spawned savages.” “I know it can be challenging to wake each morning, covered in your own feces and refuse, and get back out there on the streets to beg for spare change and food scraps, always one step from dying right there in an alley.”

“I know your challenges, and I am ready to fight for you,” he added

Romney also said he recognized that the hardships of the nation’s low-earners are made more difficult by the fact that so “very, very many of them are drug-addicted, high-school-dropout single mothers and fathers who sleep in gutters while sewer rats nibble at their necrotic flesh.”

In an effort to right his campaign and rebuild his image, Romney promised to bring his message of compassion and economic opportunity to the “ramshackle, mud-floored huts” in which half of all U.S. residents live.

“Let me make this absolutely clear: I have the utmost respect for all of the filth-encrusted, lesion-covered degenerates of this nation,” Romney said. “In the coming weeks, I look forward to meeting real Americans in their squalid, roach-infested hellholes in every corner of this country. I promise to stand up for every one of you, even the 47 percent of you huddled together for warmth, fighting your own family members for moldy crusts of bread as you wallow in your own excrement.”

Added Romney, “And I look forward to serving you as your next president."

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well if you know exactly what is going to happen then why bother discussing it, why bother commenting here at all? People like you who speak in ultimatums are hilarious.

Also, I would love for you to back up the bolded, in detail. Not saying that isn't true, I just want to hear your explanation.

I'll back it up. They take polls and then re-weight them to fit Rasmussen's partisan trends.

So what does Rasmussen have to say about that?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/conservatives-embrace-alternate-polling-reality

"Even the founder of Rasmussen Reports, whose surveys often show higher Republican numbers, cast doubt on Chambers' methods: Scott Rasmussen told BuzzFeed in an e-mail that "you cannot compare partisan weighting from one polling firm to another."

"Different firms ask about partisan affiliation in different ways," explained Rasmussen. "Some ask how you are registered. Some ask what you consider yourselves. Some push for leaners, others do not. Some ask it at the beginning of a survey which provides a more stable response while others ask it at the end."

'Nuff said?

 

[Doppel]

Pretty funny stuff, as always.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gallup-poll-rural-whites-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-oba,29677/

LOL this one is even better:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/

It goes to show how outrageously stupid people are. Half of those 47% who he so clearly condemns and does not give a sh*t for will continue to vote for him. Those people really are idiots and lacking in personal responsibility.

 

[shadow9d9]

538.

 

[xBiffx]

The flawed reasoning is mostly based around bogus assumptions of party identification. The author balks at the 24% Republican ID figure used in some polls, claiming that it's outlandish, when the truth is that Pew showed exactly that figure for 2012. The reason Republican ID is low is that many conservatives don't like what the party is doing now and so call themselves independents.

Rasmussen shows a higher figure because Rasmussen is a GOP-leaning partisan polling outfit and has been for some time. Their bias has been documented many times, and resulted in them doing very poorly in the 2010 election.

But let's just say Rasmussen's split is accurate. This "unskewed" (lol) guy claims to be adjusting other polls to Rasmussen's split -- yet when he does that, he comes up with numbers 5+ points more favorable to Romney than Rasmussen himself! How can all these polls have Romney up by 7 to 10 points when Rasmussen's own tracking poll has Obama up by 1 and hasn't had Romney with a lead of that size in weeks?

If you want to believe that nonsense, be my guest. I'll stick with people who have track records and credibility.

So your whole premise that these unskewed polls are BS is because they show Romney ahead by a larger margin than Rasmussen and that doesn't sit well with you? This is what I figured. You claimed they were unscientific and then put your opinion out there as fact to prove it. Typical. I didn't expect anything else, just wanted everyone else to see how much you blow smoke around here.

Most polls are using turnout for 2008 and the unskewed poll site says that simply isn't going to be the case in 2012. Now, you may not agree on how they "unskewed" those numbers, or basically gave them a different skew, but you can't argue with that original premise. But somehow you still think that 2012 is going to look exactly like 2008. LOL

 

[xBiffx]

I'll back it up. They take polls and then re-weight them to fit Rasmussen's partisan trends.

So what does Rasmussen have to say about that?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/conservatives-embrace-alternate-polling-reality



'Nuff said?

They didn't use Rasmussen's numbers, although the turnout estimates were much more like Rasmussen's. There are still differences though.

Also, is that quote from him supposed to mean anything? You really think that he is going to say something good about a competitor? He gets paid by people using his polling data over the next guy so it makes no sense for him to encourage another poll. You really think Ford is going to try to sell you a Chrysler? Good job proving nothing.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They didn't use Rasmussen's numbers, although the turnout estimates were much more like Rasmussen's. There are still differences though.

Also, is that quote from him supposed to mean anything? You really think that he is going to say something good about a competitor? He gets paid by people using his polling data over the next guy so it makes no sense for him to encourage another poll. You really think Ford is going to try to sell you a Chrysler? Good job proving nothing.

Well, see your argument is garbage since the site you linked is not a polling firm. It's a distortion site used to spin data to a desired result.

Does unskewedpolls.com do their own polling in direct competition with Rasmussen?

 

[xBiffx]

Well, see your argument is garbage since the site you linked is not a polling firm. It's a distortion site used to spin data to a desired result.

Does unskewedpolls.com do their own polling in direct competition with Rasmussen?

You really want me to answer when you stance is already that they are a distortion site? Sorry, not gonna bite.

Thanks though for saving time and displaying your bias for all to see beforehand.

 

[jackstar7]

Unskewedpolls seems to be down.

I'd like to check it out myself, but apparently cannot do.

 

[xBiffx]

Unskewedpolls seems to be down.

I'd like to check it out myself, but apparently cannot do.

Working here. Its a conspiracy. They don't want you do see them.

http://unskewedpolls.com/

 

[jackstar7]

Working here. Its a conspiracy. They don't want you do see them.

http://unskewedpolls.com/

Do you have it cached or something? It's not working for me in any browser from your link, or via google.

I will say that the comments on the stories you posted certainly show a leaning towards confirmation bias.

 

[xBiffx]

Do you have it cached or something? It's not working for me in any browser from your link, or via google.

I will say that the comments on the stories you posted certainly show a leaning towards confirmation bias.

I may have it cached...

I am sure these poll results are not unskewed, but rather skewed a different way. But its still interesting to see what happens when another model is used.

 

[jackstar7]

Here's something strange, but I wonder if it's a matter of someone else registering the account before the guy running UnSP could get there.

When I try to check their twitter feed:

"Account suspended

The profile you are trying to view has been suspended."

 

[Ryan]

The Obama lead widens yet again on Gallup - Obama 48%...Romney 45%.

 

[xBiffx]

Here's something strange, but I wonder if it's a matter of someone else registering the account before the guy running UnSP could get there.

When I try to check their twitter feed:

"Account suspended

The profile you are trying to view has been suspended."

You may have stumbled onto something. I am curious to see if this goes anywhere or if they just forgot to pay some bills. Keep us posted, please.

 

[monovillage]

It's working now. I'd think that it's just straight out bullshit, but it's on the internet so it must be true.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Wise analysts will say to follow the money.

If you see big time GOP donors shift their resources to the House/Senate races it's an acknowledgement that this is all over.