Some polls now have Romney ahead.

[Engineer]

Interesting they found a way to reduce their total included aggregated polls to withhold polls that looked better for Obama and keep the RCP average at 0.4. Meh.

New ABC poll (Obama +3) pushes Obama to a +0.7 lead on average.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Bogus "leaked" "internal polls" -- oldest trick in the book.

 

[Fern]

Bogus "leaked" "internal polls" -- oldest trick in the book.

Nah.

Rich Beeson, the Political Director for the Romney campaign was on TV yesterday talking about their polling (turnout modeling etc.), the article sounds accurate.

Again, everyone is modeling turnout differently (at least those that do model) so everyone is getting different results.

Fern

 

[randomrogue]

At this point it's almost impossible for Romney to win unless he cheats. The sheer volume of polling data and polling firms doing the data from both sides show that Romney has almost no chance to win and it's been this way for weeks and trending worse for him.

I don't understand why anyone would want Romney to win though. That's the scariest thing. It doesn't matter that Obama wins tomorrow, there will still be millions of people who voted for Romney and that says terrible things about the population and values of our country.

 

[ivwshane]

At this point it's almost impossible for Romney to win unless he cheats. The sheer volume of polling data and polling firms doing the data from both sides show that Romney has almost no chance to win and it's been this way for weeks and trending worse for him.

I don't understand why anyone would want Romney to win though. That's the scariest thing. It doesn't matter that Obama wins tomorrow, there will still be millions of people who voted for Romney and that says terrible things about the population and values of our country.

Have you ever heard of a Romney supporter whose reasoning for supporting Romney was because of his policies and not the, "he's not Obama" argument? I haven't.

 

[jackstar7]

My "gut" says Romney wins. My mind says "lets wait and see". We'll know tomorrow.

You really put it out there.

Not everyone is willing to say "No idea" and stand by it like that.

Kudos.



Vote Obama for a moderate Romney!

 

[buckshot24]

I don't understand why anyone would want Romney to win though. That's the scariest thing. It doesn't matter that Obama wins tomorrow, there will still be millions of people who voted for Romney and that says terrible things about the population and values of our country.

I feel the exact opposite. Obama is a disaster and the fact that Romney isn't up by huge numbers is the biggest problem with our country. We're going to have to go broke before we can make the changes we need to make it seems.

 

[Phokus]

Interesting post about leaked internal polling:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...14171&perpage=40&pagenumber=260#post409280282

I think the whole idea behind internal polling is this:

TRUE internal polling is the kind that campaigns don't release to the public. This kind of polling is where the campaigns are interested in knowing the most accurate information possible about their standing in the various states and with different kinds of voters so they can most effectively make changes in where they campaign, how they campaign, which voters to target etc. There is no benefit to making artificially good news here.

If the campaign is down around 2% in Ohio, it's important to know that because then maybe more canvassing and calling is needed there, and if the polling shows that the candidate is weakest among union workers, or suburban housewives or whatever, perhaps a targeted ad campaign towards that audience is in order. Or, if the campaign is down 5% in Ohio despite massive ad campaigns and canvassing, perhaps Ohio is hopeless and the electoral votes are better made up in other states (but you still put on a happy face/happytalk for Ohio lest you be seen as conceding the race).

Getting inaccurate information in private internals serves no purpose except to make people feel better until the race comes crashing down around them.

The purpose of LEAKING internals, which could be either real numbers cherrypicked from a series of samples, or totally made up, is simply to try to combat a media narrative that your team is cooked, lest your voters get discouraged by a flood of bad news and turn out less than polls even show and cause a downticket disaster, or cause you to lose close states that you might otherwise win by a hair. Obama's campaign was criticized earlier (perhaps during the post Debate #1 Dark Times) for leaking internals, can't remember whether they were national or for what state, and rightly so I think.

It's almost certainly a sign of weakness. Obama's people have no need to leak internals right now because the vast majority of public polling, that is not affiliated with their campaign, is showing a won race for them. That data, barring heavy Unskewing, is showing a lost race for Romney and that narrative in and of itself could cost him a close race in CO, FL, NH or NC and cause downticket harm, hence the perceived need to shoot some holes in the "Roms going down hard" narrative.

And, unlike pollsters, campaigns don't have accountability for accuracy in these leaked internals. If Romney's leaked internals are grossly off the mark, the worst thing that happens is that he lost the election anyway. Even the professional pollster that does the internals for him will be forgiven, because everyone will understand the need to float bullshit numbers for media purposes in certain situations. On the other hand if Rasmussen, PPP, or Gallup call every race in the wrong direction and off by 8 points then their reputation as a pollster is shot and they are no longer useful for their primary business providing polls for media coverage.

 

[ivwshane]

I feel the exact opposite. Obama is a disaster and the fact that Romney isn't up by huge numbers is the biggest problem with our country. We're going to have to go broke before we can make the changes we need to make it seems.

Id love to hear your definition of "disaster".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Rich Beeson, the Political Director for the Romney campaign was on TV yesterday talking about their polling (turnout modeling etc.), the article sounds accurate.

Okay, bogus non-leaked internal polls.

There is no way in hell that I believe that Romney's internal polls show him winning. It's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

And it happens every time, unless the election is truly a laugher.

A few from 2008:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2121695/posts

http://swampland.time.com/2008/11/02/mccain-camp-things-are-getting-tight/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/01/mccain-mantains-hope-for-victory/

 

[jackstar7]

I feel the exact opposite. Obama is a disaster and the fact that Romney isn't up by huge numbers is the biggest problem with our country. We're going to have to go broke before we can make the changes we need to make it seems.

Please do feel encouraged to elaborate on "disaster".

 

[hal2kilo]

Damn, looks like it's going to be Romney after all. Every stock I've ever jumped on that he's recommended has been a loser.

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=28f9dfb4-b822-41d2-8dac-b3e510e964fb

 

[DrewSG3]

Damn, looks like it's going to be Romney after all. Every stock I've ever jumped on that he's recommended has been a loser.

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=28f9dfb4-b822-41d2-8dac-b3e510e964fb

Did you follow his advice and get on Bear Sterns stock Summer 2008?

 

[hal2kilo]

Did you follow his advice and get on Bear Sterns stock Summer 2008?

If it was a winner then, no.

 

[randomrogue]

I feel the exact opposite. Obama is a disaster and the fact that Romney isn't up by huge numbers is the biggest problem with our country. We're going to have to go broke before we can make the changes we need to make it seems.

Yes but the reason you're saying this is because you're part of the problem. Clearly highly uneducated and unintelligent and a sheep who believes things that Rush Limbaugh tells you. You are unable to make independent decisions or read sources of information that differ from right wing talk radio. When numbers stare you in the face you pretend that they aren't real and make up excuses about how different numbers should be in their place because you "feel" like they should. You use words like "disaster" about Obama when things are better today than they were 4 years ago. I'm not saying Obama is good since I don't believe that at all but "disaster" is a really ignorant thing to say.

Vote for a 3rd party candidate if you don't like Obama. I'm all for that. Get their numbers higher so they can get some monetary support in 4 years. However voting for a tragic example of a political candidate like Romney is clearly self destructive.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Okay, bogus non-leaked internal polls.

There is no way in hell that I believe that Romney's internal polls show him winning. It's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

And it happens every time, unless the election is truly a laugher.

A few from 2008:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2121695/posts

http://swampland.time.com/2008/11/02/mccain-camp-things-are-getting-tight/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/01/mccain-mantains-hope-for-victory/

Tomorrow we will see whos lieing. I went threw the RON paul Thing The Media was 100% behind Romney and the scewed the polls which was clear after delegate counts in a number of states . Now the media is scewing those polls in favor of Obama . Which turns out to be a good thing . Record votes this year. Dead people illegals fixed voting machines . By the time we know who won . Impeachment proceeding will be well underway . The Supreme idiots will declare Romney the winner to spare the nation another impeachment of a low life brainless twat

 

[Farang]

Okay, bogus non-leaked internal polls.

There is no way in hell that I believe that Romney's internal polls show him winning. It's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

And it happens every time, unless the election is truly a laugher.

A few from 2008:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2121695/posts

http://swampland.time.com/2008/11/02/mccain-camp-things-are-getting-tight/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/01/mccain-mantains-hope-for-victory/

Very interesting to compare, I'd note a losing campaign seems to argue for a tie rather than a lead.

I wonder if Romney's own people are speaking the truth out loud behind the scenes. Much how, I think around the end of October McCain's people told him he wasn't going to win. I believe this was before the third debate even.

 

[ivwshane]

If Romney wins Ohio I'm calling it election fraud (not voter fraud, election fraud):

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

 

[PJABBER]

If Romney wins Ohio I'm calling it election fraud (not voter fraud, election fraud):

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

When Romney wins Ohio, I'm calling it victory. Not voter fraud, victory.

You can smell it coming, can't you?

 

[Engineer]

If Romney wins Ohio I'm calling it election fraud (not voter fraud, election fraud):

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

Wow...just wow. I don't care what side you are or are not on, this has the ability to just shit on your vote. SMH

 

[Fern]

If Romney wins Ohio I'm calling it election fraud (not voter fraud, election fraud):

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

First thing to look at is voter turnout. There is a lot of disagreement on the right ratio of D's vs. R's.

If the ratio is the close, unlike many models predicting an Obama win, then a Romney win wouldn't likely be fraud, just an underestimate of R participation in many polls. Given the higher enthusiasm level for the R's it wouldn't be surprising if they were under sampled.

OTOH, if the D's do have a big turnout advantage yet Obama loses one should be suspicious. It would mean D's voting for Romney.

A machine can change your vote, but cannot change your party affiliation, so we should know the correct turnout ratio no matter what.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Do the machines track party affiliation?

 

[Screech]

A machine can change your vote, but cannot change your party affiliation, so we should know the correct turnout ratio no matter what.

Fern

Hey Fern,

I don't know a lot about how these sorts of things are tabulated but am very interested in them -- could you perhaps expand on the above? I'm wondering how it is that the first could be changed but the second could not be.

Thanks,
Screech

 

[Engineer]

Hey Fern,

I don't know a lot about how these sorts of things are tabulated but am very interested in them -- could you perhaps expand on the above? I'm wondering how it is that the first could be changed but the second could not be.

Thanks,
Screech

AFAIK, the party affiliation of the voter is not taken by the machine. That would need to be pulled from the voting books and then from the state records, which would be time consuming to say the least.

Also, why only 39 counties and not all of them? There are 88 counties in Ohio. Wonder what the breakdown of polls in those 39 counties show or how have they voted in the past?

This smells of corruption....might not be but sure doesn't pass the smell test. Every machine needs to be rolled back and re-certified to the correct, unmodified software, unless there is known bug. In that case, every machine in the state needs to be corrected for the known bug (which I doubt exists).

 

[Fern]

Do the machines track party affiliation?

I'm in NC.

They have manual lists showing who votes, that includes your party affiliation.

I did early voting. They keyed in a bunch of data, including my name and precinct. Obviously so I can't vote twice. I would imagine that included my party affiliation too.

I can't remember what they input into the voting machine when I voted on (the regular) election day, but it has never been as much as what they did for early voting.

Fern