Any reliable polls?

[BooHoo]

Are there any polls out there known to be accurate? I don't recall which polls were used in the news report but they are saying that Obama is gaining....I can't take 4 more years if him!!

[Captain Obvious]

According to the inherent "poll" here, Obama's not getting a single vote.

How can you question the reliability of that?

[Peter1469]

Watch Real Clear Politics. They list all the polls and do an average of them. They also run some of their own. They have gotten closer than most in the last few years.

But only the polls around the election are going to be close to accurate.

[Captain Obvious]

Watch Real Clear Politics. They list all the polls and do an average of them. They also run some of their own. They have gotten closer than most in the last few years.

But only the polls around the election are going to be close to accurate.

Because of pre and exit polling.

[Peter1469]

Because of pre and exit polling.

Because people may change their mind at the last minute.

For whatever reason exit polls tend to be very inaccurate. Perhaps people lie to the pollsters.

[Deadwood]

According to the inherent "poll" here, Obama's not getting a single vote.

How can you question the reliability of that?

What?


You're kidding right?

There's Corny Grunt...oh, wait, he's an Englisman.

What about Cigar? Oh wait, that's Owebama's user name.

Guess you're right

[Deadwood]

Because people may change their mind at the last minute.

For whatever reason exit polls tend to be very inaccurate. Perhaps people lie to the pollsters.



According to studies done at McGill University in Montreal, people resent being asked how they voted.


Exit polls are illegal in Canada, no such activity is allowed "within sight of a poling station."

But then again, we still use pencils to mark ballots. At least we don't have a problem with hanging chads.

[Cigar]

Polls are all liberal, except those that have Mitt up by double digits.

[roadmaster]

We will only know for sure when the election is over.

[BooHoo]

Watch Real Clear Politics. They list all the polls and do an average of them. They also run some of their own. They have gotten closer than most in the last few years.

But only the polls around the election are going to be close to accurate.

Thanks! I'll check it out!!:smiley:

[GCF]

Polls are all liberal, except those that have Mitt up by double digits.

Yea like the Carville an Greenberg Polling! LOL

[RollingWave]

aside from Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/), another rather famous site for doing a compliation is Five Thirthyeight (http://"http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com). it's started by Nate Silver, who made quite a name for himself by doing baseball stats analysis and starting the Baseball prospectus site, he then switched path (sorta, he's still doing the same things just for a different field) and started donig poll analysis, his method seem to be a combination of weighted poll average (accounting for the poll maker's previous results versus outcome to determine if they have a systematic bias) and also some other factors like stock market and unemployment rates etc... it's a pretty complex system to be sure.

Silver predicted correctly 49 out of 50 states in the 08 election (the one he missed was by 1% and it went to Obama) and also all the 35 Senate race of 08.

(though i'd have to warn you, you probably won't like to see the results its currently projecting)

[Trinnity]

Are there any polls out there known to be accurate? I don't recall which polls were used in the news report but they are saying that Obama is gaining....I can't take 4 more years if him!!Rasmussen and Gallop. Those are the only two I trust.

Now the White House is targeting them by reviving a dead lawsuit, in order to intimidate them. Thug tactics, from this admin and the Dept of Injustice.....why am I NOT surprised. The Obama/ValJar/Holder team is pure evil in shoe leather.

Margin of error: DOJ sues Gallup (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79992.html)

[Mainecoons]

Someone has actually looked at this question:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/11/the-list-which-presidential-polls-were-most-accurate/

Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate in 2008. Pew is a liberal organization but one that stresses integrity. They are the only liberal research organization that is trustworthy IMO.

[patrickt]

Reliable poll is an oxymoron. Most seem to over sample Democrats but that's just their attempt to compensate for dead people voting and other fraud.

[Trinnity]

Most of the polls are a fraud. The one that matters is on Nov 6th. I think a backlash is coming and Obama will get a shock on election night.

[Trinnity]

Obama Thugs Rough Up Gallup For Polls They Don’t Like (http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-thugs-rough-up-gallup-for-polls-they-dont-like/)


The Obama Administration’s Justice Department announced, on August 22nd, that it was joining a lawsuit by a former Gallup employee and whistleblower against the Gallup Corporation for allegedly overcharging the government on polling work. The announcement comes on the heels of a confrontation between Gallup staffers and Obama strategist David Axelrod in which he accused the company of using out of date sampling methods which, he said, generated polling data negative to the president.


The whistleblower’s lawsuit has been kicking around since 2009, but the Justice Department joined the suit only after the run-in between Axelrod and Gallup in April of this year. In a scene right out of a typical authoritarian regime, Fox News reports that “employees at the venerable Gallup polling firm suggested they felt threatened by Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod when he questioned the methodology of a mid-April poll showing Mitt Romney leading the president – according to internal emails published Thursday.”


That poll that sent Axelrod ballistic showed Romney leading Obama 48-43 percent.



(see link for full article)

[IMPress Polly]

The facts may not be convenient for Romney and the Republicans at this point, but don't delude yourselves: they are the facts, and even the nation's most prominent Republicans from Rush Limbaugh to Laura Ingraham to Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard to Romney aides themselves (at least one anyway) and beyond acknowledge as much. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/48980426#48980426) The linked video articulates my thoughts on why pretty effectively.

Frankly, I myself am (pleasantly) surprised. I'm a very sober forecaster when it comes to politics. When you consider the present state of the economy (especially when it comes to the plight of working people) and the spending advantages that Republicans have to work with this year overall, not to mention the math of what Senate seats are up for election this year (the vast majority being ones held by Democrats), this should be an easy year for the Republican ticket. Yet somehow, despite all of these advantages, they're having an amazingly difficult time. I was actually slightly worried about the potential involved in selecting Paul Ryan as the running mate, considering that a far rightist such as him could theoretically unite the party by inspiring its otherwise somewhat alienated base elements. (I had been hoping for Romney to pick another aloof relative moderate who couldn't help him with that. :p ) Instead though, the Romney campaign has opted not to bother making the case for Ryan's positions and record, but instead to turn him into a sort of second Romney who just dodges everything that might be deemed risky...which has the same practical effect as if he had chosen another aloof party moderate: it dampens the support of his party base. If the Romney campaign hopes to win, they'd better invest in their risk in the Ryan selection and try making the case for the Ryan budget, including for the partial privatization of Medicare that it includes. They can't just ignore things like that because the president's campaign and the Democrats more generally are picking up the Romney ticket's slack and will certainly do so a whole bunch more during the TV debates next month. People don't trust Mr. Romney. That's his biggest problem. Now they're creating a situation wherein people increasingly don't feel that they can trust Paul Ryan either.

But the surprising good news (for me, bad news for the majority here) doesn't stop there. To my astonishment, President Obama was able to out-fundraise the Romney campaign last month. (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/10/160860410/obama-fundraising-edges-out-romney-in-august) While that doesn't change the fact that Romney is still raising more money when you factor in Super PAC money, I had expected Romney to be winning the money game in every sense consistently from the summer on. What this development suggests is that it may actually be possible for the president to be truly competitive with Mr. Romney when it comes to the amount of TV ads and so forth he'll be able to put out, even in the last leg of the campaign season. In anything resembling a level playing field of that nature, I very strongly suspect that President Obama will continue to outshine his competition.

But it gets even better (or even worse for the rightists here). At this point it's appearing increasingly likely to me that not only will the Democrats retain both the presidency and the Senate this year, but also that they may well actually be able to go on the offensive and regain control of the House of Representatives on top of it. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has recently indicated that she's aiming for a Democratic pickup of at least 27 seats in the House (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/pelosi-house-democrats-hoping-for-27-seat-gain-20120904), describing this as the "most conservative, cold-blooded, clear-eyed, worst-case scenario", referencing a recent Democracy Corps poll showing the Democratic candidate ahead by six or more points in the 27 seats in question. That by itself would be sufficient to flip overall control of the House back to the Democrats. Of course though, this is still mostly pre-GOP-spending-blitz (and Republicans overall have a lot more money to spend in this election cycle), so it is possible that that may yet be an optimistic forecast. But it encourages me nonetheless.

So, as someone who sides with Obama and the Democrats, I'm rather optimistic at this point. A lot more so than I was back in June, when I was starting to brace myself for the exact opposite outcome wherein the Republicans stood to plausibly regain overall control of the whole government. That could still happen, but it's starting to look like a remote possibility at this point.

[Trinnity]

Link is MXNBC....LOL. FAIL

[IMPress Polly]

There were three links in my above post, only one of which is to an MSNBC segment. Plus...frankly, they present a lot of facts therein. Ignoring facts because you don't like the source presenting them isn't going to change what they are. We'll see which perspective fails in less than two months.

[Mainecoons]

If the Democrats regain control of the entire government, that would definitely finish things off for the U.S. Did you learn nothing from their first disastrous two years? Did you learn nothing from when the Republicans had full control?

Do you learn anything from history?

[Trinnity]

I was of course referring to the first link.
And anything that comes from MXNBC has NO cred. Period.

[IMPress Polly]

Trinnity wrote:
I was of course referring to the first link.
And anything that comes from MXNBC has NO cred. Period.

I give my opponents more legitimacy than that. I don't consider everything on Fox false just because I don't like the partisan motive behind the presentation. I find it more objective to lend my opponents some credibility, even while obviously yes considering the input of multiple sources for verification purposes. But like I said, what the facts are and aren't will be proven by developments. So we'll see who's right and who's not in November.

[Trinnity]

FOX is a bona fide news network. MXNBC is absolutely NOT; no one in their right mind would say it is.

[IMPress Polly]

Trinnity wrote really big:
FOX is a bona fide news network. MXNBC is absolutely NOT; no one in their right mind would say it is.

All of the cable news networks reflect a particular type of position. Fox is a pro-Republican network. MSNBC is a pro-Democratic network. CNN is a network for moderate independents.

[Mainecoons]

Thanks for that last sentence Polly, I needed a good laugh this morning.

:rofl:

[IMPress Polly]

...Of course there could be the question of what it is you're laughing, but oooookay...

[Mainecoons]

Your last sentence in your post, as clearly stated. Do you have trouble reading?

[IMPress Polly]

No, you just have a bizarre sense of humor. Kind of like you showed here as well. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5770-The-Chicago-Teacher-Strike-My-Position?p=127635&viewfull=1#post127635) I mean I'm sure the prospect of children not being able to read at grade level is funny to someone, but I'm not sure why.

[Captain Obvious]

Foxnews = MSNBC.

Same shit, different spin.

[hanger4]

There were three links in my above post, only one of which is to an MSNBC segment. Plus...frankly, they present a lot of facts therein. Ignoring facts because you don't like the source presenting them isn't going to change what they are. We'll see which perspective fails in less than two months.

Polls are not facts.

Facts don't come with a "margin of error".

[Captain Obvious]

Facts don't come with a "margin of error".

Tell that to Cigar.

[hanger4]

Tell that to Cigar.

Reckon it'd do any good ?? :grin:

[Captain Obvious]

Reckon it'd do any good ?? :grin:

Nope

[Trinnity]

All of the cable news networks reflect a particular type of position. Fox is a pro-Republican network. MSNBC is a pro-Democratic network. CNN is a network for moderate independents.FOX is a news network. MXNBC is not a news network, it's a propaganda channel for the DNC. Please don't alter my quote (by adding "Trinnity wrote really big") or anyone else's in the future. I'm a member here just like anyone else; that's improper and I'm offended by it.

[RollingWave]

I find it hard to see Fox news as any more crediable than MSNBC, both are ridiculasly bias towards one end. on the other hand CNN is just dumb and lazy.

but anyway.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/election_2012

Rasmussen has Obama : 247 Romney : 196 toss up 95 with about 49 of the 95 tossups leaning Obama. (Which would be a total of 296 vs 242) (I find it interesting though that this one would have Obama winning despite losing Ohio and Florida, that would be a rare one.)

Rasmussen was seen as very accuarte in 08, though 538 give it a very very slight Republican tilt when comparing it to results in 08 and 10 elections. suffice to say that if even that poll seens Romney losing at this point then the GOP better have a exellent debate in store. (though IMHO, given the rather restricted and scripted nature of the debates nowadays, one has to mess up REALLY bad to get crushed in them. which isn't beneath Joe Biden obviously but even he may not totally mess it up.)

That, or pray for a Lehmen brother moment in the next couple weeks that goes in their favor (not impossible either, but the timing has to be pretty good.)

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

Gallop as of today has Obama by 6%, which would be pretty devastating, though Obama is probably at the height of his convention bounce at this point. but Kerry actually HAD A LEAD after the 04 convention, which doesn't bold too well for Romney either.


Gallop's stats show that since 1952 the candidate with a lead in their poll before the convention won 12 out of 15 times. so Romney is looking at a pretty bad odd here.

No matter how you cut it at this point, Romney isn't doing too well. he's not going to get crushed 08 style (but they could have nominated a strawman and he also wouldn't get crushed like 08) . but he need a pretty strong push at the last stage if he were to turn this around.

I guess you could argue that all the polls are hijacke by Libs, but at the end of the day that hardly seem like a sustainable argument in the longer run, I've been watching these polls for the last couple of months and they have been fairly consistent. almost always showing Obama with a tiny to slightly more than small lead. given the amount of date and different background / funders of all these organizations, it's hard to see them all comming to the similar conclusion and it's the work of a small group's manipulation. when in fact over the last decade or so most have been relatively accurate, and the number of them having a better poll than result for the GOP isn't noticablly more than that of the Dems.


Polling is a tough busniess, there are alot of problems involved, sampling is a problem, the fact that more and more people have no fixed phone line is a problem, the time you poll at is a problem, and other inherient issue (like who are more likely to answer a poll) is a problem as well. it has generally made strides, nowadays robo call polls only going on to fixed phones are increasingly out of the mainstream. more and more pollsters are making a lot of adjustments to sampling and all that. for them it is inherently bad for busnises and reputation if their polls ends up being very far away from the result.

[RollingWave]

Also, another aggravated poll collection similar to RCP is Talking Points Memo

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[IMPress Polly]

UPDATE:

The Last Word presents further responses from Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, and Rupert Murdoch to the president's (undisputed outside of these web forums) post-convention poll bump. (http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/48996837#48996837) Different forces offer Romney different advice. This can be basically boiled down to two main camps: the far right Tea Party camp, which is advising Romney to turn further to the right and get more hostile and start calling Obama a socialist and that sort of thing...them on the one hand...and, on the other hand, the establishment wing that's headed up by Karl Rove and represented here by Fox News boss Rupert Murdoch, which, in contrast, advises Romney to get somewhat more moderate and focus on appealing to centrist independent voters on the theory that the far right Republican base has "nowhere else to go". Naturally the MSNBC peeps agree with the latter advice. (It is, after all, a partisan propaganda network.) I, on the other hand, definitely view the Tea Party line as the one that would, in fact, be the most strategically advantageous to Romney at this point. In contrast to what Mr. Murdoch says, alienated Republicans do, in fact, have non-Romney options. Namely, they can stay home on election day, which would have the same practical effect as voting for President Obama. And right now, in view of the failure of their convention relative to that of the Democrats, they're clearly NOT enthusiastic about their candidate anymore. From a strategic standpoint, Romney needs to focus disproportionately on coddling them.

What's truly interesting here though is that they highlight the fact that the ideological battle lines between these two main Republican camps are already being drawn in preparation for the possibility of an electoral defeat in November. The factions are already preparing political lines that will correspond to their respective responses to any such defeat. The Tea Partiers will argue that any defeat was the result of ideological impurities, for example.

[RollingWave]

Oh I've seen far more right winged boards than this... most conservatives here are well within the rational zone more often than not. espeically if the subject doesn't involve the words Obama :tongue:

[IMPress Polly]

Trinnity:

Here's an interesting development: a new Fox News poll finds President Obama with a 5-point lead (Obama: 48%, Romney: 43%). (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/) Now before, you had claimed that Fox News was a credible source. So if indeed post-DNC polls showing Obama emerging with a definite lead again are all a left wing media conspiracy to re-elect President Obama as you claim...then does that now make Fox News a left wing outlet dedicated to getting President Obama re-elected? Or is Fox News still a credible source of information?

[Cigar]

Ooops ... you're going to pay.

[Peter1469]

Trinnity:

Here's an interesting development: a new Fox News poll finds President Obama with a 5-point lead (Obama: 48%, Romney: 43%). (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/) Now before, you had claimed that Fox News was a credible source. So if indeed post-DNC polls showing Obama emerging with a definite lead again are all a left wing media conspiracy to re-elect President Obama as you claim...then does that now make Fox News a left wing outlet dedicated to getting President Obama re-elected? Or is Fox News still a credible source of information?

Wasn't that a poll of registered voters? Wait until they start to poll likely voters - some have, and those narrow the gap by 1 point.

[IMPress Polly]

It was a poll of likely voters. Nice try though.

The RNC was supposed to be the revitalizing factor for the Romney campaign. Didn't happen. The Romney campaign is now telling their supporters not to panic. What that means is that THEY are panicking.

[Peter1469]

It was a poll of likely voters. Nice try though.

The RNC was supposed to be the revitalizing factor for the Romney campaign. Didn't happen. The Romney campaign is now telling their supporters not to panic. What that means is that THEY are panicking.

I was just asking a question.

[IMPress Polly]

No problem. I was just providing an answer. (I'm just long-winded and explanatory. :laugh:)