Gallup had Carter up 10 in Sept 1980. Other cases mentioned. they tend to swing wildly. the curious thing is that the ‘house effect’ for almost all these polls is in the Democrat direction.

I think EVEN IF the polls really are ‘accurate’ in that they reflect the current voter sentiment the REAL QUESTION is not being asked in this election, and if it is, then Obama is toast:
- Has Obama been a good steward of the economy?
given the 8% unemployment, 23 million unemployed, low growth, massive deficit, etc. How can anyone say “yes” to that?

- Does Obama have any new ideas to improve the economy in the future?
A: Higher taxes and $6 trillion MORE in deficit spending is his answer. Really?!? His numbers dont add up, his budget proposals are a joke, and now Obama is sending us off the fiscal cliff.

Obama has failed, his policies are killing jobs and harming the economy. This is what Romney and our side have to keep hammering home. Do it, get through the media smoke screen and the ‘noise’, and Romney beats Obama by 5 points.

I saw a bumper sticker that said, “Four more years? To do what?”

have to emit obama and his team is some slick ppl. the chi machine is at full power. they put out misleading job numbers so they can have a big boost in job in oct while ppl are early voting…

Really? I doubt Akin has much impact outside of MO.

When you properly weigh the polls, Romney is leading across the board. No way Obozo gets elected to a second term. Not in this economy. Not with his leftist record. After the debates I think we’ll be talking about a Romney LANDSLIDE with coattails bringing the Senate into the R column. Mark my words.

Not so great in 2010…http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/?gwh=53FEECF670514FB88A8696D2D5FDDF89

Thanks, I do believe Rasmussen’s track record of accuracy, ie his predictions relative to actual outcomes is very good, among the best of polling outfits. As to the other national polls, I don’t look seriously at any poll with a D+ higher than 3 and an Ind under 25, and that includes the ridiculous Fox poll out tonite. if you look at internals of that poll, two thirds agree with Romney about the 47%, and three quarters think we need a change, yet Obama is ahead by 5%.

I believe these state polls and some of the national polls are an attempt to give Obama a lift going into October, which is going to be much less favorable for him than September was. And an attempt to blunt the advantage GOP has in early voting and registration.

As to the difference in national polls vs state polls — as I have said, I believe Romney is winning and will win the popular vote. And I don’t think it will be close. Look at the advantage in registration, the turnout in 2010, the vote against Obama in the Dem primaries. The EC is much harder for Romney because Obama has an advantage from 2008. He doesn’t have to win all or even most of the swing states yet he can get to 270 fairly easily. So that one I am following closely.

I was recently looking at the Gallup daily Tracking results from 2008 which can be found here: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html
the data there is not encouraging for Romney. Obama is currently 1 point ahead of where he was at the same time in the campaign vs. McCain…. now the Delta between Obama and Romney and Obama and McCain is the same. So that 1 point uptick is really probably just statistical noise.
Note also, I find it hard to believe that Fox News and the WSJ would have Pro-Obama demographic profiling. and yet http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/obama-has-edge-over-romney-in-three-battleground-states/ Fox is telling us Obama leads in the swing states.
And the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578004562877476102.html shows Obama 50 to Romney’s 45.
Lets be honest with ourselves here. can we really believe that Fox and WSJ are in the tank for Obama??

This site is being overrun with trolls! Romney is winning and only the Dumocrats or the liberal media think otherwise. WSJ and Fox News are either altering their numbers because they’re too afraid to put themselves as outliers, or because Obozo is threatening to yank their broadcasting licenses. Wouldn’t surprise me that man is as crooked as they come.

I’m seriously wondering if Romney should give up on Ohio and focus more on Colorado and Nevada. He just doesn’t seem to be making much progress at all in Ohio, most likely because of the auto bailout and the low unemployment numbers. NV and CO are well within the margin of error. More importantly, the economic headwinds favor Romney in those states. For godsakes, Nevada has the highest unemployment rate of any state. It shouldn’t even be a close race there.

If Romney wins NV, CO, IA, IN, FL, NC, and VA, and assuming every other state stays the same as 2008, both candidates end up with 269 votes. The newly elected House of Representatives chooses the President in January, and Romney wins. Hell, he may even get lucky and pick up NH, in which case it’s game over for Obama.

Think about it.

I think it’s clear that Romney definitely does not have momentum (yet?), but also that the race is still tight, the result on Nov. 6 is unpredictable, and in the next few weeks we could be headed towards a landslide for either candidate.

In the MidWest, Obama has one very strong point: the auto-bailout. We need to bring down his popularity on that issue, creating an opening for attacks on other areas.

In the SouthWest, Obama is counting on social liberals and Hispanics to put him over the top. GOTV is the most important in this region.

In Florida, Medicare, Social Security, Immigration, and Housing are the pivotal issues.
But all of the swing states depend on the national conversation, and Romney’s ability to make the case for himself versus Obama.

Yeah, no kidding. And anyone who points this out is a “troll”.

1) Romney is not winning in September
2) Romney is winning in November

true all that, but also, debates are rarely game changers. And Reagans come-back is most likely to be a myth.

and this too from forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/27/bureau-of-labor-statistics-revises-job-growth-upward-by-a-huge-386000-jobs/

That was some poor concern trolling. First, Nate Silver and credible should never be put in the same sentence. It makes sense Nate’s magical jelly beans support Obama since he is a known surrogate of the campaign (which he never disclosed until he got caught). Naah, you never believed that Mother Jones video – personally I had never been on mother jones – hanging out with communist rots the brain. Anyway, if you are going into the concern trolling business, please keep your dayjob; i’d hate to see you end up mooching off your parents or on government welfare.

Debates may not sway those who are already committed to a candidate, but I do think they have impact for those who are still undecided. Especially in a race against an incumbent, it gives people a chance to see just what the challenger proposes, as they already have a good idea of the incumbent’s policies. It’s a chance for them to shine — or, in the case of Kerry in 2004, fail miserably.

But I have a lot of distrust for statistics. Probably comes from taking Statistics for Psych in college — many polls may give a result, but neglect to say the sample size or the margin of error. They also may be national polls vs state samples — and while national polls have a higher sample size generally and therefore a smaller margin of error, elections aren’t decided on the popular vote. State polls have a larger margin of error in general.

Truly, I think that people rely on polling way too much, and it has a tendency to discourage voter turnout. If your candidate is showing ahead, you may feel less inclined to take the time out to go vote, thinking it’s in the bag. If your candidate is behind, you might feel pessimistic about their chances, and decide going to vote isn’t worth the effort.

During some of the live chats on here in 2008, I saw many people who professed extremely pessimistic attitudes about the election, and a lot of it was based on poll data. McCain was a *very* strong candidate, and I have a lot of respect for him. I usually commented after seeing someone show pessimism that they shouldn’t give up hope, and encouraged people to get out to the polls. From a liberal, it sounded strange I’m sure, but as a person who believes that the will of the people *should* be heard, I want everyone who is eligible to vote to register and cast their vote… even in states where they think their party is sure to lose. (I knew Arkansas was going to go red, but it didn’t stop me from casting my vote… and people who live in traditionally blue states shouldn’t be discouraged from voting based simply on poll data either.)

Plus, the ones who live in “swing states” are often the ones most harassed by pollsters in general, and therefore get annoyed with the entire political process. This also discourages turnout, even though votes from people in “swing states” have a lot more power than, say, my blue vote in a red state.

I wish people would just stop focusing on the “horse race” in general, and look closely at who they think is the best person for the job…. and vote.

Vote, dangit!

Um Gallup was not trending for Kerry. Gore DID win the popular vote. And Carter’s polls were below Reagan’s from April through the end of the debates. What you miss is that polling in 1980 was not as sophisticated as it is today. And you only had ONE poll back then. Today you are looking at Fox News, and WSJ polls as well. and Ipsos, and Pew, and CS Monitor and and and.

Given that Obama is tracking almost identically to how he tracked against McCain the probability of a Carter like upset is as likely as the probability of Obama having a Reaganesque landslide. BOTH are possible but highly improbable. REmember Probability variance goes both ways.

What an idiot.
Ah, yes, of course, voters that vote Obama are too afraid to change. Themselves. They are more than willing to change America.

Well, the Gore campaign did miscalculate and decided NOT to use Clinton because they’ve been deftly manouvred into feeling ashamed about Clinton …. Clinton would have given them Tennesee, most likely, which would have been the end of that.

srsly? Al Gore, who was from TN and whose father was legendary Tennessee pol couldn’t carry TN but Clinton would have made that happen? I think that is a rather exotic view.

None of us will have to worry about relocating if Romney/Ryan policies for economic growth are implemented, and states in which business hubs now hobbled by out-of-control taxes, regulation and fiscal uncertainty can finally build viable employment growth.

OTOH, if Obama continues his socialist program of expanding economic disaster to ~all~ of the states, it won’t matter where anybody lives, and there won’t be anywhere left worth moving to.

You liberals are crap.

And you’re gone.

Heh.
America deserves better.