Skip to main content

Some months ago, I started to look at polls with and without Gallup and Rasmussen (see Why I remove Gallup and Rasmussen from the Abbreviated Pundit Round-up charts). This is a feature built into Huffington Post's pollster.com, intended exactly for that purpose.

Without taking sides as to which is correct, it is instructive to see the difference between those two pollsters and everyone else (in addition to the references in my post above, see The Rasmussen Difference from Alan Abramowitz for further insights).

In any case, check this out.

This is everyone together, no exceptions:

This, however, is Rasmussen and Gallup alone:



And everyone else, without those two?


Now, I am not advocating pulling them out at this late stage of the game. Better to include them, and let the mix guide you. But knowing what's going on with and without helps put things in perspective, particularly when trying to match the tie national race with the predictions for an Obama electoral win, or talk of a popular vote/electoral vote split.

Simon Jackman has an elegant discussion of "house effect" here.  Whether you use the mean of all polls as your compass pointing to "true reality", or performance in previous elections, even name brand pollsters can be wrong, and that's especially true when the race is as tight as this (polling is a blunt instrument to resolve a tie.)

The advice is the same as always... look for trends, use the aggregates, and recognize that a close race is a close race, no matter which aggregate site you use.

But for Pete's sake, don't declare Romney ahead because of momentum before you take a look at the above graphs.

Update: Looks like Andrew Sullivan had the same thought (see my first link for similar exercise last August). Love these chart tools! How could you not use them?

Originally posted to Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 05:56 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I live in the (6+ / 0-)

    "there are too many goddam polls" universe but still  can't avert my eyes.  Wonder if the state of polling will need to change after this election?

    Greg, what do you think of the talk that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college?  Frankly, I can't fathom him winning ANYTHING.

    •  First, let's win the electoral college (5+ / 0-)

      that's what makes you president.

      Second, I think Likely Voter screens this year are too tight, screen out sporadic and minority voters, and more people will turn out than the LV screens say. if so, there won't be a split.

      Third, this is what the polls say today. Further movement is still possible, either direction.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:15:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  as to polling needing to change? (0+ / 0-)

      You betcha.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cant Use 2008 Polls as Reference (0+ / 0-)

      You cant use 2008 polls and results as a reference guide because 2008 was a perfect storm, Bush, Financial cOLLAPSE, Old Man McCain-'I dont want to debate while financial crisi is happening' and a twelve year old mentality for a Vice Presidential Nominee-Palin.

      National Polls are meaningless at this time in the election. Its the state polls which have importance. If you factor in a 2% Romney racist vote not reflected in the polls in some of the swing states-it means he is in striking distance of the Presidencyand makes it that much more important GOTV works for Obama.

      These polls shouldnt make anyone complacent!!!!

  •  Convergence in about 9 days?...or maybe another (0+ / 0-)

    month....lol

    •  If Rassmussen follows their usual MO (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      feebog

      They should start racing back to the average in a couple of days so the right can claim them as the "MOST ACCURATE POLLSTER EVAH"TM so they can use them to drive the narrative in the next election.

      The GOP believe in redistribution of wealth, as long as it's from the many to the few.

      by president raygun on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:36:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It seems to me that those (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    president raygun

    same charts could be used by a Republican to show why the "other" pollsters are biased toward Obama. I know that the polling methods of Gallup and Rasmussen have a history of overestimating the GOP vote, but that doesn't totally explain the increasing divergence in their numbers of Romney over Obama. I'd like to believe that we can just "throw out" pollsters we don't like, but we really won't know if that makes sense or was just wishful thinking until election day.

    •  George Will...The trends for the last 3 weeks have (0+ / 0-)

      favored Mr Romney.....Gallup and Raz sure do help that narrative.

    •  as i said in the post (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      I don't advocate throwing them out, just being aware of the difference.

      But let's talk about it again in 10 days ;-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:33:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Outliers are usually wrong (0+ / 0-)

      What's informative is comparing the minus-G-and-R graph and the all-posters graph.

      They both tell the same story -- a year-long steady but modest Obama lead that exploded into a five or six point lead around the conventions, then tied itself up after the first debate.

      The two graphs are identical in this respect.  They're only different in the sense that the minus-G-and-R graph shows the post-debate race becoming a very narrow Obama lead, whereas the all-posters graph shows a very narrow Romney lead.

      The G-and-R graph tells a completely different story, one of a volatile race in which each candidate has experienced multiple peaks and valleys, and the lead has switched several times.  It's not that Romney consistently has a few extra points than the other pollsters show, due to bias, it's that the graph is completely out of line with everyone else's narrative.

      The obvious conclusion seems to be that they aren't polling this race correctly, and that they're weighting down the all-pollsters graph in Romney's favor.

  •  It would be interesting to add the following (0+ / 0-)

    final numbers for 2008 for these polls versus reality

    thus we know that Gallup was very much off on their LV model, but not that far off on their RV

    One reason I have trouble with the mean of polls, whether nationally or by state, is the proliferation of polls recently without a track record.   I look at the numbers of some on a state level, for example Wentzel Strategies, and I am really scratching my head.  Are campaigns actually paying for this garbage?

    Wonder about your thoughts on some of this.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:17:30 AM PDT

  •  Oh, and I do look at trends on all polls (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Micheline

    even though there are some I tend to dismiss.  If the movement in all polls is in the same direction, even if the actual numbers are very different, that is usually a clear indication of real movement in the electorate.

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:18:40 AM PDT

    •  which is what we do not have now (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pamelabrown, SLKRR

      we have lotsa "no movement" and some going R while others go D, then reverse the next day.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:35:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, look at state polls by all sources (0+ / 0-)

        and for the battlegrounds you would be hard to find movement towards Romney in any state

        the Cincy poll had its majority done before the debate last Monday, as Chuck Todd points out, so even though it was released recently it is not a realistic reflection of current attitudes the way things like PPP and CNN were.

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:20:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is the way to read media polls. nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Polls are to influence, not to report. (0+ / 0-)

    They're too far gone to be rehabilitated, in my lay opinion.  That candidate "internals," which should be the least-biased because they're ostensibly made to assist campaigns with expenditures and strategies, are so skewed is pretty interesting evidence that polling is too effed up.  There is no constituency to pay for objective polling; even polling outfits that have their origins in the desire for objectivity end up gravitating towards one or another bias whether it's ideological or more narrowly self-interested, e.g. Ohio newspapers wanting to keep a tied-race meme alive as long as possible.

    Romney '12: Berlusconi without the sex and alcohol!

    by Rich in PA on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:29:28 AM PDT

  •  I think it will be easier to gauge their accuracy (0+ / 0-)

    going into election day.  That's when all the high quality polling firms (Pew, ORC, etc.) will release their final numbers.  There will probably be something 15-20 polls released next Monday, which should drastically balance out the weight given to Ras and Gallup.  Right now, we just have to put up with the fact of they seem to be distorting the averages.

  •  i go here (0+ / 0-)

    this

    and if I want to situate my own map, I go here.


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:57:28 AM PDT

  •  Want a good poll ? Look at this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, bluezen

    Vegas does not screw around when they set a bet.
    Obama - 185

    There you go.    
    Vegas has Obama as a favorite, and they never lose.

    You can punish your Mitt Romney friends, by begging them to put some money on Mitt Romney for President.

    hehe.  evil, but fun.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:10:53 AM PDT

  •  the media will create whatever narrative (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mchestnutjr, Van Buren

    they think will help get them more money (i.e. more viewers/readers). They have no other principle other than that. Which means...they will pick and choose what information they wish to suit the particular narrative of choice at that moment. And heaven knows there are enough shill pollsters out there to help out, especially if you are a Republican wholly committed to doing the bidding of those with massive amounts of money.

  •  Third chart is wrong? (0+ / 0-)

    Am I the only one that sees the first and third chart as identical?  It seems your point with the graphs is that the race is still 'too close to call' when the text reads as if you think there's a solid chance of an Obama win?

    Unfortunately I need to go out to breakfast with my daughters so I don't have time right now to verify the details.

  •  "the polls are too damn rigged" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:55:48 AM PDT

  •  Not sure (0+ / 0-)

    I'm really concerned about the models. It is not going to look like 2008. And if turnout is like 2004, I'm afraid some of the more right-leaning polls may be somewhat predictive. Not a troll, I've just been obsessively checking the Ohio early voting and registration patterns (without being able to make any conclusions about either).

  •  In the one modeled by Nate Silver (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FightinginVA, Steve Magruder

    Every other pollster that is modeling based on state polls and EV's agrees that the probability is President Obama will win.  Nate Silver has increased the probability to 80% in the Nowcast.  I'll go with that.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:14:17 AM PDT

  •  What about 3rd party effects in swing states? (0+ / 0-)

    Will candidates like Goode or Johnson (or write-ins for Paul) have any meaningful effect? (I hope to god that Stein won't because that'll hurt Obama.)

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:15:31 AM PDT

    •  In Virginia and maybe in CO (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, Steve Magruder

      in Virginia they will clearly hurt Romney, perhaps to the tune of 2% net

      In CO not quite clear - remember, there is an initiative to legalize marijuana.  Some of the supporters of that who would otherwise be Dems might vote for Johnson.  

      "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

      by teacherken on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:23:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tried to post my universe in a Diary this morn… (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob

    but I guess I'll have to put in into a comment here. Every time I finish and try to save and preview, it clears it and saves an empty draft. So:
         Two Feel-Good moments this morning. One, the "All Possible Outcomes" graph on Princeton Consortium has ALL blue lines to the right of the red: http://election.princeton.edu/...
         Second, the "Intention to Vote" graph on Rand shows R-85.62  O-85.38 – a virtual tie. This from a chart that spends most of its time with a three to five point gap.
         I can now ignore the rest of the noise.

    I'm voting for the UPPITY ONE

    by qua on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:21:29 AM PDT

  •  I think I have been (5+ / 0-)

    warning people about Gallup the entire year.  I wrote about them in 2008: their problems are not new to anyone who follows polling.

    Ras's performance in state polling in 2008 (avg lean was 2.99 GOP) and in 2010 they were awful.

    BUT - if you study polling you find this: it is very difficult to use the lean from one cycle to predict the results of the next cycle.  An example: the Ohio Poll.  In 2000 they were way off (they had Bush +10), the next cycle they had Bush +1 and the next they had Obama +5.  So one year they were terrible and leaned republican, and the two cycles they were great.  I could write the same thing about just about any state pollster.

    I will say this: the cycles from 2002 to 2008 were unusual in their accuracy.  There were significant misses in both 1996 and 2000.  Consider some of the polling misses in the state from 2000 (this compares the actual margin to Gores final margin - so in the case of Wisconsin, polling has Gore with a 4.3 point lead and he would up winning by about .1%):
    Cal - 7
    Ga +7
    Ill -5,
    MN -4
    NJ -7
    NY -8
    NC 6
    Wisconsin 4.2

    You can find a similar story from the 1996 polling.  I think the chances of a big polling miss this time are pretty significant.  In my work from '92-2010, when state pollsing diverges from national polling significant, the state polling is usually right. But it also suggests the presence of volatility.

    As of this morning, Obama projects to a lead of 1.1% in state polling.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:21:52 AM PDT

  •  I like Nate's site, as we all do (when it shows us (0+ / 0-)

    ahead, anyway)... but this is the map I come to again and again to feel good about things:

    http://electoralmap.net/

    Nate's putting his money where is mouth is, as he'll likely be out of a job if he really blows his prediction... but the intrade folks have actual money on the line. And I've never seen this map lower than about 277-278.

    •  Nate Silver's site has consistently (0+ / 0-)

      shown a lead for the President.  As have all of the pollsters who compile averages of state polls.

      Intrade is just another data point for those who bet money on these things.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:26:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are correct. I tend to look at more (0+ / 0-)

        conservative aggregators, as I feel better when they show O ahead. Another one I look at is this place, which is so far right they actually has an unskewed section... shudder.... and YET... it, too, shows basically what Nate shows:

        http://www.electionprojection.com/...

        And even though that guy is a far right-winger... TPM's is probably the most pessimistic aggregator I've seen all year. TPM has Michigan listed as a tossup right now... lunacy!

  •  Admittedly Putting on My Tin Foil Hat (0+ / 0-)

    The little conspiracy theorist within me worries that Romney will use the Ras & Gallup State polls to justify his stolen victory as alleged by Anonymous.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:26:08 AM PDT

  •  the right are so diluted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder

    that their argument is superior that they not only suppress voters of the opposition but include polling that gives their argument of leading more credibility with the undecideds, they have been winning elections for such a long time by non democratic means that they are now against anything that even resembles the democratic process, the end justifies the means comes to mind here from a movement the right used to abhor but now embraces its methods.

  •  Just eliminate the extremes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abraxas

    Eliminate the 2 best Obama and 2 worst Obama polls and you get a good feel for reality.

  •  While it is clear Gallup and Ras have an (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder

    agenda....

    At this point, and incumbent stuck around 47% does exactly create a strong level of confidence.

    What were Reagan, Clinton, and Bushes polling average going into election day?

    I said as early last year, if UE were not below 8% in July of 2012, the President would lose.

    I thought our side had overcome precedent, but now it looks like things are reverting to form.  I can only hope people come to their senses.  This is a choice election.  And the choice couldn't be clearer.

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:31:29 AM PDT

  •  q about if you think this guy is counted as LV- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder

    i door knock in waterbury. when i get someone who only voted once in his life, and it was only for obama, and for noone else on the ballot, do you think he'd be counted as a likely voter this time around? would some polls count him as LV and others not?

    i get the feeling they're coming out again, but i don't know how they're counted in polls. i think the door knocking is helping to hopefully get more of our people to vote the whole row, and not just for the president this time.

    i knock w/ a dem state rep (not mine- my republican state rep is running unopposed.)

    "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

    by thankgodforairamerica on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:31:35 AM PDT

    •  they are RV not Lv (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thankgodforairamerica, Just Bob

      they are 'sporadic voters', and Obama is going for them.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:46:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's what i thought- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        feebog

        so do you think it's going to be a way better result than polling shows?

        so many people i talk to when i'm out are confused about everything. they don't know they're still registered to vote and they don't have to reregister. they're so relieved to learn they're still registered voters. we're immersed in this, but for a lot of people out there this voting in elections thing is still brand new and a little scary.

        i think in reality these guys are extremely likely voters this time- i can't tell you how many times they say they can't wait to vote. i just hope we can get them to vote the whole row this time around.

        it's confusing and overwhelming- when i was a checker during the primary i saw a woman spoil a few ballots before she just gave up and left. the primary ballot was way less complicated than the general election ballot is.

        any of you out there who are door knocking, i think it's a good idea to show people that practice ballot. even people who seem really confident and comfortable in their demeanor might be secretly terrified of having to fill that thing in correctly.

        i always tell them don't be afraid to mess up- i tell them when i worked at the  polling place on primary day lots of people had to go and ask for a second ballot after they realized they made a mistake.

        "...i also also want a legally binding apology." -George Rockwell

        by thankgodforairamerica on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:09:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  We should all be terrified now... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder

    and moved to action.  GOTFVFBO = Get Out The Fucking Vote for Barack Obama

  •  The Ras house effect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    feebog

    Ras always tends to run a few points Republican, for whatever reason.

    In past cycles, I've noticed that Ras tends to run more R early in the race, and then as e-day nears, they tend to converge towards the polling mainstream.  The uncharitable view is that they change their correction factors to give the R candidates a boost early on by making their chances look better, then they tack to the center of mass just before e-day to avoid looking like frauds after the actual election results are in.  An overly R result for months ahead of the election can be explained away by claiming that the state of the race changed between then and e-day.  But results just before e-day have to match reasonably close, or that's proof your polling was off.  But it was also possible that they just have a model that is consistently overly R, but that, as e-day nears, their likely voter screen that more closely approaches how their sample is actually going to vote on e-day, and that rescues the late-game performance of their model.

    But that explanation doesn't work this year.  You look at these graphs and you see that, yes, the usual R slant is there. They have put the red, R, line consistently higher than everybody else.  But at the poiint that other polls show the Romney 1st debate boost levelling off and reversing, they show continued Romney upsurge.  They're becoming more divergent from the mainstream, as opposed to their ususal pattern of converging with the mainstream, in the last 2-3 weeks of the race.

    The charitable view is that they're just following their erroneous models, which for some reason, don't have their results converging with the mainstream this year.  The uncharitable view is that they've decided this year to abandon their usual end-of-election-season safety play to protect their future credibility, and instead go all-in on trying to keep Romney in the game by giving his supporters some evidence that he isn't a sure loser.  

    We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

    by gtomkins on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:09 AM PDT

  •  My Reaction (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jackiesand, FightinginVA, ankae, Just Bob

    How in the Hell, why in the Hell is this so frickin' close???!!!

    I'm a Kennedy Catholic.

    by EquiStar on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:47 AM PDT

    •  Which Universe? (0+ / 0-)

      The one that doesn't look at the polls (except when forced) as chicken and the hen narrative and polls. What happened to Journalism?

      Sure I look. Sure Imagine it is important for their internals for GOTV. But I don't see how it does us any good.

      Someone writes a diary with good poll numbers, everyone talks about complacency.

      Someone with bad, everyone cites a different.

      Too many, too biased, but I'll listen to nate silver, look out my window and remember when in 2008 I joked ppl were going too far to try and scare kids with all the McCain Signs out (and see that there are about 50% less Romney, and just as many Obama, and WAAAYY more early voting and absentee). But don't care if we're winning OH, will still donate.

      If one choice is the universe where polls shouldn't be discussed much, I will take that one. Maybe the Media could cover things like, idk what a liar Romney is.

    •  Simple (2+ / 0-)

      The right spent 4 yrs destroying the credibility of the President with the support of the enabling Media houses. The President spent 4 yrs talking bi-partisanship with nothing to show for it...and he had few surrogates out in the media to defend him.

      As a result, a lot of people bought into the Muslim/socialist theme and hatred has taken over. This is an anti Obama vote vs a pro-~Romney vote. However, they don't realize that the Romney-Ryan ticket will bring along the crazies and destroy the America we have today. No amount of logic will sway some of these voters.

      Result -  a razor thin election - resting on the backs of low information voters. Cheers to our democracy!

      This is our moment...this is our time! President Barack Obama

      by ankae on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:35:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steve Magruder

        But I wonder why with his "Im a uniter/leader" ad running harder than Trent Richardson did during the Browns game (120 yds, td?) how they don't cram down his throat:

        'you are a uniter. you were so out of touch you united the R's and D's who had to work together to overide 700+ of his 800 vetoes"

        I have yet to here that point. I would think that a record? As the R's votes were needed, many of the 700 IIRC were unanimous.

        But that probably is a little too "facty".

        Just like the study that says if you are told a falsehood then told the truth you are still inclined to believe the falsehood.

  •  Poll aggrigate w/o Ras and Gallup looks like 538 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brn2bwild

    Change the world. Ask questions.

    by AstroCook on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:24:23 AM PDT

  •  Ras did very well in the Wisconsin Recall Election (0+ / 0-)

    Ras is calling Wisconsin even-steven right now.  Their call in the recalls actually understated Walker's support, but was still 3 or 4% more accurate than PPP's numbers.

    I am worried about Wisconsin.  I have voted already and will be bringing neighbors to the polls next week.  

  •  I briefly watched Mr. Rasmussen on FOX. (0+ / 0-)

    He sat there telling FOX viewers that Obama was going to lose this election, that everything was positive in the polls for Romney, and started to talk loss of momentum and gain in momentum for Romney.  So I don't know, you all tell me, is this committed to being a neutral pollster, or is he pushing the polls for Romney?

    Gallup:  I never trusted Gallup.

    This is why I don't read polls.  It's a cobweb of BS as far as I'm concerned.  I'm not even relying on Silver.  

    The only poll that counts is the one after election day, and even then I'm suspicious if I suspect fraud is going on.  With this storm and all the ballots already in the boxes that could be fiddled with?  No, I'm not clear any polls mean a damn thing.  Not anymore.

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:47:01 AM PDT

    •  is this *guy Rasmussen* committed.... (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry.  I'm pissy today.  My main concern today is this storm and all the lives it will affect!

      I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

      by KayCeSF on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:48:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site