Romney opens 5 point lead over Obama

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

 

 

 

This is the scenario, Romney's going to win all nine of those toss up states. It's that simple.

Do you have enough of those drugs to share with everybody?

[1billsfan]

Do you have enough of those drugs to share with everybody?

 

 

You guys are in this cult-like state where even when given FACTS that the polls you are pointing to are false, you STILL go back to them as evidence that Obama is going to win…LOL

 

The polls are fake and the turnout gap is going to be HUGE in the GOPs favor like it was in 2010. Slackers don't vote, that's why they're called slackers!

[The Big Cat]

You guys are in this cult-like state where even when given FACTS that the polls you are pointing to are false, you STILL go back to them as evidence that Obama is going to win…LOL

 

The polls are fake and the turnout gap is going to be HUGE in the GOPs favor like it was in 2010. Slackers don't vote, that's why they're called slackers!

 

Yeah, okay.

[B-Man]

I was so hoping that one of the "Obama's surging" believers was going to post this morning NYT/Quinnapac poll showing the president increasing his lead in Ohio and Florida by a laughable amount.

 

but there are several articles out already that demonstrate how bogus (and obviously so) that they are.

 

Media Malpractice: NYT Poll Pushes Absurd Democratic Turnout Model

 

In what could be considered nothing short of media malpractice, the New York Times and CBS News published three state polls by Quinnipiac University that shows Democratic advantages in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at levels never before seen.

 

The allegedly scientific poll is said to give a clear idea of how the election might turnout if it were held today. But the published turnout assumes Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 33% in Florida and Ohio, while the advantage jumps by 40% in Pennsylvania.

 

Not surprisingly - despite their own data showing he is losing Independents in both FL and OH (PA data not released) - Obama is "clearly ahead" of Romney in all three states. And they say it isn't even close. Yep, even though he is losing the Independents he won handily in 2008, Obama is actually winning these swing states by more than double the margin he did then. Make sense?

 

In 2010, Republican's had a 1 point edge in turnout in Ohio, an even advantage in Florida, and just a 3 point deficit in Pennsylvania. Over the last 8 years, Democratic turnout has averaged just 1 point higher in Ohio and 4 points higher in Pennsylvania, while Republican turnout has averaged 1 point higher than Democratic turnout.

 

Instead, the NYT/CBS poll has expected turnout in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at D +9, D +9, and D +11 points, respectively. All of these results are well outside the 8 year averages of R +1 (FL), D +1 (OH), and D +4 (PA), and even show marked improvements in Democratic turnout over 2008, a historically Democratic year. The poll data show ties, but the media reports Obama blowouts in all three states.

Yesterday, Mike Flynn had this to say about about outrageous media polls acting as the newest form of campaign ad:

Every election features something new, an evolution from past campaigns. This year's development is troubling. Polls are now being used, not simply to gauge the state of the race, but to impact the race. We're not far off from the day that the New York Times or CBS will have to file their polls as in-kind contributions to the Democrats.

The New York Times and CBS have a contribution filing to report this morning.

 

 

There's also this one;

This Morning’s Polls Project More Heavily Democratic Electorates Than 2008

Just forget everything else and ask yourself if this adds up

 

In 2008 Obama won indies by 8 and won state by 5.

 

In 2012 Obama is losing indies by 1 (-9 from 2008) yet winning state by 10 (+5 from 2008).

 

LOL!

[The Big Cat]

I was so hoping that one of the "Obama's surging" believers was going to post this morning NYT/Quinnapac poll showing the president increasing his lead in Ohio and Florida by a laughable amount.

 

but there are several articles out already that demonstrate how bogus (and obviously so) that they are.

 

Media Malpractice: NYT Poll Pushes Absurd Democratic Turnout Model

 

In what could be considered nothing short of media malpractice, the New York Times and CBS News published three state polls by Quinnipiac University that shows Democratic advantages in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at levels never before seen.

 

The allegedly scientific poll is said to give a clear idea of how the election might turnout if it were held today. But the published turnout assumes Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 33% in Florida and Ohio, while the advantage jumps by 40% in Pennsylvania.

 

Not surprisingly - despite their own data showing he is losing Independents in both FL and OH (PA data not released) - Obama is "clearly ahead" of Romney in all three states. And they say it isn't even close. Yep, even though he is losing the Independents he won handily in 2008, Obama is actually winning these swing states by more than double the margin he did then. Make sense?

 

In 2010, Republican's had a 1 point edge in turnout in Ohio, an even advantage in Florida, and just a 3 point deficit in Pennsylvania. Over the last 8 years, Democratic turnout has averaged just 1 point higher in Ohio and 4 points higher in Pennsylvania, while Republican turnout has averaged 1 point higher than Democratic turnout.

 

Instead, the NYT/CBS poll has expected turnout in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at D +9, D +9, and D +11 points, respectively. All of these results are well outside the 8 year averages of R +1 (FL), D +1 (OH), and D +4 (PA), and even show marked improvements in Democratic turnout over 2008, a historically Democratic year. The poll data show ties, but the media reports Obama blowouts in all three states.

Yesterday, Mike Flynn had this to say about about outrageous media polls acting as the newest form of campaign ad:

Every election features something new, an evolution from past campaigns. This year's development is troubling. Polls are now being used, not simply to gauge the state of the race, but to impact the race. We're not far off from the day that the New York Times or CBS will have to file their polls as in-kind contributions to the Democrats.

The New York Times and CBS have a contribution filing to report this morning.

 

 

There's also this one;

This Morning’s Polls Project More Heavily Democratic Electorates Than 2008

 

 

 

 

Just forget everything else and ask yourself if this adds up

 

In 2008 Obama won indies by 8 and won state by 5.

 

In 2012 Obama is losing indies by 1 (-9 from 2008) yet winning state by 10 (+5 from 2008).

 

LOL!

 

Wow. A right wing publication debunks a poll that says Obama is winning. I have to sit down, the room is spinning.

[B-Man]

Wow. A right wing publication debunks a poll that says Obama is winning. I have to sit down, the room is spinning.

 

A quick note to all the younger posters;

 

This is what people say when they have no real response to the numbers staring them in the face.

 

Just like his "clever" smiley face response on the previous page.

 

 

Let's all thank Big Cat for his sterling example.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 26, 2012 by B-Man

[The Big Cat]

A quick note to all the younger posters;

 

This is what people say when they have no real response to the numbers staring them in the face.

 

Just like his "clever" smiley face response on the previous page.

 

 

Let's all thank Big Cat for his sterling example.

 

On November 7, I will gladly acknowledge how right you were in all your [ludicrous] forecasts and how wrong I was.

Would you do the same?

[John Adams]

So lets talk about Mitt's behavior in Pennsylvania--a state he HAS to win just to have a shot. He's pulled out all his resources, what does that behavior tell you?

 

Wrong. He will lose PA. The state Mitt has to win is Florida. And he's not been able to take hold there.

[BillsFanM.D.]

Wrong. He will lose PA. The state Mitt has to win is Florida. And he's not been able to take hold there.

 

I agree. I've seen you repeating the Florida thing and I can't figure out how folks fight the concept. I 'realistically' cannot see a Romney win without Florida (no need to present mathematic possibilities...I get that they 'exist'). Not sure about the 'take hold' part though. FL seems to be a true toss up. Romney has as good a chance as the President.

[B-Man]

On November 7, I will gladly acknowledge how right you were in all your [ludicrous] forecasts and how wrong I was.

Would you do the same?

 

 

Absolutely sir.

 

As a conservative, I can't do anything else.

 

(the only qualifier I will put on that, and I would certainly accept the same from you, is..........there are still 6 weeks in which something dramatic could make an actual change either way) in which case both our September declarations would certainly look premature.

 

 

 

 

 

How well did the pollsters do predicting party turnout in 2010?

 

Hope that this is from the approved list of sources..........................lol

[The Big Cat]

Absolutely sir.

 

As a conservative, I can't do anything else.

 

(the only qualifier I will put on that, and I would certainly accept the same from you, is..........there are still 6 weeks in which something dramatic could make an actual change either way) in which case both our September declarations would certainly look premature.

 

 

 

 

 

How well did the pollsters do predicting party turnout in 2010?

 

Hope that this is from the approved list of sources..........................lol

 

It's entirely fair to say that any extreme circumstance between now and election day could play a role.

 

I will say, though, that I don't think the 2010 numbers are relevant to a presidential election, especially in the realm of turnout forecasts.

[Gary M]

On November 7, I will gladly acknowledge how right you were in all your [ludicrous] forecasts and how wrong I was.

Would you do the same?

 

So you think that the poll samples are ligit?

[The Big Cat]

So you think that the poll samples are ligit?

 

I think Obama will win Florida and Ohio, which will give him more than enough electoral votes.

I also think he'll take Colorado and New Hampshire, and then after that, it will just be piling-on.

[fjl2nd]

This is the scenario, Romney's going to win all nine of those toss up states. It's that simple.

 

Stop it.

 

I still don't see where everyone has a problem with the polls. It's not like polling agencies purposely pick more Democrats or Republicans. They simply ask voters the question of who they identify more with. And as I've shown before, polling over many years has shown Democrats outnumber Republicans. The samples in these polls are usually within their margin of error of number of registered Dems/Reps.

 

The right is grasping at straws here. Romney is a terrible candidate and they don't want to face the reality of four more years of Obama.

[B-Man]

I still don't see where everyone has a problem with the polls. It's not like polling agencies purposely pick more Democrats or Republicans. They simply ask voters the question of who they identify more with. And as I've shown before, polling over many years has shown Democrats outnumber Republicans. The samples in these polls are usually within their margin of error of number of registered Dems/Reps.

 

 

 

 

As shown countless times fjl, these statements are incorrect.

 

 

 

 

.

[1billsfan]

Stop it.

 

I still don't see where everyone has a problem with the polls. It's not like polling agencies purposely pick more Democrats or Republicans. They simply ask voters the question of who they identify more with. And as I've shown before, polling over many years has shown Democrats outnumber Republicans. The samples in these polls are usually within their margin of error of number of registered Dems/Reps.

 

The right is grasping at straws here. Romney is a terrible candidate and they don't want to face the reality of four more years of Obama.

 

That's because you and other sheeple follow the MSM's false narrative of this race...

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/26/BREAKING-Democrat-Voters-Turnout-Advantage-Over-Republicans-Will-Break-All-Time-Records

 

"Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:

 

Florida:

In 2004 the vote was R+4.

In 2008 the vote was D+3

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

 

Ohio:

In 2004 the vote was R+5

In 2008 the vote was D+8

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9

 

Pennsylvania:

In 2010 the vote was D+3

In 2008 the vote was D+7

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

-

Again, why won't the media report the dramatic news that Democrats are expected to turnout in record numbers against Republicans?

Because the media doesn't believe it.

And yet, that's exactly what media polls claim will happen. "

[The Big Cat]

That's because you and other sheeple follow the MSM's false narrative of this race...

 

http://www.breitbart...ll-Time-Records

 

"Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:

 

Florida:

In 2004 the vote was R+4.

In 2008 the vote was D+3

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

 

Ohio:

In 2004 the vote was R+5

In 2008 the vote was D+8

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9

 

Pennsylvania:

In 2010 the vote was D+3

In 2008 the vote was D+7

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

-

Again, why won't the media report the dramatic news that Democrats are expected to turnout in record numbers against Republicans?

Because the media doesn't believe it.

And yet, that's exactly what media polls claim will happen. "

 

So the 2012 forecasts are wrong because they don't match the 2004/2008 results?

WTF?

 

But a different way, the polls actually confirm, and even mitigate the trend these very numbers show.

 

FL 2004-2008 +7 for the Dems, and +2 forecasted for this cycle's increase.

OH 2004-2008 +13 for the Dems, and +1 forecasted for this cycle's increase

PA 2004-2008 +4 for the Dems, and +2 forecasted for this cycle's increase.

[TheMadCap]

ah, another day, another poll claiming Obama gaining. What else is new?

 

The only question I have is this: WHY does the media appear so obviously in the President's corner on just about everthing?

 

So the 2012 forecasts are wrong because they don't match the 2004/2008 results?

WTF?

 

But a different way, the polls actually confirm, and even mitigate the trend these very numbers show.

 

FL 2004-2008 +7 for the Dems, and +2 forecasted for this cycle's increase.

OH 2004-2008 +13 for the Dems, and +1 forecasted for this cycle's increase

PA 2004-2008 +4 for the Dems, and +2 forecasted for this cycle's increase.

 

Huh? I think either you or 1bills need to check your math. I get R+1 in FL, D+3 in Ohio...

Edited September 26, 2012 by TheMadCap

[CosmicBills]

ah, another day, another poll claiming Obama gaining. What else is new?

 

The only question I have is this: WHY does the media appear so obviously in the President's corner on just about everthing?

If the media is so obviously in the President's corner (and I'm not disagreeing entirely), and if they are cooking the books so to speak, why would they propagate an illusion of Obama gaining? Wouldn't it be more effective to make it look as if it's a dead heat to assure that every supporter votes?

[TheMadCap]

If the media is so obviously in the President's corner (and I'm not disagreeing entirely), and if they are cooking the books so to speak, why would they propagate an illusion of Obama gaining? Wouldn't it be more effective to make it look as if it's a dead heat to assure that every supporter votes?

 

Yes, I thought this too, they may in fact, have the opposite effect. That is, no need to go and vote, the President is going to win no matter what.

 

Still does not answer my question though...