Very early on, before this campaign started in earnest, live or die, I publicly cast my lot with Gallup and Rasmussen. As a poll addict going back to 2000, these are the outlets that have always played it straight. It's got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with credibility and not wanting to kid myself. So when an outlet like Gallup tells me Romney is up seven-points, 52-45%, among those who have already voted, that's very big news.
bannination wrote:Breitbart couldn't even get the percentage right. It's 52-46% with a +-3% margin of error.
I think the only thing this shows is that maybe the Dems. aren't as sure about Obama as Republicans are about voting for Romney. I have been asked questions maybe twice leaving polls and told them the exact opposite as I believed.
bannination wrote:Breitbart couldn't even get the percentage right. It's 52-46% with a +-3% margin of error.
I think the only thing this shows is that maybe the Dems. aren't as sure about Obama as Republicans are about voting for Romney. I have been asked questions maybe twice leaving polls and told them the exact opposite as I believed.
Older voters tend to do the early voting, older voters tend to vote conservative. It's discussed in the actual gallop poll. There's nothing surprising at all about this.
Vrede wrote:Yep, that's what happens when one swallows the Liarbart version of anything without checking the source. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158420/regis ... llots.aspx
Not good according to Gallup, but not exactly the way Liarbart presents it.
From Liarbart:
...But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008...
No mention of the GOP having restricted early voting.
Ragin Rebel wrote:" I will stand with the Muslim's should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." ------Barack Hussein Obama
Lie.
This statement is a rewording of a passage from page 261 of The Audacity of Hope, in which Barack Obama spoke of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed into confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II. The original contains no specific mention of "Muslims":
In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
The Dims are saying one-third of Ohio voters have voted early and two-thirds of them voted for Obama. Is this from a real poll or just more South African Stinger BS?
nobody wrote:The Dims are saying one-third of Ohio voters have voted early and two-thirds of them voted for Obama. Is this from a real poll or just more South African Stinger BS?
It's based on exit polling. Real, but not necessarily totally accurate. Close enough to think it's reasonable to think it supports the other polls that put Obama ahead in Ohio.
If the final results are tight then the polls may be legitimate. If there is an electoral land slide. I say the polls are just reporting a close election to keep people watching TV.
nobody wrote:If the final results are tight then the polls may be legitimate. If there is an electoral land slide. I say the polls are just reporting a close election to keep people watching TV.
No, it doesn't work that way. Polls (and pollsters) can be wrong, or they can differ based on different assumptions or calculation formulae, but they get paid to be right. There's always another election and if you just making stuff up, you'll be out of a job soon.
Now from the news reporting standpoint, I'd agree with you that it is in their best interest to keep a close "horse race" going.
I don't see how the polls can even be close to being right if they only call landlines. There are 30 people in my office. 21 of them do not even have a landline telephone.
Brother wrote:I don't see how the polls can even be close to being right if they only call landlines. There are 30 people in my office. 21 of them do not even have a landline telephone.
They don't just call landlines. Who said they did?
Brother wrote:I don't see how the polls can even be close to being right if they only call landlines. There are 30 people in my office. 21 of them do not even have a landline telephone.
They don't just call landlines. Who said they did?
A very small percentage of polls call a very small percentage of cell phones. To me, that would skew the poll results drastically. Especially if it leaves out the majority of young people and poor people.
Brother wrote:I don't see how the polls can even be close to being right if they only call landlines. There are 30 people in my office. 21 of them do not even have a landline telephone.
i have one but do not answer the phone unless i recognize the number especially if the number is blocked so i cannot see it. I wish my phone would not ring if the calling number is blocked. if they bother me is should be able to bother them.
A very small percentage of polls call a very small percentage of cell phones. To me, that would skew the poll results drastically. Especially if it leaves out the majority of young people and poor people.
I know very few folks who have a landlines anymore. The last two years I had mine I never answered it until one day I asked my self what's the purpose.
A very small percentage of polls call a very small percentage of cell phones. To me, that would skew the poll results drastically. Especially if it leaves out the majority of young people and poor people.
You're right that a poll using only landlines would skew to Romney. You're wrong that most polls use only land lines.
