Sponsored Links

[Raptavio]

Media keep reporting that the presidential contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a tie in the polls.

However, looking state by state, the President has held a strong electoral margin for most of the last few months (take a look at the 'Now-cast' electoral tracking graph) and Romney has only briefly come anywhere close to taking an electoral lead during that time.

In fact, with Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all trending solidly blue, and Florida edging into that column as well, there seem to be precious few plausible routes to a Romney electoral victory, and none that at this time seem very likely.

So why do the media continue to portray the Presidential election as 'tied', as if it's still a close horserace?

Questions for Debate:

Why do the media so often focus on the national polls that show a close or tied race, rather than the state-by-state polls which consistently show a strong lead for the President?

Do the media have vested interests in portraying the Presidential race as being closer than it is?

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?

[Paladin Elspeth]

Why do the media so often focus on the national polls that show a close or tied race, rather than the state-by-state polls which consistently show a strong lead for the President?

They don't always. The other night msnbc was showing Obama leading by a significant margin all but one of the "battleground" states.

Do the media have vested interests in portraying the Presidential race as being closer than it is?

As long as they have to depend on sponsors for their bread and butter, they will have vested interests. Higher viewership means more sponsors.

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?

I am afraid that it is too often the Electoral College which makes the decision. I think it should be the popular vote that does, i.e., more direct representative government, and that the dinosaur called the Electoral College should be put to rest.

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?

I don't think it is anywhere near time to call the contest for one candidate. Romney has been sabotaging his own campaign, but that is not to say that extraneous circumstances could not weigh the election in his favor before November 6. Besides, we do not know yet what the impact of the Citizens United decision will be with all the money in the SuperPACs being used to air nasty commercials. I can only hope that voters will care enough about the outcome to investigate the positions of the candidates rather than relying upon hearsay and manipulation of the media.

[AuthorMusician]

Why do the media so often focus on the national polls that show a close or tied race, rather than the state-by-state polls which consistently show a strong lead for the President?

There's no business like show business, and the news has become show business. What does it matter why? The news has to be entertaining, so a close race is more of that than a done deal.

Do the media have vested interests in portraying the Presidential race as being closer than it is?

Same deal as above. News is now a profit center.

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?

Only the EC vote count counts. It may suck, but until we change it, that's the way these elections will go.

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?

He has a garden slug's chance of surviving a hot tin roof in August. That's always been the case, but again . . .

There's no business like politics being show business for ugly people. They're putting on the show.

Meanwhile, the show injects needed circulating money into the economy. Good on ya!

[Amlord]

Why do the media so often focus on the national polls that show a close or tied race, rather than the state-by-state polls which consistently show a strong lead for the President?

The media is full of dolts? Or maybe they know something you don't know...

If you look nationally, the race is virtually tied. Just about the same number of likely voters prefer the President's re-election over his ouster.

The race really isn't tied, however, since it is decided by the Electoral College. The President has more paths to victory than Mitt Romney and has a lead in the "Leaning" and "Definite" states. He does not have enough to win the Electoral college however.

In the battleground states, many of the races are within the margin of error. However, the President has never trailed (recently) in Ohio or Virginia.

Do the media have vested interests in portraying the Presidential race as being closer than it is?

I think they do, but I also think the race is closer than some people think. I've seen several people claim that the race is effectively over which is bunk. The sitting President almost always LOSES support between his convention and the actual election, usually by 3 to 4 points. This race is neck and neck.

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?

State by state, of course. A lot of prognosticators look district by district to determine the enthusiasm of areas of support for each candidate. This is what they do when calling states of election night.

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?

Of course. Jimmy Carter was up by a bigger margin at this point in the race than Barack Obama. There are plenty of things that do not bode well for his re-election.

Of course, the surest path is for more people to vote for Mitt Romney.

I believe one important factor is that the polls are universally oversampling Democrats. Some are using a higher percentage of Democrats than voted in the 2008 election. None are using the 2010 voter turnout model.

[Dingo]

Why do the media so often focus on the national polls that show a close or tied race, rather than the state-by-state polls which consistently show a strong lead for the President?
National and state polls don't necessarily gibe. Obama could be winning in individual states but by closer margins than Romney. Romney's leads on the other hand might be by wider margins, thus showing up as relatively even nationally.

Do the media have vested interests in portraying the Presidential race as being closer than it is?
Some probably do but that would be about the media cherry picking not the polls themselves.

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?
I would think state by state because of the electoral college. However as a snap shot the national polls are more up to date as some of the smaller states aren't polled that often so you might get a last poll that was 2 weeks old.

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?
Absolutely. Think higher gas prices and greater unemployment. The fact that Romney is so competitive even now after all his demonstrated incompetence, cluelessness and lying suggests a major portion of the electorate is simply immune to rational political thought.

[Amlord]

I believe one important factor is that the polls are universally oversampling Democrats. Some are using a higher percentage of Democrats than voted in the 2008 election. None are using the 2010 voter turnout model.

Making sense of the many polls with conflicting results

Many of the polls are skewed. They are skewed by over-sampling Democrats and unskewing the data from the polls arrives at more accurate numbers. But for many, an easy to understand story used as a metaphor would more clearly illustrate the concept.

<snip>

Skewing of the polls has been more common in major polls this season than those few polls that have not been skewed. Last week the latest CNN/ORC poll was similarly skewed. Last month on the Fox News segment “Campaign Insiders” today, Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen both confirmed their belief that major polls are skewed in favor of the Democrats by over-sampling of Democratic voters when the surveys are conducted.

So many of these skewed polls have been unskewed here in this column they are now averaged, in unskewed form, in the new UnskewedPolls.com UnSkewed Average of Polls that today shows Romney leading by 7.8 percent.

Could Romney really be running away with this race?

[akaCG]

...
Could Romney really be running away with this race?

I am confident he'll win, but even I don't think he'll win it by 8. I'm thinking by 4 or 5.

Yes, I do agree that the overwhelming majority of the polls are incorrectly using the 2008 template.

Latest examples thereof are the WaPo polls that just came out:

Ohio: Obama up by 8 with a D +9 sampling (vs. Gallup party ID of D +3.6)

Florida: Obama up by 4 with a D +10 sampling (vs. Gallup party ID of D +0.7)

Virginia: Obama up by 8 with a D +8 sampling (vs. Gallup party ID of R +3.0)

I think Romney will win all 3.

Here's Gallup's party ID by state table in its entirety, btw:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156437/Heavily-...ted-East.aspx#2

This post has been edited by akaCG: Sep 25 2012, 04:38 PM

[Curmudgeon]

This has been an interesting Presidential Election cycle. This is the first one since the Citizens United decision. We were warned that we would be seeing an unprecedented amount of money being spent on this campaign...

I have found one flyer in my mailbox this year (with no postage and no address) for a candidate for judge.

I found one flyer on my front porch for a candidate whose opponent's sign is in my front yard. (The canvasser should have noted that and kept walking instead of littering my yard.

The billboards in town are still showing Kermit the Frog. (Eats flies. Dates a Pig. Hollywood Star.)

I have heard several Presidential ads referenced in news stories, but for the first time this morning; I heard an ad for Barach Obama during an actual commercial break...

I did hear Romney complaining that the Teachers Unions have contributed 10 million dollars to campaigns this year. On the same network, I also heard that Sheldon Adelson has contributed at least 70 million dollars to Romney's campaign. Both campaigns have collected circa 100 million dollars per month... Romney was also proposing that teachers who promote all their students each year should be paid more than teachers who hold students back, that students should not be allowed to enter kindergarten until their parents passed basic training, and that teacher salaries should be based on student evaluations of their teachers. He made a very clear argument that school board members should not be allowed to have any ties to the Democratic Party or teaching experience.

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?

I am under the distinct impression that both campaigns must be budgeting their advertising "where it will do the most good." Michigan, listed early on as a "swing state," is about 95% likely to vote for Obama according to a "reliable source."

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?

I am beginning to form the opinion that Mitt Romney is a "businessman" who saw an unprecendented opportunity. If he loses this election, how likely is it that his campaign spending will be audited?

Is it possible that Bain Capital has invested in companies that are charging outrageous rates for consulting, advertising 24-7 in the states where he has collected campaign funds, etc. and diverting their "profits" to offshore accounts? When he loses the Election, will he be able to visit his money in The Bahamas and Switzerland? If he never returns to the United States, will he be essentially immune from prosecution?

I personally don't believe anymore that Romney is looking for a viable path to electoral victory. I seriously believe that Mitt Romney is trying to game the system, make a great deal of money in a very short time, and exit (stage right? stage left? out the back door? into the orchestra pit? drop out after one very poor debate performance?) quietly with no concern at all for whether the Republican Party survives. (Let the market do its job and let the party file for bankruptcy. Another party will form and take its place.) He may even actually believe that wealthy donors who have contributed freely will have "little recourse." If he pulls this con job off successfully, it may actually cause wealthy donors to actually investigate who they are backing.Who knows? Maybe market forces will correct for Citizens United...

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Sep 25 2012, 05:34 PM

[Amlord]

I personally don't believe anymore that Romney is looking for a viable path to electoral victory. I seriously believe that Mitt Romney is trying to game the system, make a great deal of money in a very short time, and exit (stage right? stage left? out the back door? into the orchestra pit? drop out after one very poor debate performance?) quietly with no concern at all for whether the Republican Party survives. (Let the market do its job and let the party file for bankruptcy. Another party will form and take its place.) He may even actually believe that wealthy donors who have contributed freely will have "little recourse." If he pulls this con job off successfully, it may actually cause wealthy donors to actually investigate who they are backing.Who knows? Maybe market forces will correct for Citizens United...

You're kidding, right? Romney doesn't want to win?

Romney is following the 3-2-1 strategy.

He must retake 3 traditionally Red States: Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.

He must flip back the 2 GOP "must haves": Ohio and Florida.

He must then take 1 more state, any state. It could be Iowa or Nevada or Colorado. It might be New Hampshire.

Michigan doesn't really fit into the easiest Road to the White House. Which is why you aren't seeing much activity.

[Curmudgeon]

Michigan doesn't really fit into the easiest Road to the White House. Which is why you aren't seeing much activity.

So Mitt Romney is looking for the easiest Road to the White House? No wonder he is trailing in the polls...

I don't recall which trip through Michigan that McCain was on when he stopped at a local fair, ordered a "corn dog with mustard sauce" and recommended it to the press corps four years ago.

I recall that McCain was less than 50 miles from here when he sang his "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" swan song.

I recall commenting on America's Debate when the George W. Bush campaign bus passed a group of war protesters and thanked us for our support...

I recall a four year cycle of heavy advertising by all of the presidential candidates on all of the television networks. This year, the silence stands out as unique in a lifetime...

This year, there is according to Nate Silver, about a 94 - 95% probability that Michigan will support Obama. This is a heavily Republican area of the state. Jennifer Granholm stated earlier this year that Ottawa County (about 8 miles South of here) last elected a Democrat to office before the Republican Party was formed. Locally, I reported in my last post on this thread on the only two election flyers that made it to my house this year that we did not bring home from a campaign office.

We applied for our absentee ballots today, so we will be able to sit at the comfort of our desks and look up the positions of the candidates on the ballots... Usually, that is a simple process where we apply using an application form provided by a candidate through the mail, we are given a ballot, and we are shown to a private room. There we can sit down, fill it out, and turn it in. Today, "The ballots are in, but they have to be issued sequentially. There has been an overwhelming number of requests, and it will be a few days before we can mail them to you."

The "Muskegon Chronicle" is only published three days a week in Grand Rapids and no longer has any local reporters. A house exploded a few days ago in Muskegon. The Grand Rapids television stations covered the story, but the front page story of the local Sunday paper was, "Should you pay off your student loans?" The number of ad inserts explained the four page length of the actual newspaper...

We're working hard for a Democratic candidate who may have a chance of being elected. The opponent, a "small business (never identified) owner," is raising funds and antagonizing voters. (Following Pete Hoekstra's signature political plan.)

It has been a few months now, but early on Michigan was being identified as a swing state and we were warned that with all the money that was being raised this year, we would be overwhelmed by the advertising. The only thing that we have heard on this side of the state is that, "The trees are the right height." I have the feeling that someone told Mr. Romney that he would be a "favorite son" candidate here, so he put Michigan in his "win column" and moved on. There are of course, "downballot candidates" and issues that a normal Presidential candidate would campaign for in an effort to support the Party that nominated him.

Instead, you are telling me that Mitt has a 3 - 2 - won plan. Win three Republican states. Win two swing states. Win the Presidency and work for 53% of the poulation, the ones who "pay taxes." Ignore the military because they are tax exempt in war zones. Ignore the retired elderly, because if you eliminate Social Security, they'll get off their lazy (insert your favorite expletives) and beg Wal-Mart for the never filled greeter jobs. Ignore the veterans who had their legs blown off, because they'll never pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If the government will simply stop taxing the wealthy, the wealthy will be able to hire gardeners again. (That fell out of style when "Dubya" showed his prowess with a chain saw on his ranch in Wacko.)

I see Mitt empathizing with the top 1% and asking them for money. On the campaign trail (in Ohio?) on the television a few minutes ago, Romney was shown with Paul Ryan, saying "ROMNEY, Ryan, ROMNEY, Ryan, Romney, Ryan... I'm the presidential candidate!" I doubt if they will be seen together again until after the election..

"I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he'll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him," Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, told The New York Times on Sunday.( link )

Ladies and gentlemen. The voting has begun. Ballots are being cast. This is not the time to be filmed introducing yourself to the public as the candidate. I was in school when Goldwater lost, but I still recall that election. If Romney wins three states, or two; he will be able to say... "Heh-heh, I did better than Barry." He can then ask Dick Cheney about undisclosed locations, and hope that he is not referred to Jimmy Hoffa.

I really expect that in a few years, it will begin to be uncovered that Willard Romney has diverted millions of dollars in "campaign contributions" to offshore accounts; because I have seen no evidence that any of it is being spent on his campaign to be elected President! Perhaps there are ads in those 5 states that he needs to win, but the video we are being told that Mitt wants every American to watch is being sold for about $15 a copy. (Plus shipping and handling.)

I have heard that Mitt Romney wants to know why he can't open the windows on the airplanes he has been flying on... Admittedly, he may be smarter than the Presidential Primary candidate that suggested that we create farms in space and colonize the moon; but this year's Republican Primary slate has done nothing to illustrate that the Republican Party is promoting greatness, leadership, or scholarship.

Paul Ryan was just repeating that old Tea Party complaint, "People in foreign lands are burning the American Flag." (...and Obama is doing nothing about it.)

When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner. ( link )

Perhaps, instead of suggesting that we need to pass unenforceable laws that would outlaw burning American Flags in foreign countries; presidential candidates should start thanking those people for properly disposing of an American Flag that is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country. Then, said candidate could turn to his audience and ask them how many people are still flying the same piece of weathered, faded, cloth that they proudly raised on September 11, 2001 in defiance of an unknown enemy and have flown for over 11 years now through rain, snow, sleet, and dark of night.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Sep 26 2012, 02:59 AM

[EuroBlack]

Media keep reporting that the presidential contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a tie in the polls.

However, looking state by state, the President has held a strong electoral margin for most of the last few months (take a look at the 'Now-cast' electoral tracking graph) and Romney has only briefly come anywhere close to taking an electoral lead during that time.

In fact, with Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all trending solidly blue, and Florida edging into that column as well, there seem to be precious few plausible routes to a Romney electoral victory, and none that at this time seem very likely.

So why do the media continue to portray the Presidential election as 'tied', as if it's still a close horserace?

Questions for Debate:

Why do the media so often focus on the national polls that show a close or tied race, rather than the state-by-state polls which consistently show a strong lead for the President?

I never got that either, national polls are worse than anything. Romney could get 99 percent in Kansas and Idaho, won't do him any good.

Do the media have vested interests in portraying the Presidential race as being closer than it is?

Yes, it's called MONEY

When it comes to predicting the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election, which is more important to examine: National likely voter polls, or counting electoral votes based on state-by-state polls?

electoral votes of likely voters

Barring a major shift in the polls, does Mitt Romney have a viable path to electoral victory in 2012?

WHAT?? OF COURSE!
with all the voter suppression that's going on in Penn. Flo, and Ohio (Repub counties can vote from 7AM till 9PM, Democrat counties can vote from 9AM till 5PM) Romney could easily win, cos polls don't really matter. In Penn, 750.000 people don't have voter ID, likely Dems in that sample: 450,000 last time Obama won there by a difference of 500,000 votes. Do the math.
In Florida, the Gop governor/DA BANNED all early voting on Sunday, when did many black people vote in Florida? On Sunday after church, with busses, because many poor or elderly blacks have no cars.

I really think polls are pretty useless right now. The only thing that could save us from Plutocrat rule is the general incompetence of the Romney campaign.

He now suggests that uninsured people should use the ER????.... in the 60mins interview. he didn't seem aware that its really expensive to do so.

[akaCG]

...
... Ohio (Repub counties can vote from 7AM till 9PM, Democrat counties can vote from 9AM till 5PM) ...
...

Not only that, but Democrats have to wait until November 7 to vote./

Seriously, man. Where in the world did you get this utter nonsense?

Good grief.

Here's some non-alternate universe information for you:

...
General Election Day. Polls are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. ................................. R.C. 3501.01, .32
...

Link (scroll down about 3/5ths of the way down):
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publ...endar_85x11.pdf

...
In Florida, the Gop governor/DA BANNED all early voting on Sunday, when did many black people vote in Florida? On Sunday after church, with busses, because many poor or elderly blacks have no cars.
...

Wrong again.

Florida early voting starts on Saturday, October 27, continues through ... Sunday, October 28 and ends on Sunday, November 4:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/...ng-schedule.php

EDITED to correct Florida early voting dates so as to conform to the month of October (instead of September).

This post has been edited by akaCG: Sep 26 2012, 02:46 PM

[EuroBlack]

you are wrong. Read and weep.

Florida:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/23/clin...rican-churches/

Former President Bill Clinton is warning that President Barack Obama’s edge in the polls may not be enough to defeat GOP hopeful Mitt Romney because the Republican Party was using voter suppression techniques to target traditionally Democratic voters like African-American church members and the elderly.

“How much will the vote be lessened or reduced by the fact that in Florida except for four counties, the pre-election voting — advanced voting — has been cut down to and doesn’t include the Sunday before the election?� Clinton told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in an interview that aired on Sunday.

The former president added that the tactic was “an arrow aimed straight at the heart of the African-American church, who pull up the church busses on the Sunday before the election and take elderly people who have no cars or people that are disabled to the polls so they can vote.�

Ohio
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/1...lican-counties/

According to the Board of Elections, 48% of early voters in Franklin County voted early on nights or weekends, which Republicans have curtailed. The number who voted on nights or weekends was nearly 50% in Cuyahoga County.

“I cannot create unequal access from one county board to another, and I must also keep in mind resources available to each county,� Husted said in explaining his decision to deny expanded early voting hours in heavily Democratic counties. Yet in solidly Republican counties like Warren and Butler, GOP election commissioners have approved expanded early voting hours on nights and weekends.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/20...repeal_con.html
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/...dent-obamas-ca/
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/20...repeal_con.html

in other words, they restrict voting for Democrats, while claiming they don't .... what else is new.

They got sued by the Obama campaign on a related issue, which now means all counties do indeed have the same access. But the intent of the Republicans is VERY clear: restrict voting for blacks, and other Democratic constituencies. Of course, I wouldn't dare call them racist...


http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/20...across_the.html

edited to say: your sos pdf is a broken file.


This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Sep 26 2012, 03:19 PM