With recent polls showing the president with a ten point lead in Ohio, it seems only fitting that the party of unreality would create a new world in which Romney is actually leading in the polls.
Apparently, they don't like the way that the poll companies sample, thinking that there are actually less non white voters who are going to turn out this year (despite census evidence to the contrary), and so their polls are a more accurate reflection of reality. Of course, the forget that pollsters like Quinnipiac don't use apply any sort of corrections in sampling but, hey, what does reality matter anyway?
It makes me wonder...if the president wins, will they pretend that Romney won?
14 comments:
You know that if Obama wins there will be no end to carping about the "voter fraud" that made it possible, even though the Republicans have been actively pursuing voter suppression since at least 2000.
In Florida they hacked the voter rolls to kick blacks and other minorities off on orders from their masters in Texas.
In Ohio in 2004 they gimmicked the computerized vote and reduced the number of voting machines in Democratic areas to create crazily long lines.
Bush's AG Roberto Gonzalez was forced to resign because he was pressuring US attorneys to go after minority voters.
ALEC has been getting Republican legislators to shill for their voter ID laws in states across the country because they know Democratic voters are less likely to drive and have those photo IDs. Remember the guy in Pennsylvania who said it would help Romney win there?
And Florida was caught red-handed trying to purge Democrats from the voter rolls again this year.
So they have a ready-made excuse for when Romney loses.
And if Obama loses, the shrieking and wailing from the "reality-based" community about how the election was stolen will be deafening. Yaawn.
Then again...
I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.
Well, those D+7, D+9 samples they use do make me laugh a bit...as if that's going to be the percentage of dems over repubs that show up on election day. History says otherwise.
Exit polls showed D+8 in Ohio after 2008 and before the 2010 Census, one of the many things the GOP is pretending isn't real. I think you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that this country is less white. Given that the GOP is doing everything they can to be the complete antithesis of what is important to these non white voters, it's not surprising that the numbers are what they are.
The other thing to consider is what effect Paul Ryan is having on seniors in Florida. The voucher idea isn't going over well at all with them and they have shifted to Obama.
Who is talking about skin color here?
I'd bet anyone that Obama does not win Ohio by 9 points because the 2012 electorate just isn't going to mirror the 2008 electorate not due to anyones skin color...probably due to young folks not being as excited about your guy this time as they were last time, Romney leading with independents, and the shelacking you took in 2010.
The only time polls get any headlines is when they show one candidate surging up...all those 47-47 polls became old hat real quick.
Tell me what you think is important to those non-white voters.
In a recent Ohio Newspaper Assn. poll that had Obama up by five in Ohio, Romney was preferred by independents 54–25. Obama took independents by nine points in 2008. That’s a full 38 point swing away from Obama, yet he’s purportedly beating Romney by a greater margin than he beat McCain in 2008. Now that's managing fantasies.
We’ve been here before. In late October, 1980, Carter was still (supposedly) leading Reagan by 5–7 points. Less than two weeks later, Reagan crushed Carter by 9.7 points. Many of the 1980 polls were using (not unreasonably) 1976-election models. But recall that the 1976 election, because of Watergate, had one of the lowest Republican voter-identification levels in history (+16 for Democrats). Applying the 1976 model to a 1980 electorate sick of 7.5 percent unemployment, an incoherent energy policy, an embassy under siege, and a president who blamed everyone but himself for the nation’s woes yielded poll results that showed Carter besting Reagan.
Similarly, the 2008 election featured record turnout among certain demographics and produced a significant Democrat advantage. We’ll see in six weeks whether applying a 2008 model to today’s polls make as much sense as applying 1976 to 1980.
This is not to say Romney will beat Obama as Reagan beat Carter. Maybe today’s polls are right. After all, who wouldn’t be more enthusiastic about Obama after 43 months of 8 percent unemployment, plummeting household income, $5 trillion in new debt, serial trillion-dollar deficits, Obamacare, embassies under siege, a looming entitlement catastrophe, and the first credit downgrade in U.S. history?
Obama may actually have a big lead, but healthy skepticism is not unjustified.
Well, immigration is something that's obviously important to the non white voter as the Latino vote continues to grow in this country. Health care would be another issue that is important.
You might want to not rely on Drudge and Brietbart so much for the views on independent voters. For example, Romney isn't leading among independents anymore in Florida
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/251173-polls-find-romney-obama-in-tight-race-for-swing-state-florida
Of course, polling independents doesn't really matter. These latest polls are of likely voters and the fact that the president is up in the polls among likely voters is trouble for Mitt Romney.
Gallup has the president at 50 and Mitt Romney at 44 as of today. This is the polls that the Right says is the most accurate, correct?
and the shelacking you took in 2010.
What was the voter turnout in 2010? No doubt, the Democrats lost a lot of seats in the House but the Senate was within the grasp of the GOP and what happened, again?
You might want to investigate some of the House numbers that are starting to come out now. Bachmann looks safe (for now) but West, King, and Walsh are in big trouble. Walsh is basically toast.
But, again, you are talking about local elections when you speak of the House victories in 2010. The GOP hasn't gotten over 300 electoral votes in a presidential election since 1988. What does that say to you?
It says to me that the party has gone too far to the right and is going to pay for it in this election.
2010 was a landslide, despite what Nikto still claims.
I probably won't spend any time investigating the house numbers because I'm too busy these days, as you know. I've never heard of King or Walsh so whether or not their voters send them back to DC is not something within my sphere of influence. The only poll that matters is on election day and, if the election were held next week, you'd see the polls tighten because the pollsters reputations will be on the line.
Since today is my birthday - I'll make a prediction. Barring any meltdowns from either side and as long as the campaign keeps going as is with no bombshells or October Surprises, I think Romney will win 52-47. I think Obamas own internal polls show that. How do I know? Just a hunch, a feeling, womens intuition, I don't knwo for sure. If Obama can get even more people on disability and food stamps from now till the election, that margin will narrow.
2010 was a landslide
What does that make 2006 and 2008 then? I don't think you can call it a landslide when you consider what happened in the Senate.
I think Romney will win 52-47. I think Obamas own internal polls show that. How do I know? Just a hunch, a feeling, womens intuition, I don't knwo for sure.
Well, here are the main sources I use (that were all correct about 2010, btw)
http://electoral-vote.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
These are not Obama's polls. Some of these links are Fox News and Rasmussen-both right leaning polls. Take a look where Fox has Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.
Given this information, how does Romney get to 52-47?
Incidentally, this...
If Obama can get even more people on disability and food stamps from now till the election, that margin will narrow.
...is where your blind spot is...I know you are just joking but this is a fairly pervasive attitude that's about to meet the reality of the electorate.
Isn't that your own position though Mark. When you bemoan conservatives that "don't vote in their own best interests", and compare rates of government assistance - you are essentially stating that those people should be voting for the people who will give them more government stuff.
Then after bemoaning it, you turn around and point your finger at any conservative who recognizes that there are indeed some people who do vote their interests. It just so happens that those interests are government handouts.
Well, immigration is something that's obviously important to the non white voter as the Latino vote continues to grow in this country.
Really? And your dumb white ass knows this how? I wonder what all of those non-whites think of your opinion?
juris: "And your dumb white ass knows this how?"
Mark: "Feelings ... wo-wo-wo ... feelings! I get feeelings...
As usual, our esteemed host falsely conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration. And of course Latinos support illegal immigration because racial solidarity must trump economic self-interest, right?
Post a Comment