Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. None of the serious polling aggregators (538, Votamatic, Princeton Election Consortium, etc.) ever had a Romney win in their analyses. Going by hard stats Romney didn't stand a chance. The only people who thought otherwise were partisan hacks and know-nothing pundits. Frank Newport at Gallup is in the middle of a slow-motion meltdown over the fact the aggregation models were all far more accurate than traditional guesswork.
There are other polling aggregators as well.. Going by hard stats Romney certainly did have a chance. See the other thread about the University of Colorado model. There were other models as well that were posted here. Even 538 had Romney at greater than a chance 40% at times (when they had Republicans at a 25% chance to take 60 seats in the House as late as September of 2010...I don't know why anyone is paying attention to them months out). Romney was ahead in the Real Clear Politics average throughout most of October....until October 31. October 31. And there was always the issue of how the undecided voters would vote. Now as far anyone who was calling for a 350 electoral vote landslide - that was a bit out there.
As far as "know nothing" pundits, although you are a liberal, most liberals I don't think would call George Will "know nothing." Even ignoring polls, as far as predictions weeks or months before the election, I don't think ignoring polls is a bad thing.
Gallup is a scientific pollster that has been around for decades and decades and actually leaned more Democratic than the actual results in their final 2004 and 2008 presidential polls.
I'm not saying it's why Obama won, but when you have exit polls showing that it was a factor in the vote of ~40% or so of voters, those voters broke for Obama by pretty large margins, and that the voters who made up their minds at the last minute broke for Obama, I think it's a plausible argument. I don't think that's the main reason he won, but I do think it sealed the deal for him.
Chuck Todd, the man whose facial hair makes him look like he's a hick from the back country. What an idiotic opinion here he gave, saying that Romney could win with a strong debate performance. Was this unsophisticated-looking hick aware that the President enjoyed a significant electoral college advantage over Romney?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chuck from the backwoods
