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.
You have to give the liberal media credit for persistence. They are still doing their best to slant polls in favor of Obama.
Their latest effort doesn't list the actual numbers of Democrats, Republicans, etc. they asked. But it says that, among "likely voters", they are counting 35% Democrats, only 26% Republicans, and 33% Independents. This 9% advantage of Dems over Republicans, amounts to 34.6% of the entire Republican count!
But did Obama get 34.6% more votes in the poll, than Republicans? Nope, try 6.5% more, which is what the 49-46 outcome difference measures out compared to the Republican score.
If equal numbers of Dems and Republicans vote on Nov. 6, and they vote the same way they did in this "poll", Romney will win by twenty-something percent over the Democrat tally.
And keep in mind that in the 2010 national election after the American people had had a few years of seeing how Obama actually ran things, **MORE* Republicans voted than Democrats...
Does anybody think the American people are happier with Obama now than they were then?
Me neither.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 10-15-2012 at 11:07 AM..
The R numbers in these polls should be at least 30-32%. The 'no-skew' approach is silly too. I think D+2 or +3 is a realistic spread for these polls - remember, more people are also identifying them as independents.
I think D+2 or +3 is a realistic spread for these polls -
Why?
The only polling firm that's actually counting the numbers of Dems and Republicans registerd in the U.S., is Rasmussen. And they have found most recently (September 2012) that there are approx. 3% more Republicans currently registered than Democrats. Democrat registrations have been falling especially fast in large cities... areas that usually vote heavily Democrat.
On top of that, most polls are also finding Republicans more likely to vote than Democrats... as they did in 2010.
Whatever numbers of Dems and Repubs they ask initially, byt the time they boil them down to "likely voters", the percentage of Republicans has greatly increased, more than Democrats have increased.
On what basis do you conclude that a D+2 or +3 spread is "realistic"?
The R numbers in these polls should be at least 30-32%. The 'no-skew' approach is silly too. I think D+2 or +3 is a realistic spread for these polls - remember, more people are also identifying them as independents.
Exactly, but the right wingers don't care. Any poll that shows Obama in the lead = conspiracy!
Exactly, but the right wingers don't care. Any poll that shows Obama in the lead = conspiracy!
As in the 2010 mid terms proved, it a actually got the conservatives out, in record numbers, when they showed the Liberal guy/gal, in the lead.
The silent majority, was no longer silent.
Wonder what will happen this time, with so many PO'ed citizens?
Isn't it cute how little temPest ignores the fact that this point has already been refuted?
Quote:
Any poll that shows Obama in the lead = conspiracy!
...and how he tries to pretend some bad guy is shouting "conspiracy", when nobody has mentioned one except himself?
Typical leftist-fanatic tactics: If you can't win the argument, try to divert the debate to a different one, even if you have to make it up out of thin air!
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.
