Posted on 09/02/2012 6:48:04 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Okay, I have a question: How can Obama be ahead in states where the Democrat Senate candidates are behind. I'll give you an example: Connecticut. In that state, the Republican Senate, Linda McMahon, leads her Democrat opponent by 3 points according to the polls yet the polls also show CT as solid for Obama. How can that be? How does Obama run AHEAD of the Democrat Senate candidate?
I see similar situations in other states, such as Wisconsin, where Obama is supposed to be ahead yet the Democrat Senate candidates are behind.
Lies?
Bradley effect.
Wishful thinking?
Many conservatives find lying to pollsters a satisfying hobby. And besides, if you object to the Bamster, you’re a raaaacist.
Britain has a Tory Effect which could apply here.
Just wait till ole Barry wakes up Nov. 8th to a landslide defeat, finding out all those Democrats saying yes to the pollsters to avoid the appearance of being racist actually say no in the voting booth to avoid the appearance of being stupid.
I don’t have a good reason for this.
I’ll give you another example. In my state, Missouri, all 3 Republican candidates for Senator were outpolling McCaskill by 5+ points (before Akin shot himself in the face). But Romney/Obama is a dead heat. Obama won’t be within 5 points of Romney in Missouri on election night.
Do the pollsters wait until the election to do more accurate polls to save their reputations?
From the tone and tenor of the campaigns, I would wager the internals are far different than the public pablum we are being fed.
oversampling.....
MA is another such state. Scott Brown comfortably ahead of Fauxahontas yet rated as solidly for Obama.
Because people still like the Obama “brand” (see the great Daniel Greenfield article posted earlier). Their local Dem Senate candidate? No so much.
iow people support Obama because he’s Obama. They’re taking out their political and economic anger on the downticket candidates.
Yup! They can lie like hell now because their results can't be verified but by the final weekend before the election they have to reveal the "horrible" truth or end up with their reputations ruined.
In heavily Rat infested areas, people are afraid to say they are voting against Obama. They don’t know if the caller is a real pollster or an Obama thug.
Pollsters are not stupid.
Can we safely assume this is a rhetorical question posed to make a point?
It's the same dynamic that has the network carrying the Super Bowl praying for a close game. They don't want a 38-3 score at halftime as they will lose millions of viewers for the second half and they will have to rebate advertisers a lot of money.
Pollsters are remembered for how accurate they are the day before the election.
“In heavily Rat infested areas, people are afraid to say they are voting against Obama. They don’t know if the caller is a real pollster or an Obama thug.”
I agree. How would one respond to a poll concerning Chavez in Venezuela?
While I wish “spin” polls were really the case, I remember hearing the same kind of comments in 2008 about how the polls were being skewed toward the dems and how the polls would shift to a McCain lead in the day or two before the election.
As I recall, they showed about 51-48 Obama at that point - within a percentage point or so of the final tally.
I’m not buying that theory this time around. Fool me once and all that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.