Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Quinnipiac Pollster Admits: ‘Probably Unlikely’ That Electorate Will Feature Massive Dem Skew
NewsBusters ^ | 9-26-2012 | Matthew Sheffield

Posted on 09/26/2012 12:18:38 PM PDT by smoothsailing

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
To: muawiyah

Except there ain’t D+9 or D+13 party affiliation numbers nationally that support the LV models the pollsters are using. Have you noticed that Romney’s numbers have gotten ‘worse’ since the pollster have went to LV models? It’s because they have gone more dem that a ‘random’ same just like the example you just gave.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends

Using numbers party ID numbers from the best pollster on the planet, can you tell us why a D+9 or D+13 model is statistically valid? Well neither can the pollsters that are publishing them.


51 posted on 09/26/2012 1:39:22 PM PDT by tatown ( FUMD, FUAC, and FUGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Alas, not universally true, and in many places where they do, in fact, have such lists you can't necessarily get access to them without handing over lots of money.

In states without party registration, there are no such lists.

52 posted on 09/26/2012 1:42:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
but, of course, it's always true ~ because there are more Democrats.

Not any more, according to Rassmussen. That organization shows more Republicans than Democrats for the last nine months.

53 posted on 09/26/2012 1:42:42 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Well, that shows the demographic would work out to be biased and that could affect the outcomoooiiiiioo. Numerous prefixes would give similar results, and some Area Codes...


54 posted on 09/26/2012 1:43:36 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Maybe for once see a poll that reflects the accurate party breakdown on planet Earth for once. The only time they did more Rs was to keep Atkins in the race.
“Ahhh they didnt think the could fool a Corleone did they “lol


55 posted on 09/26/2012 1:43:45 PM PDT by italianquaker (The 47 pct need to pay their fair share)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It’s been posted many time but he refuses to acknowledge it.


56 posted on 09/26/2012 1:44:07 PM PDT by tatown ( FUMD, FUAC, and FUGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Do you think Rassmussen is skewing data toward Republicans? Is there some dynamic that I am missing there?


57 posted on 09/26/2012 1:45:08 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt
Michael Reagan was on FOX today explaining that there have been more Democrats than Republicans for a long time ~ and his dad overcame the odds.

He won by being a friendly face with some good ideas and he got more Republicans to turn out than you can shake a stick at.

Mike knows how he won, and so did he.

So, the Democrats have turned to using Michael Reagan as a source for talking points?

Well, just darned eh!

58 posted on 09/26/2012 1:50:22 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
What you are missing are the subtle distinctions between one guy's choice of how to handle non responsive non responses and non responsive responses.

You need to distort anything ~ just count all your calls, or exclude some.

Rasmussen also seems to screen for age ~ which adds another factor to the poll ~ which means he has to make more calls.

He claims it improves his effectiveness ~ others disagree ~ they say more smaller polls and that will give you a trendline that's as close as Rasmussen by election day.

59 posted on 09/26/2012 1:54:31 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

let me put it this way ~ they’re still gd democrats no matter what they say. they’re trying to hide from the abusive democrat robocall system ~ but we also have pollsters determining through questioning how the subject/victim actually voted in previous elections ~


60 posted on 09/26/2012 1:57:09 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Elections are big business. Why would we or should we expect these guys not to earn a buck? They cannot do that if Obama’s getting clobbered. They need to keep it close.


61 posted on 09/26/2012 1:58:29 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; All
He claims it improves his effectiveness ~ others disagree ~ they say more smaller polls and that will give you a trendline that's as close as Rasmussen by election day.

Interesting that they are using Rasmussen as the measure of accuracy, or so it sounds.

62 posted on 09/26/2012 1:59:45 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

I believe they gamble on a last minute incident to hang their hat on.. Let me be a bit more precise.. If they have been tampering with the data, as we know they have all through this election cycle, they have to have a “cause, or case” to get back to reality before they are humiliated on election day..

I recall several incidents that the media has overblown to justify the dramatic last minute shift in the momentum to the actual, and ultimate results on election day..

I think they hang on to the fraud until the very last possible minute to skew the momentum, then look for any reason, or create something, to save their a$$.. My 2 cents.. :)


63 posted on 09/26/2012 2:00:02 PM PDT by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b

What better way to convince the looters that the Republicans stole the election?

Push bogus polling up to election day.


64 posted on 09/26/2012 2:02:32 PM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It's in a symposium i reffed the other day ~ the lead lecture was by Zogby ~ and he went right to comparing his approach to Rassmussen's approach.

used to follow roperpoll more than the others but they're into marketing more than politics. noneof this is carvedin stone. someday rassmussen will fail to detect a change in the environment and all his stuff will turn to garbage just like everybody else's.

65 posted on 09/26/2012 2:05:24 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I think Limbaugh had it correct today when he said lots of people are afraid others will stay home but wouldn’t dream of doing so themselves.

Any “conservative” who won’t cast a vote to remove Obama might as well change their name to Arianna Huffington. I don’t believe such a person would have supported Gingrich or Santorum and I don’t believe they’ll support a Gingrich or Santoraum type in 2016. I’m as tired of the “Take my ball and go home” people as I am of the establishment types.


66 posted on 09/26/2012 2:06:40 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Reagan @ only 39/Mondale +5/Dukakis +17/McCain +3...panic is unwarranted. So is complacency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

Sam.. one more thing.. LOL Sometimes they can’t find a good, believeable, reason, so they just claim VOTER FRAUD.. The morons will keep the faith so they can blame anything on their loss, since they are in LaLa land already.. :)


67 posted on 09/26/2012 2:08:01 PM PDT by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Exactly!


68 posted on 09/26/2012 2:08:12 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Reagan @ only 39/Mondale +5/Dukakis +17/McCain +3...panic is unwarranted. So is complacency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

It would be preferable if the buck they earned was earned honestly.


69 posted on 09/26/2012 2:09:50 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tatown
Only an idiot would believe that turnout is random.

Nailed it.

70 posted on 09/26/2012 2:10:25 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Reagan @ only 39/Mondale +5/Dukakis +17/McCain +3...panic is unwarranted. So is complacency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

BINGO!


71 posted on 09/26/2012 2:12:00 PM PDT by carlo3b (Less Government, more Fiber..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

Yep, eventually the truth outs. If they cannot deflate Mitt now it’s over for Obama.


72 posted on 09/26/2012 2:13:01 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Bottom line is the cliché used here..Only polls that matters is on election day when they count the votes. It pretty indisputable that most of the pollsters this election cycle are fully in bed with the Democrats. It’s a psy-ops campaign meant to dispirit us. You’d have to be a moron not to see that at this point. The election is tight in some states and not in others, the punch line is by 11pm R&R will be declared the winner. These polls will show eventually a tie as election day nears, but the byline will be Obama is up slightly. We are dealing with dangerous, radical, evil people who will stop at nothing including starting a national race riot saying the election was stolen from the Chocolate Messiah.


73 posted on 09/26/2012 2:14:08 PM PDT by pburgh01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The article is about new registrations, so whether they remove people from the rolls is irrelevant. Lack of new registrations would point to lack of enthusiasm, IMHO.


74 posted on 09/26/2012 2:15:10 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Reagan @ only 39/Mondale +5/Dukakis +17/McCain +3...panic is unwarranted. So is complacency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“Lies, Damn Lies, and Statics” Mark Twain.
You can add Election Polls to the list.

Beware the Democrat Media Complex (aka Pravda)


75 posted on 09/26/2012 2:15:58 PM PDT by kgrif_Salinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Why does that point even matter when everyone knows that there won’t be a 9% Dem advantage in actual voting? That renders the poll useless as a snapshot, much less as a predictor of the final outcome.


76 posted on 09/26/2012 2:19:28 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Reagan @ only 39/Mondale +5/Dukakis +17/McCain +3...panic is unwarranted. So is complacency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
New registrations being down is a far different item than registrations, per se, being down ~ particularly in Illinois.

The Democrats had an enormous voter registration drive (among probable Democrats) 4 years ago.

I suspect they really did run out of more people to register ~ fur shur they aren't going to push on potential Republican voters to go register!

77 posted on 09/26/2012 2:20:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Uhh, I too can sit here and suggest that on election day the Republicans will be the only people voting ~ so what?

These polls are a little bit predictive, a little bit prescriptive, something of a snapshot, entertainment, a guide to where a politician might want to spend scarce campaign resources.

Not to ruin your day, but it has been said and written: "'And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only;...."

78 posted on 09/26/2012 2:26:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; Mr. Silverback
I suspect they really did run out of more people to register

Yep, all those folks who were 14, 15, 16, and 17 in 2008 just disappeared. Don't you just hate it when that happens!

79 posted on 09/26/2012 2:35:53 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

15%?

So the Dems won 65-35% in 2008?


80 posted on 09/26/2012 2:39:07 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

We are speaking of the difference in vote totals of each party ~ not the total percent of the total vote.


81 posted on 09/26/2012 2:40:58 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Thank you for your insight.


82 posted on 09/26/2012 2:47:59 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Your math is wrong.

No, my math is not wrong. I simply reported the comparable statistics from the last Presidential election.

Simply dividing the difference in the two vote totals by the total number of votes don't tell you anything about the difference!

Yes, it does. The difference is simply expressed in a proportion of the entire sample.

Look, I see your point. You can compare the two subsets to each other, instead the entire group, and come up with a different percentages. But, that's not how this difference was reported. It is the percentage of the entire sample, not a percentage of any subset.

You can't calculate it your way, then say that it means that a percentage calculated the other way (and the way everyone else is doing it) is comparable. If you know as much about statistics as you claim, you should know better.

Personally, I don't think that you can just adjust a poll according to self-reported political affiliations. However, I think it's both intellectually and ethically dishonest to report a poll as "correct" or "accurate" when there is such a clear imbalance in the sample.

Pollsters are just not willing to admit their sampling methodologies aren't really random. If they did, they would be out of business. These days, telephone poll respondents are effectively self-selecting. Between caller ID and call screening, most poll responders know exactly who they will be talking to before they even pick up the phone.

When you add in the different behaviors of the major voting groups (especially on the weekends), the possibility of intimidation (do I really know who is calling me for my opinion?), and telemarketers using the poll/survey exclusion to get their foot in the door, there is simply no way to get a genuinely random sample.

I'll also note that the party identification that I cited above is also suspect. It was derived from exit polls, and those are also self-selecting.

83 posted on 09/26/2012 2:59:16 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Pardon me but I got a couple of thoughts on this matter.

Your reputation precedes you as far as I’m concerned. You are always involved in some dispute with another Freeper or some such.

HOWEVER....this time I agree with you. I think to properly reflect the populace that the polls should reflect , oh I dunno, maybe the % Dem/pub turnout from the prior election.

HOWEVER again, jeez louise, I once worked for five years on a job requiring specific knowledge of samples and sample sizes....quality control to be exact.

I learned then and still now that sample sizes are fairly accurate. Gotta find the coveted “mean” and all that.

But come on, today all these polls come out showing Obamer running away with this thing in swing states. That’s just not believable I say based on my experience with statistics. It’s not likely at all that polls would suddenly change so dramatically overnight.

Still and so, hey, if the American people re-elect Obama I have decided to accept their choice and not grouse about it.

Do I see it as the end of America as I know it? Yes.

But we have a majority rule and so the majority shall rule.

I believe with all my heart America will make the right decision as regards this election.

But if not I will stoicly accept the rule of the majority.

Unhappily, to be sure. But what shall be, shall be.


84 posted on 09/26/2012 3:04:56 PM PDT by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

“Personally, I don’t think that you can just adjust a poll according to self-reported political affiliations.”

__________________________________

That might be singularly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on FR regarding polls. Voter turnout is NOT random!! One more time invade you we’re unable to let it sink in the first time. Voter turnout is NOT random.


85 posted on 09/26/2012 3:05:35 PM PDT by tatown ( FUMD, FUAC, and FUGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tatown
That might be singularly the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on FR regarding polls.

Usually, I ignore personal attacks like this. You should know better. And if you don't dial it back a notch, this will be my last response to you.

No, voter turnout is not random. But, you can't expect a telephone poll to predict it reliably, especially when the poll results are well within the margin of error.

Instead of taking my comment out of context (like the Obama Media Group does for Romney), maybe you should read the rest of my response.

Poll responders are not randomly selected, either. The "opportunity" may be random, but the choice to respond is not random. There's too many factors that essentially make a poll respondent self-selecting. So, you can't adjust the results of one self-selecting poll with the results of another self-selecting poll and say that it is "better".

However, as I noted in the part that you deleted, I think that it is ethically and intellectually dishonest to claim that a poll is "accurate" when it is clear that your samples have a significant number of outliers.

86 posted on 09/26/2012 3:24:12 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; VanDeKoik; Buckeye McFrog; SoFloFreeper; Red Steel; Anti-Hillary; Mr. Silverback; ...

Either:

1) There’s a vast leftwing polling conspiracy

or

2) We are part of the slant.

Maybe the left has a weak turnout for BO, but also, Romney has a weaker base demonstrated daily on FR by people who’d rather teach the GOPe a lesson than send Obama packing.

#2 seems more and more likely.

We assume the left won’t turn out as well as 2008. But I think a lot of spite is going to materialize in the Laz-e-boys and popcorn sales when the puritanicals sit home and passively protest against republicans.


87 posted on 09/26/2012 3:27:32 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

....”a guide to where a politician might want to spend scarce campaign resources.”


Please explain to me why Obamy is campaigning today in Ohio, while enjoying a 53% to 43% lead over Romney?


88 posted on 09/26/2012 3:33:11 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk
Thanks ~

I have my own theory about what the polls are telling us and why even the pollsters don't know what they mean.

It's not all bad news, just confusing news.

As you know all political parties attempt to stir their followers to go vote for their candidates. Billions have been spent based on the idea that this stuff works ~ that you can campaign and raise your candidate's popularity, and more people will come out to vote for him. BILLIONS!

I have no doubt that's the way it is almost all the time. But usually the parties and their campaigns start with candidates of more than uncommon popularity. For example, Eisenhower was very popular. He had a large edge with the populace and could draw on Democrats for votes as well. Truman had even tried to get him to run as a Democrat. He'd won either way.

The others we know about were not in the Ike category of popularity, but they weren't like Charlie Manson either. Sure he had his following, but you get tired of the glow in the dark eyeball trick in a really short time.

Obama was highly popular before folks got to know him. Now he's down in the dumper.

What about the other guy? Romney ~ is he popular, or is he just the guy who managed to snag the nomination? What if BOTH major party candidates are perceived by most voters as not being all that popular, or even someone to respect?

Then, as the campaign progresses and we get to know both of these guys better their existing popularity could drop leaving more and more voters confused, upset and disturbed that they don't have a candidate in this race.

The pollsters should be detecting this in the number of non-respondents they encounter ~ those are the folks who hang up on the pollster right off, or refuse to answer questions, or who hector the poll caller, or even preach to them before hanging up.

None of these guys will tell you, but if it's going on, and there are fewer and fewer actual probable voters in the pool within which the sample is being taken, the results should, at some point, come to a resting point where any number of additional samples (calls to people) will not change the results beyond random chance ~

I think we have begun hearing that with ever increasing incidences of pollsters reporting ties, and once one guy does it the others will bravely come forward and they'll tell us the same thing.

This before the debates and without any real campaigning having taken place.

Does not look good

89 posted on 09/26/2012 3:35:22 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

It is what it is. Compare A to B, not A to A+B


90 posted on 09/26/2012 3:43:37 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I’ll take #1 sprinkled with just a tiny pinch of #2.


91 posted on 09/26/2012 3:45:02 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Good point. We need to keep our principles, but take the long view. All this hand wringing isn’t going to produce a conservative majority.


92 posted on 09/26/2012 3:46:42 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob
Why?

Several reasons ~ it's on the way to Chicago. Michelle has friends in Cleveland. ........ just hundreds of things like that.

93 posted on 09/26/2012 3:47:19 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Then I suggest we name the gulags after you.


94 posted on 09/26/2012 3:47:27 PM PDT by OrangeHoof (Our economy won't heal until one particular black man is unemployed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“It’s in a symposium i reffed the other day ~ the lead lecture was by Zogby ~ and he went right to comparing his approach to Rassmussen’s approach.”


Good grief are you freaking kidding me? Is this the same John ‘the Retard’ Zogby that just this week made the claim that Obama (a black, Marxist, pro gay marriage, failed president) has a significant lead among NASCAR fans??? WOW I say!! If you are stupid enough to follow this dipshit then you really have ZERO credibility.


95 posted on 09/26/2012 3:51:38 PM PDT by tatown ( FUMD, FUAC, and FUGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
“What I believe is what we found,” he insisted

Can't argue with that. They wanted to find Obama in the lead and did..

96 posted on 09/26/2012 3:55:31 PM PDT by IamConservative (The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
I believe the debates are one of the main reasons the polls are being inflated so much for Obama.

Obama's campaign has already been trying to downplay Obama's performance in the upcoming debates. Even before the debates, they have started to make excuse - they say Obama hasn't debated in 4 years, and Romney had the primary debates.

I believe Obama is going to go into a 'prevent defense' in the debates. I can almost guarantee that the plan is that anything that comes out of his mouth not be an original idea. Everything he says should be already tested 'campaign speak'.

Obama will do this to try and limit the possibility of Romney hitting a homerun. As long as Romney doesn't hit anything out of the park, the spin the day after the debate will all be about how Romney failed to gain enough ground from the 8 points back the polls say he's behind.

If the polls showed this as a close race, then Obama would have to step out in the debates. But with the 'polls' showing Obama with a large lead, then Obama can sit back in the debates, not give Romney any ammunition, and the media can spin that Obama won the debates because he didn't give up any ground to Romney.

It could work, but here is why I don't think it will. I don't think Obama is capable of sitting back in a debate.

Example, remember when the polls weren't so biased, and they showed Romney very strong? What happened? Obama's hubris took over, and he thought that the reason he was falling behind was because he was doing what he was told, and not taking taking his grandness right to the people. What happened, he went off script and out popped the 'you didn't build that' speech (not even an original, it was a very inarticulate re-hash of a Warren speech!).

Obama is a narcissist, and a hot head. I remember reading from a couple of places where people have said that Obama honestly has a a strong personal dislike for Romney. I hope that's true. I think during this first debate Romney is going to get under Obama's skin, and Obama, being Obame is not going to be able resist showing everyone how smart he is, and it's going to be a disaster. I'm pretty sure that there is going to be a singular point when every conservative watching that debate is going to actually feel sorry for Obama - that will soon be followed a collective thought of "YES!".
97 posted on 09/26/2012 4:03:40 PM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
I believe the debates are one of the main reasons the polls are being inflated so much for Obama.

Obama's campaign has already been trying to downplay Obama's performance in the upcoming debates. Even before the debates, they have started to make excuse - they say Obama hasn't debated in 4 years, and Romney had the primary debates.

I believe Obama is going to go into a 'prevent defense' in the debates. I can almost guarantee that the plan is that anything that comes out of his mouth not be an original idea. Everything he says should be already tested 'campaign speak'.

Obama will do this to try and limit the possibility of Romney hitting a homerun. As long as Romney doesn't hit anything out of the park, the spin the day after the debate will all be about how Romney failed to gain enough ground from the 8 points back the polls say he's behind.

If the polls showed this as a close race, then Obama would have to step out in the debates. But with the 'polls' showing Obama with a large lead, then Obama can sit back in the debates, not give Romney any ammunition, and the media can spin that Obama won the debates because he didn't give up any ground to Romney.

It could work, but here is why I don't think it will. I don't think Obama is capable of sitting back in a debate.

Example, remember when the polls weren't so biased, and they showed Romney very strong? What happened? Obama's hubris took over, and he thought that the reason he was falling behind was because he was doing what he was told, and not taking taking his grandness right to the people. What happened, he went off script and out popped the 'you didn't build that' speech (not even an original, it was a very inarticulate re-hash of a Warren speech!).

Obama is a narcissist, and a hot head. I remember reading from a couple of places where people have said that Obama honestly has a a strong personal dislike for Romney. I hope that's true. I think during this first debate Romney is going to get under Obama's skin, and Obama, being Obame is not going to be able resist showing everyone how smart he is, and it's going to be a disaster. I'm pretty sure that there is going to be a singular point when every conservative watching that debate is going to actually feel sorry for Obama - that will soon be followed a collective thought of "YES!".
98 posted on 09/26/2012 4:03:56 PM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
I posted this Aug 2 when it broke ... Got a good thread out of it but sent it to Rush and got crickets. If matthew gets traction more power to him....
99 posted on 09/26/2012 4:04:06 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (2008 + IN, NE1, NC, FL, VA, OH, IA = 272EV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tatown

Everybody has a bad poll or two lying about ~ but say, tell us how you’d go about sampling specifically for NASCAR fans. Bet that problem is a bit more difficult to crack than you imagine.


100 posted on 09/26/2012 4:05:27 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson