What is this gibberish? We had thousands upon thousands of state and tracking polls that showed the same thing throughout the 2012 campaign. It was fairly consistent, and Nate Silver's model (just an example) was aggregating the polls and providing statistical odds the entire way through. Obama was winning, all the way through the campaign - and the polling showed this clearly. Romney got a bump after the first debate, but it was never enough. The polls are a matter of record. You could go back to RCP and look at them. Nobody changed them after the fact. We lost by 5 million votes man, it really wasn't all that close. The folks on our side that disputed the polls have largely admitted they were wrong, why can't you?
Your point that I responded to was the following:
As I've been explaining since last summer, the use of polling to determine public opinion has collapsed to utter nonsense.
And that's just wrong. You shouldn't have been saying this since last summer because it's utter nonsense.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/30/we-are-the-91-only-9-of-americans-cooperate-with-pollsters/ This is a brief on the PEW report on the matter ~ may be written at a comprehension level you can deal with. If you can understand this then you may on to the PEW report itself. THIS WAS PUBLISHED LAST MAY ~ the fact you are unaware of it is suggestive of your being a rustic when it comes to statistical analysis.