Skip to comments.Pollmania: Obama leads Romney by seven nationally, by nine in New Hampshire
Posted on 04/24/2012 2:56:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Second look at dog-eating?
That’s the biggest lead he’s had against Romney dating back to last August. Follow the link and scroll down and you’ll see that it’s independents who are driving it, flipping from a 45/39 split in favor of Mitt 10 days ago to a 45/43 in favor of O. Gallup reasons that a dip in gas prices must be behind it, but the dip we’re talking about here is roughly five cents in the national average. Hard to believe you’d see a poll effect this dramatic because of something as meager as that. I think what we’re looking at here is a very noisy poll.
Not sure about this one, though:
The WMUR Granite State Poll shows Obama leading Romney 51 to 42 percent [in New Hampshire]. That’s close to the 10-point lead Obama had over Romney in December…
The results are a dramatic flip from October, when Romney led Obama 50 to 42 percent. Smith said that shows the Democratic base is mobilizing…
The poll shows a mixed picture in terms of the president’s approval rating in the Granite State. Fifty percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing, while 47 percent said they disapproved. The gap has shrunk a bit since February, when 51 percent said they approved and 43 percent disapproved.
I don’t understand the “Democratic base is mobilizing” logic when it comes to polls. Their base would have answered this question the same way in October as they’re answering now. It’s more likely that Romney’s numbers have shrunk because, thanks to six months of a bitter GOP primary, indies know him better now than they did then and some don’t like what they see. That’s not a disaster — conservative Super PACs will begin the attack ad carpet-bombing campaign against O soon enough — but surely no one’s thrilled to see Mitt start the general election this far back in his own backyard. Nominating a “Massachusetts moderate” was supposed to help Republicans put northeastern states in play, states like New Hampshire and … er, realistically I guess that’s it.
I have a powerful eeyorish urge to go curl up in the fetal position so I’m going to go do that now. Here’s something to entertain yourself with, though — a new election model from WaPo that purports to predict the likelihood of an Obama victory or defeat based on two simple indicators, economic growth over the first three quarters of this year and his approval rating in June. In order to knock his chances of reelection below 50 percent, you need zero percent growth and a job approval of 45 percent. Possible, but not likely.
Obvious disinformation. There is no way that support for Obama is increasing week after week proportionally to the number of new scandals and instances of his being completely unfit for the office are being uncovered.
In the most depressed turnout by the most disaffected bases for the most despicable candidates at this critical point, it will get down to which candidate is the most despised.
VOTE FOR ONE OF THE COMRADES AND INITIATIVES BELOW!
A) Comrade Vochenko: “The Party is the Light of the State!”
B) Comrade Chenkovo: “The Light of the State is the Party!”
That's simple to explain: the pollster still thought Romney could lose the nomination then. They have bought into their own illusion of inevitability.
Be prepared for a lot of poll fluctuation, most of it will actually be due to sampling, not changes of opinion.
They’ll take a poll that’s 34%D and 32%R and say “look! Romney’s ahead” then take another poll that’s 38%D and 28%R and then go “look! Obama’s gained four points!”.
So just hold your water. I think very few people will change their vote between now and November. Either you love socialism or you hate it.
Here are some of the internals:
UNH surveyed 538 randomly selected New Hampshire adults by land line and cell phone between April 9 and 20. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percent.
Among those polled, 486 participated in the head-to-head match up question. Of those, 205 said they were registered undeclared voters, 137 said they were registered Democrats and 112 said they were registered Republicans. A total of 215 of those polled identified themselves as Democrats, 183 identified themselves as Republicans and 78 identified themselves as independents.
More reliable polling says differently:
The 5 cent dip (rounly a 1 per cent decrease) gets saturation coverage from a friendly media and is made to sound like our energy woes are suddenly over. If a Republican was president, the media would be poking fun at this measley drop in prices and be running stories on how seniors are eating dog food because of high fuel prices.
Random selection is not scientific and a poor indicator. Samples should be based upon current party affiliation numbers plus likely voters.
Gallup polls registered voters, Rasmussen polls likely voters.
It sounds like a lot of those who prefer Obama are not feeling motivated in showing up to vote at this time.
Simple explanation. The media put Newt on blackout and he was the only one mounting an effective critique of Obama. Expect Mitt to fade more and more unless he makes Newt his V.P. and official attack dog. No other move he can make can save the election for him.
“A total of 215 of those polled identified themselves as Democrats, 183 identified themselves as Republicans and 78 identified themselves as independents.”
So 17% more Dems were polled than Republicans. Gallup must be using BLS statisticians.
Obama will lose in a landslide of Reagan/Mondale proportions.
Sarah Palin is the answer.
Dump Mitt, Nominate Sarah Palin.
“Be prepared for a lot of poll fluctuation, most of it will actually be due to sampling, not changes of opinion.”
Exactly. I could create a sample with 50% Republicans, 40% Democrats and 10% Indy and get Romney to 8-10% over OFudgePackula. In order for a poll to be valid the samples must be based upon current demographics.
I agree. Obama leads because he has his party and the media behind him where Romney is fighting the left, right and the media. Once this race gets underway Hussein is going back to Kenya.
What was the question?
Politician most like Reagan, most likely to clean up the mess in DC, ready to stop the waste and fraud, and is most like the people out in flyover country whom she would represent?
That is the question.
You are probably right. I saw something linked on Facebook yesterday where Obozo has a 50% or greater approval rating in only 7 states + DC!! He is only at 50% in Illinois. The others include: CA, MD, DE, Mass, HI and VT.
Show me the internals. Probably got 67-23 Dem/Repub makeup.
no internals to tell how badly Gallup skewed this.
Most polls are self serving so I ignore them
RE: Yea, Sarah Palin is the answer!
What was the question?
What is : Who can beat Obama convincingly?
Either way a socialist wins. Vomit.
Options: Scroll, Scan, Scold (cursing allowed), Slur (contumely only), Scrub (ask Monitor to delete my reply)
A Gallup Poll from six months ago shows: Conservatives 42%, Liberals 21%
"Independents" are 37%? I guess.
Yet, Romney vs. Obama is more or less even 50-50 (omitting undecideds).
Conservatives get eight percent of the "independents" (42% + 8%) and liberals get 29% of the independents (21% + 29%).
Why is that?
IMO if that is what is happening it is because most independents do not know the difference between conservatives and liberals. Why is that?
IMO it is because the independents are apolitical and their media are "nonpartisan" entertainment and MSM "news". Neither of course is truly nonpartisan.
So First Family Obama and family are treated with kid gloves and respect. That's fine. Respect the Office.
But no mention of what we here on the Right discuss and document. Tain't fair unless the media source drops the pretense of being "nonpartisan."
In the worse-case "nonpartisan" media accept the popular meme that Republcans in general are anti-poor, anti-minority, war criminals and Daddy Warbucks (Iraq war), and mostly wealthy "who do not pay their fair share."
Another factor is "nonpartisan" media kowtow to MauMauing from the Left and have learned not to invite conservatives as guests. In some cases they limit what conservatives who do make it on to the show can talk about.
I personally have complained several times (including last week) but have received just one response.. an on-air angry denial that the show was bias in favor of presidential candidate Obama (2008) -- followed later in the show by the host exclaiming "I am tired of hearing about Bill Ayers!" after getting yet another caller wanting to talk about Ayers.
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.