(blah,blah)… Most people at Hot Air are clinging to the Rasmussen life raft in a desperate effort..(blah,blah)… He’s an awful candidate…(blah,blah)… Romney stinks … (blah,blah) your partisan hackery (blah,blah)…

lostmotherland on September 20, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Broad brush much?

Yeah, a real liberal poll, lol. Here is how they did on the Walker recall…Poll Date Sample Walker (R) Barrett (D) Spread
Final Results – – 53.1 46.3 Walker +6.8
RCP Average 5/17 – 6/3 – 51.5 44.8 Walker +6.7
WeAskAmerica 6/3 – 6/3 1570 LV 54 42 Walker +12
PPP (D) 6/2 – 6/3 1226 LV 50 47 Walker +3
Marquette University 5/23 – 5/26 600 LV 52 45 Walker +7
WPR/St. Norbert 5/17 – 5/22 406 LV 50 45 Walker +5

gumbyandpokey on September 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM

The MU Walker poll had a split of D+6 and was pretty close to being accurate. Their most recent poll has a D+11 scew. MU’s Presidential polling has used a D+2 – D+6 prior to this new D+11 Poll.

Obama had a lead no greater then +6 over Romney in the MU polling prior to this most recent one and was only +3 after last month’s poll with said Dem splits of D+2 to D+6. I wonder what happened to make the scew go to D+11? The only thing shocking about this MU poll is the blatant adjustment of the sample to get a result that benefits Obama and Democrats. It definitely is not consistent with what they have been doing, so claiming credibility because of the Walker Poll is absurd. If that poll is so credible, then why did they adjust the split so much for this poll?

We thought the polls were wrong.
We talked about the Bradley effect.
We clung to polls we thought were right even when they were clear outliers.
We exhibited some serious hubris “On November 4, it’ll be President McCain, Vice-President Palin. Take it to the bank!” and things to that effect.

Today, I see some of the above. We think the polls are wrong, some of us display unabashed confidence that Romney has this one in the bag a la “ManlyRash”. I’m not trying to be pessimistic and I realize 7 weeks is an eternity in presidential campaigns. Can someone give me a reality check and explain why this time it’s different?

It’s not. Your gut instinct is right. Most people at Hot Air are clinging to the Rasmussen life raft in a desperate effort to convince themselves that Romney has this one “in the bag.” Romney’s toast. He’s an awful candidate. With a half-way decent candidate, Obama would lose. Romney stinks, you all know it, but your partisan hackery won’t allow most of you to admit it.

Take it to the bank, Mitt!

If we were to poll those same people today, and ask who they thought did a better job (which is not to say a “good job”) in office between W and Obama . . . . . .

. . . . . how would that poll turn out?

listens2glenn on September 19, 2012 at 10:03 PM

In all seriousness I think most people think Obama is a better president and it would not be close.

The economy was cratering at the end of Bush’s second term. It was almost a depression. Everyone knows that. The economy is better today. The stock market is doing great and the banking system is not at the verge of collapse. America is not as economically strong as we traditionally are, but neither is the rest of the western world. We are all paying for the economic sins of the past 30 years (government borrowing and personal borrowing). We will be paying for the sins for many years to come.

At least listens2glenn seems to admit W was not a good president. Now the next step is to realize that the only reason you will have 8 years of O is to punish you for 8 years of W. Now turn your anger to Karl Rove for creating the Bush Monster and marketing him so well.

Del Dolemonte on September 19, 2012 at 9:21 PM

.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

You are not very good at this. Bush was the most unpopular president in the history of polling. His lowest poll was as he was leaving office. The true awfulness of his presidency was not realized until his second term.

ZippyZ on September 19, 2012 at 9:40 PM

.
I trust those “polls” about as much as I do the ones today, which is to say not at all.
But for the sake of argument, let’s give those polls some “credibility”, at the time they were taken.

If we were to poll those same people today, and ask who they thought did a better job (which is not to say a “good job”) in office between W and Obama . . . . . .

. . . . . how would that poll turn out?

If Obama wins this election, it may be time for the Republicans to jettison the social conservatives once-and-for-all. The Republican constituency is getting older and whiter each election cycle. Time to open up the tent.

ZippyZ on September 19, 2012 at 9:00 PM

.
Howard Stern … is that you?

Del Dolemonte on September 19, 2012 at 9:21 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

You are not very good at this. Bush was the most unpopular president in the history of polling. His lowest poll was as he was leaving office. The true awfulness of his presidency was not realized until his second term. He set back conservatism 20 years. That’s why Obama won so easily with no details on what he was going to do. Gosh…I sure enjoyed Bush’s speech at the Republican convention. Republicans don’t even utter his name anymore because it gives everyone the shivers. Please tell me again how popular Bush was. Ha Ha Ha. The worst and most unpopular president in history! Mission Accomplished!

Bush…the worst President in history and the single most unpopular President in the history of polling.

ZippyZ on September 19, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Ah, I see Soros and Axelrod have activated another Sleeper Cell from the last Open Reg. Just like their heroes in AQ, they certainly are patient. Welcome Aboard, Kid!

Can you prove your claim that Bush was “the worst President in history”, and back it with credible, multi-sourced Facts? Of course not.

And you conveniently ignore that Bush was also the most popular President in the history of polling. Your Dear Leader can only wish for 70% or 80% or 90% job approval numbers.

Bush got all of those. He got an amazing 91% Job Approval after the attacks Bill Clinton left him, and never went below 55% until almost 4 years into his first term, an achievement that drove you BDS Leftists nuts at the time and still does.

The highest O’bamna has ever reached in Job Approval? 76% in one outlier CNN/ORC “pole”. And that was done in February of 2009. It was obviously a Fake “pole”, as all other “poles” at the same time had him 10 points lower.

Since then, he’s only exceeded 55% Job Approval once. And that was in one of several “poles” done after he killed bin Laden with his bare hands last May. But remember, even then, the Associated Press had to sample almost twice as many Democrats as Republicans to give him a Job Approval Bump to 60%.

http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

F-

I’m not trying to be pessimistic and I realize 7 weeks is an eternity in presidential campaigns. Can someone give me a reality check and explain why this time it’s different?

adurb44 on September 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM

1. Ryan is a plausible VP…Palin was a moron.
2. 0% chance that Republicans were going to win after 8 years of Republican leadership under Bush…the worst President in history and the single most unpopular President in the history of polling. Mitt is running to displace a President who is in charge of a weak economy.
3. Someone might figure out how to give Romney a personality transplant by election day

The biggest problem is the electoral college massively favors Obama. Romney has to Win Florida AND Ohio otherwise he’s toast. His pathway to the Presidency is very limited. His last chance is the first debate. He needs to hit a home run. Unfortunately, Obama is just running out the clock at this point. As long as he does not say something amazingly stupid he can play for the tie.

The electoral college is dramatically changing for the Dems. Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia are about to flip Democrat for the long-term. If Obama wins this election, it may be time for the Republicans to jettison the social conservatives once-and-for-all. The Republican constituency is getting older and whiter each election cycle. Time to open up the tent.

OFA sure is wasting their money on their propaganda disseminators.

tom daschle concerned on September 19, 2012 at 8:38 PM

I hope you’re not referring to me. While not a frequent poster, I’ve been a long-time reader and occasional poster. My only contact with OFA is me telling the OFA girl who knocked on my door that Obama’s “not my guy”.

Del,

This is for you and anyone else who thinks that Reagan was behind at this time in 08. There are very few, if any, comebacks after this point in a Presidential race.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/debunking-a-myth-reagan-was-leading-carter-long-before-that-final-october-debate/

daveyandgoliath on September 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Behind or not, America in 1980 was a radically different place than America in 2012. Majority white, middle of the road Eisenhower Republicans (the “Greatest Generation” was still a force to be reckoned with) and we still hadn’t yet felt the full effects of academia and media brainwashing of our youth, many of whom longed for the America of Leave It To Beaver and Mayberry, and wished to wash away the malaise of post Vietnam America.

Sadly, that day has long gone. And whine about GWB the RINO all you want, but with the changing demographics and with the Soros-controlled media openly shilling 24/7 for the Democrat party, he just maybe the last GOP president this country ever has.

Here are my observations:

We thought the polls were wrong.
We talked about the Bradley effect.
We clung to polls we thought were right even when they were clear outliers.
We exhibited some serious hubris “On November 4, it’ll be President McCain, Vice-President Palin. Take it to the bank!” and things to that effect.

Today, I see some of the above. We think the polls are wrong, some of us display unabashed confidence that Romney has this one in the bag a la “ManlyRash”. I’m not trying to be pessimistic and I realize 7 weeks is an eternity in presidential campaigns. Can someone give me a reality check and explain why this time it’s different?

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/09/careful-now-american-voters-have.html

M2RB: Ray Charles

New Pew poll has Obama up 8.

daveyandgoliath on September 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Just looked at the “sample” PEW used.

They oversampled Democrats by…get ready…

17%

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/19/about-the-surveys-20/

F-

daveyandgoliath on September 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

gumbyandpokey on September 19, 2012 at 3:56 PM

16,000,000,000,000 Lol! All yours boys. You can feel free to cut a check.

Again, I’m not a stockholder and claim no sophistication whatsoever in these matters — moreover, the normal economic rules don’t apply in such a straightforward fashion when Obagman and his cronies are gleefully manipulating the economy.

But maybe there’s a lesson for us here. If our polls go up, let’s be happy. If our polls go down, let’s work harder. Assuming we picked a good candidate in the first place (and I am well aware there’s quite a lot of controversy on that subject!), and we keep working without getting discouraged, our polls will probably go back up at some point.

So bad polls shouldn’t be our signal to mope in the corner, or start tearing at each other, or get unduly rankled by smug chortling from trolls. Bad polls should be our signal to get active. Talk to our undecided friends, bravely put up a yard sign or put on a T-shirt, give a little more money to the candidates we support (not, I think, to the RNC, though I’m willing to be persuaded).

Remember Breitbart, our happy warrior.

I love this quote by Kristol. I know you will too:

casuist on September 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I love it when Desperate Democrats are reduced to quoting Neocon Billy Kristol. Proves they know their Dear Leader is in trouble.

A+

the gold standard poll

daveyandgoliath on September 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM

No such thing as a gold standard poll. Last time there was one was when George Gallup still owned the company he founded. He sold it before you were born.

G-

If the polls are right and Obama wins, anyone who whined about oversampling should be tarred and feathered.

gumbyandpokey on September 19, 2012 at 12:30 PM

You do know that Republican African Americans were tarred and feathered on occasion by the Democrats down South, don’t you?

Obviously not.

Cretin-

This is for you and anyone else who thinks that Reagan was behind at this time in 08. There are very few, if any, comebacks after this point in a Presidential race.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/debunking-a-myth-reagan-was-leading-carter-long-before-that-final-october-debate/

daveyandgoliath on September 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Sorry, goliath, but you posted that very same Lie on another thread here last night, and I debunked it immediately with actual polling cites.

So did someone else.

F-

with 8% refusing to identify

Seems this makes the poll a wild card.

Shouldn’t they refuse to include people in the poll who won’t identify as either independent or some party, any party, even LP or Green?

31/30/30 with 8% basically “refusing to tell” (I ain’t sayin’ and you can’t make me, so there) sounds like a crappy sample to me.

Still, Marquette was only one of two polls that even had Barrett in the lead at any point in the contest. What does this tell me? As they got closer to the election, they had to shift to a better model so they wouldn’t look like fools and maintain an air of “credibility”.