If you really want to see butthurtness on this board you should wanna see Romney win. You'll see 3 times more of it.
You'll get your wish. Mark my words. They'll be talking about the fact that this was a historic election turnout that nobody could see coming. They'll be referring to the talking heads on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC to "prove" their points that nobody could have possibly seen this coming. They'll be talking that there was a national movement by voters to give wrong information to pollsters. There'll be all sorts of funny excuses...pollyparroting from the major networks, etc. It'll be hillarious.
Perhaps you should learn to read. This question has been answered by a couple of different posters including one in the thread where you deny reality... er ... dispute Silver's methodology.
Yes, people are MUCH better off than they were in 2008-9. At the time, the economy was LOSING 800,000 jobs PER MONTH, the stock market was in the toilet, and there was talk that the entire American automobile industry (among others) might just go down in flames. Compare that to over two years of steady (if slow) economic and job growth and anyone who denies that we are better off than we were in early 2009 is just plain delusional. No, when you look at the facts, it is just the reality of the situation. A LOT more than they would have if Bush had paid down the debt instead of gutting the budget for tax cuts and wars, the two biggest contributors to the debt increase since 2000. Yes, and if you don't, you are denying reality. Virtually everyone. Obama is over or about 50% on likeability and higher on both measures than Romney. That's the part you don't seem to understand, they're sampling randomly. They aren't oversampling anything, they are just reporting the results of their polls. It isn't the pollster's fault that Americans are identifying more as Democrats than Republicans these days, blame it on Republicans and the TEA Party, they are the ones who have gone off the rails over the last 12 years. Call it "unskew[ing]" if you like, but what you are talking about is manipulating the results of randomly sampled polls in order to try and get the result you like. Basically, it is doing exactly what you are accusing the pollsters of doing, but doing it overtly, explicitly to skew the results in the direction of the Republican.
Remember that Aura of Defeat article? This is from a Vanity Fair article about the Aura gushing out of the Romney/Ryan camp. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/da...-Ryan-Questions-Obamas-Judeo-Christian-Values
Here is Bret Baier totally exposing CBS news and their handling of the Obama Banghazi interview on September 12, 2012. They cut the video and only released portions of the interview until now. And the truth finally comes out. This is an example of how the big news networks have lost credibility in this country...because of their obvious liberal bias. It permeates up and down the whole power chain with them. Now remember, these guys are the guys behind the majority of the polls and pollsters out there. They have been running these polls way out of reality by sampling D+8 and higher. They're exposed....to those of you that want to see through the motives here. They're exposed. And tomorrow, they will be exposed once again. Nobody here should act like you didn't know. The facts were all there to be investigated. You don't just swaller down whatever is on TV. You investigate. The facts are all there. Read this article and understand what CBS news just did with this key interview with Obama on Benghazi. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...lly-said-60-minutes-interview-about-benghazi/
So your message is "it could have been worse!", rather than trumpeting all the change that Obama promised and did not deliver. That's not a convincing argument, Andy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_romney_favorable_unfavorable.html The problem is the samples are not representative of the electorate.
Why? What is causing random phone calls in 2012 to undersample Republicans where they never have done so before?
Likely voter filters are and always have been simple: they ask you if you're likely to vote. Some use "yes/no", some use a scale. The scaled ones can be more or less strict depending on what level of likelihood you restrict your likely voter to (for example, is "Fairly Likely" good enough?). Most pollsters don't guess likely voters based on demographics or anything of that sort - they just ask. As far as response rate, is that different than past years? Is there some reason that Republicans would be less likely to respond than Democrats, compared to other years?
You are one funny guy. If I hadn't made up my mind on who to vote for I would vote for Obama simply to see you cry and disappear.
Not my "message," my answer to a direct question. No, rather than trumpeting all the change that Obama promised and DID deliver. The post to which I responded did not talk about those changes, it specifically asked about who was better off now than 4 years ago, a question to which the answer is "virtually everyone in America." Neither is denying reality by claiming that America is worse off than it was in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis.
