Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast t

It's fairly common knowledge.

 

No, they don't. The only notable exception is Rasmussen, which I believe does weight by party ID. You really should stop acting like you know what you're talking about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...f6c2af4-06fb-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

But Steven Shepard calls up the pollsters themselves and gets them to explain what’s really going on here. Most pollsters don’t weight for party ID, for good reasons:

Pollsters counter that the results they are finding reflect slight changes in public sentiment — and, moreover, adjusting their polls to match arbitrary party-identification targets would be unscientific.

Unlike race, gender or age, all demographic traits for which pollsters weight their samples, party identification is considered an attitude that pollsters say they should be measuring. When party identification numbers change, it’s an indication of deeper political change that a poll can spot.

“If a pollster weights by party ID, they are substituting their own judgment as to what the electorate is going to look like. It’s not scientific,” said Doug Schwartz, the director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, which doesn’t weight its surveys by party identification

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...esidential-polls-break-toward-challengers/?hp

Data going back to 1968.

Except I made no such claim. The simple fact is there no substantive history one way or the other. The actual results show that undecideds tend to break for whoever is trailing. In this election, neither is trailing so that is not terribly helpful. There are compelling arguments to be made that undecideds will break for Obama or Romney this election, but as of this point, it's only guesswork - no one really knows.

 

Obviously, everything you are reading is absolutely wrong. Duh.

 

And down goes Dwight.

 

That's subjective. I think it is easier for Mitt. Because Barack is done.

 

OK, now I know you're just trolling.

 

This is why it's so difficult to have a real conversation with a True Believer. You divorce yourself from reality.

If Obama wins Ohio, Romney's finished. If Romney wins Ohio, the race is a tossup.

Even FOX "News" has sometimes tempered their predictions by explaining the path to 270 is a little easier for Obama, although now in the home stretch this false equanimity has disappeared.

 

Real simple.


http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

 

Let's see, an article from 1989 that looks at a whole mix of local and state races as well as primaries - basically a bunch of races where the dynamics are totally different than a Presidential election. And, of course, it doesn't at all look at Presidential elections. Highly convincing when compared to actual robust data on Presidential elections using far more sophisticated and more recent data.

 

From the second freaking line of that article:

 

1989? TOM CHAMBERS WILL BE A ROCKET, 100% GUARANTEED!

 

Bad jokes, passive aggression, sarcasm, irritation... It's almost as if you know what's about to happen.


GOOD DAY FRIEND

 

What, read a post from you?

Ba-zing!

 

Tru dat.

 

Aha....Dynamics!

Such an important word, Major.

Here's the dynamics, Major. Sitting president that has presided over one of the worst 4 year economic cycles in American history. No viable third party candidates.

There are no other significant dynamics, Major. NONE! This election is all about the economy. ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY. That is the screaming dynamic.

In light of that backdrop, the overwhelming majority of undecideds are going to fall for the challenger.

 

Except in the article that Roxtxia cited it says,
[rquoter]What’s going on here? It’s not exactly that Gallup’s cooking the books. Rather, they are refusing to fix a longstanding problem with their
likely voter methodology. Simply put, Gallup’s methodology has predicted lately that Republican turnout on Election Day is likely to exceed Democrats’ by six to eight percentage points. But exit polls show otherwise: in each of the last two Presidential elections, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican by four to five points. That discrepancy alone can account for nearly all of Bush’s phantom 14-point lead.[/rquoter]

That article is from 2004 so it includes 2000 where Gallup was wrong in how they determined voter turnout.

 

Liberal biased pig.... Rasmussen and Gallup are right and the other 50 polls are the outliers... Seriously get a job you loser and watch Fox News.

 

That article's about 15 years too old for jopatmc.

 

that article is from moveon.org........