2012 US Presidential race polls

[Battletoads]

81.4% and counting is based on state-by-state polling and electoral college votes. All of this stuff about advanced polling and turnout is secondary to that information.

It's now ticked up to 83.7%, likely due to favorable polls for Obama in key swing states. I'm feeling a real sense of desperation from republicans as of late, and its clear the efforts from the Romney campaign are, at this point, more attempts at

rather than anything substantial.

[cybercoma]

For Romney to Win State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased

A possibility, however unlikely. On Friday, Obama led 19 of 22 polls in tossup states. The only poll to have Romney leading was a Mason-Dixon poll in Florida. To quote Silver, "A tossup race isn’t likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses."

Edited November 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

This is actually getting quite ugly because it looks like Obama might still have a shot at capturing Virginia and Florida.

[punked]

This is actually getting quite ugly because it looks like Obama might still have a shot at capturing Virginia and Florida.

I hear he might change his scheduled to go to NC this weekend because he thinks he is going to win there to. It is turning into a bloodbath on the McCain scale.

[Smallc]

This is actually getting quite ugly because it looks like Obama might still have a shot at capturing Virginia and Florida.

538 projects that he will win Virginia. There is more than a 45% chance that he will win Florida.

I hear he might change his scheduled to go to NC this weekend because he thinks he is going to win there to. It is turning into a bloodbath on the McCain scale.

It doesn't seem like he will win NC, but, you never know. The mittmentum is epic.

[cybercoma]

Looking at the probabilities as well, you can see that Romney gained a huge boost from the debates, which has almost all but evaporated now. I guess people really do fact check after all.

[Shady]

Former Hillary aide backs Romney

“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/former-hillary-aide-backs-romney-148251.html

[Sleipnir]

It's the weekend....do people care about politics on the weekend. That is who endorses who and what not?

Beside, I doubt that anything (whether Obama or Romney) campaign does now would make any difference for next Tuesday election.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Sleipnir]

As of Friday

[Bonam]

It's the weekend....do people care about politics on the weekend. That is who endorses who and what not?

It's 3 days before election day, of course people care about politics right now.

[Sleipnir]

It's 3 days before election day, of course people care about politics right now.

I meant those who aren't political junkies.

[cybercoma]

Former Hillary aide backs Romney

“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

http://www.politico....ney-148251.html

Who's Gigi Georges?

Who does Bloomberg and Powell endorse? I know those names.

[Bonam]

Who does Bloomberg and Powell endorse? I know those names.

Out of curiosity, why the heck do people care who endorses who? Do people really take their voting cues from authority figures? "Bloomberg thinks it's a good idea, so I guess I'll do what he tells me to!" Do people really think like that? I would have assumed people make their own decisions based on the information that they know about the candidates and how it relates to their own opinions/issues/biases.

[Sleipnir]

Who does Bloomberg and Powell endorse? I know those names.

Obama I believe.

Also check this out

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/video-mr-burns-endorses-mitt-romney/

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

Out of curiosity, why the heck do people care who endorses who? Do people really take their voting cues from authority figures? "Bloomberg thinks it's a good idea, so I guess I'll do what he tells me to!" Do people really think like that? I would have assumed people make their own decisions based on the information that they know about the candidates and how it relates to their own opinions/issues/biases.

I don't think they do, which is why Shady's point is meaningless.

[Sleipnir]

From the National Post

----------

^^^ click on it to open it

*reason for edit - apparently Greg might not like the size*

Edited November 3, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Mr.Canada]

Now that's a great poll Slep,thank you for posting this. Greg might get pissed cause of its size but it's a good one.

[Sleipnir]

Now that's a great poll Slep,thank you for posting this. Greg might get pissed cause of its size but it's a good one.

Why would he be pissed of the size? o_0

[Shady]

In all seriousness, the biggest problem I have with the polls is the assumption of the composition of the electorate. I understand why somebody like Nate Silver has Obama highly favoured to win, because if Obama wins Ohio, is much easier for him to get to 270 electoral votes. However, here's my issue, for what it's worth. If anyone has anything to add, please do so.

In 2008, Gallup projected that self-identified Democrats would outnumber Republicans by 39 to 35 percent. When voters who leaned Democratic were included, they projected an 12 point advantage for Democrats. This slightly overestimated the final national electorate, in which Democrats enjoyed wide but slightly smaller advantage over Republicans. In 2004, Gallup found party identification favoring Republicans by 2 points, which virtually mirrored the final national vote in which Bush won by just over 2 percent.

So here we have Gallup, correctly predicting the composition of the electorate in both 2004 and 2008. What's their prediction for this election cycle?

This year, Gallup finds a one point Republican advantage over Democrats, at 36 to 35 percent. They also find that self-identified independent voters will make up 29 percent of the electorate. However, when leaners are included, Republican voters will outnumber Democratic voters by 49 to 46 percent.

That's a huge swing from 2008. Instead of outnumbering Republicans by 7 points, Democrats will be outnumbered by Republicans by 3 points. This is the problem I have with most of the polls. Do I think they're biased? No. But most of them are assuming a Democrat electorate advantage of bigger or the same as 2008. Which clearly isn't going to exist. And like I said earlier. Gallup correctly predicted the electorate composition of 2004 and 2008 presdential elections.

By the way, Gallup's 2012 electorate poll, polled over 9000 people, and has only a margin of error of 1%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx

Does this mean Obama won't win? Of course not. But it does suggest that some of these polls aren't accurately reflecting what the actual Dem/Rep/Ind split will be on Tuesday. Which means the polls used by sites like 538 etc may not be entirely as accurate as we're led to believe. Is that their fault? No. Because they can only work with the polls that are given to them.

Anyways, just some food for thought.

[Shady]

By the way. My official predictions for the upcoming election is as followed. Either 281-257 Obama, or 275-263 Romney.

[punked]

Shady for what it is worth your problem with polls has to do with Party ID, no poll out there weights by party ID. So your problem with polls doesn't exist.

[BC_chick]

I meant those who aren't political junkies.

This is a political forum. I'm guessing we're all political junkies to varying degrees.

[cybercoma]

Princeton Electoral Consortium gives Obama a 97.6% chance of re-election.

http://election.princeton.edu

[Sleipnir]

[kimmy]

So it sounds like Republicans are already picking scapegoats: Hurricane Sandy and Governor Christie.

-k