Again facts are a nasty thing. Rasmussen polling was the least accurate of all
the major polls in 2000, and 2010. Both times their polls strayed from the norm
by 4 to 5 points. They tied with Pew in 2008 when their results were pretty
much the same as the others just a tiny bit more accurate. So now that even
Gallup (Republican leaning)had Obama up by 6 points on Wed. and Rasmussen was
the only poll who had Romney in the lead, which year do you think they are on
track to repeat..2008, or 2010?
Romney has a huge lead. That's what I heard Carl Rove and Beck tell me so I
know it's true.
It all depends on which state you are in. In Utah, Romney is leading nearly 2
to 1. Yet in California is is Obama nearly 2 to 1. In swing states, Obama is
up by an average of 6 points.So, if the election was today, Obama
would garner approximately 311 points and Romney would be struggling to get 200
point. One only needs 270 to be declared the winner.The closer the
election comes, the greater the lead that Obama is making. He is providing real
solutions to Romney's vague answers. The general public wants answers.Republicans can't win if they are to far to the right of center.
Obama is closer to the center than Romney by a long shot and this is why he is
currently ahead.If Romney comes closer to center most Republicans
won't vote for him as they will label him a RINO. That is why Hunstman
didn't do better in the primary the fringe is killing the party on national
Rasmussen is consistently the most accurate presidential and congressional
tracking poll for well over the past 10 years, with the single glaring exception
of 2000. Before then and since then, in virtually every election - including
2010 - Rasmussen has been the most accurate or has tied for the most accurate.
There are a number of reasons for this, but the biggest by far is that they use
current real-world party affiliation percentages to set their samples of likely
voters, not party splits based on the previous election which are literally
always wrong and not representative of the present, and too many other polls
sample "registered voters" instead of "likely voters", so
they're really just looking at the opinions of people on the voter rolls,
not the opinions of people who are going to actually vote. BIG difference!
This is the only poll that matters:Obama = 347Romney = 191270 Electoral College votes are needed to win.Anything else
is just a side-show.
In 2008, Rasmussen said that Obama was 5 to 6 points ahead of McCain here in
Oregon. Obama won my state by 17 points.That's how much stock
I put in Rasmussen.
Voice of ReasonLayton, UTRasmussen is consistently the most accurate
presidential and congressional tracking poll for well over the past 10 years,
========== Blah, blah, blah whatever...Using RASSMUSSEN as my source VoR, Obama holds 237 votesRomnye has 196 votesToss-up = 105That being said, Of the 105 Toss-ups, 95 of those votes all went for Obama in the last
election.Even IF the President lost a majority (2/3) of those votes
-- He'd still hit 268 of the magic 270 to win.All other polls
combined (Real Clear Politics) show the Elector College at ;347 Obama196 Romney.[but the DN monitor won't approve that one for some
@Ernest T. Bass"Romney has a huge lead. That's what I heard Carl
Rove and Beck tell me so I know it's true."When did you
hear that? I watched Carl Rove on Fox last night and he said it is a "toss
up"--I suggest that your comment is typical left-wing stretching of the
truth.Another question for all of you liberals--we all know what
dunderheads conservatives are, so how in the world can it be that Utah, which is
run almost entirely by conservatives, has one of the very best economies in the
nation year after year?
Intrade is a prediction market. It allows people to bet real money on whether or
not certain events will occur. They have a very good track record. They
currently give President Obama a 75% chance of winning the election, and a 61%
chance of getting over 320 electoral votes.
@Voice of Reason"Before then and since then, in virtually every
election - including 2010 - Rasmussen has been the most accurate or has tied for
the most accurate."They were actually pretty bad a few years
with a bias of over 3 points in favor of republicans (their massive 25ish point
error in the Hawaiian senate race sure didn't help) when Nate Silver
calculated the bias of various polling firms. Silver's more recent update
to the bias scores has Rasmussen improved to being R+1.8 which is about middle
of the road in terms of bias scores. I see no reason to ignore Rasmussen polls,
don't get me wrong, I just think that the average of polls is the best
thing to use so I use the Real Clear Politics average of many polling firms
including Rasmussen. In addition, I use Silver's model which also
incorporates a lot of polling firms, accounts for their biases in either
direction, and their accuracy (larger samples are worth more, more proven
polling firms are given more weight, etc).
"Of the 105 Toss-ups, 95 of those votes all went for Obama in the last
election."And that, right there, is the same trap that the
less-accurate polls fall for: assuming that the previous election is an accurate
predictor of this one. New flash: 2008 was a sharp detour from the norm for
many states. Yes, in 2008 all but one of those nine toss-up states went for
Obama. But in 2004, all but one went for Bush.Of those 9 toss-up
states, eight - all but one (Wisconsin) - historically go Republican by a margin
of 2 to 1 on election day. Even with all those left-biased polls out there
trying to shore him up, Obama knows he's in deep trouble on the only poll
that matters: Election Day. However, I do give you credit for
looking at what really matters: the electoral college race.
With a Quinnipiac poll today showing Romney down 10 points in Ohio and a
Washington Post poll yesterday showing him down 8 points there, an obvious
question is does he have a plan B to win the election without Ohio? The short
answer is: "Not a realistic one." Assuming Obama wins all the states the
Democrats have won in the previous five elections--which seems increasingly
likely--then Obama has 242 electoral votes. Add to that Ohio and he is at 260.
Now add New Mexico, which looks hopeless for Romney, to Obama's total and
he has 265 of the 270 he needs. That means Romney would need to win Nevada,
Colorado, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. That's a tall order
given that he is way behind in some of them.
I'm using Voice of Reason's ONLY reliable poll (Rassmussen) -- Obama has secured 88% of the Electoral votes needed to winRomney
has secured 71% of the Electoral votes needed to win.Obama is
therfore 17% ahead of Romney and needs only 2 of the remaining 10 battleground
states to cinch it all up.FYI - Voice of Reason....I'd
really hoped Mitt Romney could have been a man of integrity -- meaning not
waffling on his values - and ran on the principles he had as Governor of
Massachucetts.I (and the 40% of the other affiliated Americans)
could have voted for him.However, to win the GOP and Tea Partiers
approval and nomination, Mitt morphed into a hideous Frankenstein Politician
that only his creators could love.
Actually, Obama needs between 2 and 5 of the swing states minimum to win,
depending on which ones break for him. My point is, based on history, it's
quite likely that only one - Wisconsin - may break for him. We'll see.And the reason Romney is doing so well against Obama is BECAUSE of his
unusual amount of integrity. You're equating "integrity" as
"holding views that you like", which is typical leftist
arrogance...integrity and honesty can't exist in opinions different from
your own. I'm guessing you're referring to some positions - insurance
mandate, etc. - that really are right in line with his current positions and
aren't contradictions in the way you think they are. Or maybe you mean on
the couple of issues on which he's changed over time, which to you are
obviously only cynical political maneuvers, not heartfelt changes in opinion.
I'm also guessing that in your mind Obama's many opinion changes are
the product of "thoughtful reconsideration", completely above politics,
like gay marriage. We all have our biases, LDS Lib. We just need to
give at least a little benefit of the doubt to the other side.
Voice of Reason --- I'm an Engineer -- I know all about Integrity.As for a person's Integrity, it simply means NOT Flip-Flopping on
one's core values.Mitt Romoney is a Class A++ Flip-Flopper on
just about every political issue you can name.Gay Marriage [he
signed it into law in Mass. as Gov.] Woman's right Choose,RomneyCare [his finest achievement as Gov.], Gun rights,Tax-loop
holes,Immigration, you name it, he's flipped on it - just to
appease the extremeist Tea-Party in the GOP to win the nomination...and now he
can't Etch-a-Sketch his way out it, fast enough.Hence - Lack of
Integrity.As a Mormon, he should heed Pres. Hinckley's
admonition and "Stand for Something".
"You're equating "integrity" as "holding views that you
like","Not even close. Here is why Romney has lost
credibility.Mass health care law was a great accomplishment. But he
runs away from it to satisfy the far right. The mandate was a Republican Idea
and Romney implemented it. Now it is unpopular and he runs from it. And you
know why.That is not integrity.I would respect Romney
had he said, "Look, I will look at the current problems and let my findings
dictate a solution."Instead, he already knows how to fix the
problems. Increase military spending, and cut taxes and kill Obamacare. All of which sound eerily like like all of the GOP talking points.You tell me. Has Romney always been lock step in those positions, or did he
morph during his presidential run?It is clear to me. And that is
why his integrity is in question.He is a moderate Republican, trying
to placate the far right by telling them exactly what they want to hear. And he
is struggling to do that because hes not a good liar. But, they are out of
other options and he's not Obama.
@JoeBlow "[H]e's not a good liar....[H]e's not Obama."But I repeat myself.
Tparty,My point is that history would suggest that Romney is (was) a
moderate Republican. I believe that deep down, he still is.Do you