Replies

You haven't been following things very well have you. All those polls that had Obama winning were based on several things ~ polling information that was discounted substantially, seat of the pants and gut feelings, and THINKING ABOUT IT A LOT and using whatever information sources outside of polls that seemed reasonable.

I did the same thing when i pronounced Romney's campaign DOA in March of last year.

I looked at a single instance of voting in a primary to come to the conclusion this dude was an elemental loser. That was the one right here in Virginia!n The history was hen had not been breaking 20% or 30% in a short series of primaries up against some regular Republicans. Then, his peeps in Virginia tricked things out so that he was the only guy up against Ron Paul.

What went from an exciting primary season turned into nothingness ~ outer darkness ~ the pits!

With these two alone on the ballot NOBODY wanted to vote ~ and we had an historically low turnout in a Virginia Presidential primary ~ barely 20% of the normal level of voters showed up.

Romney got about 60% of that 20%, or barely 12% of the total Republican vote that would normally be available to candidates to draw on!

HE DROPPED OFF HE PLANET. 12% that late in a primary season tells everyone that a candidate is in some serious trouble.

The other candidates held out to the extent of their money, but for some reason the DONORS decided Romney was their boy and loaded on the big bucks. Were these guys Democrats perhaps?

As unpopular as OBAMA was, he hadn't been pulling in 12% anywhere ~ END OF STORY.

Voting, not polling, demonstrated that Obama could easily beat Romney and that's what happened.

Rest assured the Democrat campaign handlers saw that situation in Virginia the same way ~ and made sure their candidate got plenty of physical exposure in the state ~ which was very easy since Virginia was on his line of travel from almost every other appearance in the country. WOODBRIDGE, VA which isn't even a real town, BECAME FAMOUS as a major candidate stop!!!!

My comment was about the science of polling. You claimed it was dead, I say the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

You haven't been following things very well have you. All those polls that had Obama winning were based on several things ~ polling information that was discounted substantially, seat of the pants and gut feelings, and THINKING ABOUT IT A LOT and using whatever information sources outside of polls that seemed reasonable.

No. You're wrong.

All the polls that had Obama winning were based on sound methodology, solid statistical sampling, and real math. Borne out by the fact that, you know, Obama actually won. Just as the polls predicted.

To pretend otherwise is to invite the same trouble we had last time, where people here had convinced themselves Romney had already won, as had Romney himself. You wonder why he didn't bother with a ground game? Why should he, when the "unskewed" idiots convinced him he was winning huge?

Polling is a science. Not everyone paid to do it is good at it, but those that are should be listened to. It is hardly "dead as a science." It is instead crucial for us going forward; if we refuse to acknowledge reality, how can we ever hope to change it?