Why is anyone surprised at this? I am only shocked they have Obama up by just a few points. Look to see more in the future.
D+12????
This is serious con artist territory.
No Democrat ought to fell anything but annoyed that these press outlets are selling them a false narrative
Wow. Even allowing for some assignment to the Is, this is (obviously) a 10-point Dem over sample to get a 1-point lead for Zero? And Romney is the one in trouble?
The GOP has become Rove-ified, abandoning principles and leadership in favor of constantly shifting policy positions in the hope of picking up the odd 1-2% that is still well within margin of error.
The Dems obsess over polls because they lack principles and/or their true intentions would result in electoral washout. Populism is a soft name for lying.
Citing the Reagan comeback in terms of pure numbers overlooks one Everest-sized fact: his message of smaller government never wavered.
A set of values, a consistent message and a willingness to ignore the little waves in favor of the big electoral surf is a classic risk-reward proposition and the GOP crawl into a fetal position when risk is mentioned. GOP campaign types watch the same cable news rubbish but they, unfortunately, give the talking heads the exact response wanted and therefore increase the power of the talking heads.
These polls are being trumpeted to create the narrative, not to describe what is really happening.
Keep working daily to defeat Obama.
That is Job One.
We are winning but the media cannot allow that truth come out.
This is a dangerous game to play for the Dems. As the election draws nearer, the polling orgs. will have to reflect some sense of reality and project the true numbers, which will show Romney gaining momentum rapidly down the stretch, which will motivate the base and sway uncommitted voters.
My only question is why they bother including ANY Republicans in the sample? Think of the numbers they could conjure up for Obama THEN!
Pardon my ignorance, but is it possible these scewed polls can work to our favor?
1. By putting Obama ahead by such a wide margin, will Republicans be more encouraged to vote and Democrats more inclined to stay home because their vote is not needed?
2. With such a wide margin, would the Democrats be led to believe they need not make the effort to steal the election?
Regardless I’m seeing much better polls today, many a one point race.
The WashPost+ABC Poll must have been shamed into making some changes to move by 6 points in a day
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2929345/posts?page=1
That independent number has to worry the Democrats, a lot.
Even with the sample stacked against him, Romney should be up 15 - 20 points! The real unemployment rate is much higher than even the critics claim, and all that is being done is 0bama is campaigning and fundraising!
I see the average idiot on the street and the libs on my facebook page.
I have no doubt Romney is losing. Romney is running the worst possible campaign imaginable and inspires zero confidence whatsoever.
I’ll vote for him any day over RR, but this campaign really sucks TBH.
I am disgusted.
CNN/ORC is a joke. Vinod Gupta is the owner of ORC, and special good buddy of Bill Clinton’s. The guy will do anything to make the Dems look good. Proof was when he screwed over the stockholders of his other company to fund the purchase of ORC so he could manipulate the numbers for the Clintons.
I hate to throw a wet towel on any of this but something has always struck me when claims of oversampling are made to make a poll look good:
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when a particular group is oversampled, the pollster in question takes that into account, and gives the group undersampled more weight?
For example, if the Republicans are undersampled by say 5%, their final tally is given 5% more weight than the Democrats.
That’s how it’s done in certain areas of science I can attest. For example, if one particular protein shows more expression in a certain experiment on a Western blot, such expression levels are normalized against a more common protein like actin. If the actin levels demonstrate lower levels in the experimental conditions (an oversampling if you will of the experimental condition), then the experimental level is reported as a function of the actin, that is, it’s divided by the amount of actin (similarly for the control), so as to normalize all levels based on how much total protein was actually loaded onto the gel (the Western blot).
So again, isn’t it reasonable to assume these pollsters are doing a similar kind of normalization?