Lies?
Bradley effect.
Many conservatives find lying to pollsters a satisfying hobby. And besides, if you object to the Bamster, you’re a raaaacist.
Just wait till ole Barry wakes up Nov. 8th to a landslide defeat, finding out all those Democrats saying yes to the pollsters to avoid the appearance of being racist actually say no in the voting booth to avoid the appearance of being stupid.
I don’t have a good reason for this.
I’ll give you another example. In my state, Missouri, all 3 Republican candidates for Senator were outpolling McCaskill by 5+ points (before Akin shot himself in the face). But Romney/Obama is a dead heat. Obama won’t be within 5 points of Romney in Missouri on election night.
Do the pollsters wait until the election to do more accurate polls to save their reputations?
From the tone and tenor of the campaigns, I would wager the internals are far different than the public pablum we are being fed.
oversampling.....
Because people still like the Obama “brand” (see the great Daniel Greenfield article posted earlier). Their local Dem Senate candidate? No so much.
iow people support Obama because he’s Obama. They’re taking out their political and economic anger on the downticket candidates.
In heavily Rat infested areas, people are afraid to say they are voting against Obama. They don’t know if the caller is a real pollster or an Obama thug.
Can we safely assume this is a rhetorical question posed to make a point?
Pollsters are remembered for how accurate they are the day before the election.
Different polling uses different metrics.
I’m still trying to figure out how he got elected.
Lies, cover-ups, more lies, daily media props, lies.
Connecticut is a very “socially Liberal” state, and Ms McMahan, though a fiscal Conservative and a Conservative in many other ways is not seen as a “right-to-life” Conservative; so many Liberals (who are also, many of them “wall-streeters”) are not turned-off by Linda. While, they may not be as comfortable with Mister Romney as they are with her. By election day they may change their mind, but it would be more likely about the Presidential race than the Senate race. I imagine this election will see “split tickets” in many instances, including some Democrats who will vote for Romney and vote for their Democrat for Congress at the same time.
I could see it in someplace like Mass, where Brown is the incumbent.
But you are right, it doesn’t make too much sense in open-seat races.
But, are we sure these are the same polls? I mean is the same polls asking: who are you voting for for pres, who are you voting for for senate?
Or are they taking results from 2 different polls? If that’s the case I’m not sure we can fairly compare the results.
I say it again, I think 60 is a possibility in the Senate, Obama will have no coat-tails, negative ones in fact, I see a vote against him and people possibly pulling the "R" ticket for the 1st time swinging the Senate like we could only dream about....
No coattails? One would think that Obama would be a drag on the ticket. The real test is how many of these Dem candidates downticket want Obama to campaign for them or to appear with them on the campaign trail or vice-versa.
A candidate of a party running in a state that, in national elections, tends to vote for the other party, can try to tailor his or her positions on some issues to the inclinations of the state. For example, in the South, a Democrat would tend to characterize himself as conservative on social issues; and, in the North, a Republican would tend to characterize himself as liberal on social issues.
Among other reasons:
1.A particular candidate may be a better politician than his opponent.
2.A particular candidate may be an entrenched incumbent, who has endeared himself to many individuals over the years, e.g., by fixing a problem with Social Security benefits.
3.(House races only) The district may be gerrymandered so as to be a blue district within a red state, or visa versa.
IMO, zero has been blaming congress for so long that some people disassociate the President from Congress.