Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: profit_guy

Sigh...this is 2008 all over again. There were so many threads on FR back in 2008 in which posters proved McLame was ahead in polls that showed him behind. Wasn’t true then; probably not true now. I hate to sound negative, but this just seems like deja vu to me.


7 posted on 09/20/2012 10:00:08 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sans-Culotte

Fine, if you believe this, then get out of the way.


11 posted on 09/20/2012 10:05:50 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte

It’s hardly McCain deja vu. McCain lost IN and NC, Romney is winning them to the point Obama has almost conceded them already. Other states Mccain lost like CO, WI, IA and more are looking good for Romney. So how is it deja vu?


12 posted on 09/20/2012 10:07:08 AM PDT by over3Owithabrain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte

No, those of use who understand polling knew McCain was never ahead.

The Pro Mccain analysis here in 2008 was all based on an assumption that there was a “Bradly effect” in the polling. It assumed white voters were afraid to tell pollsters they were voting against Obama.

This year the analysis here is based on a hard crunching of the numbers in the polls, not an assumption of how racial politics is effecting the polling.


17 posted on 09/20/2012 10:10:18 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte
Sigh...this is 2008 all over again. There were so many threads on FR back in 2008 in which posters proved McLame was ahead in polls that showed him behind. Wasn’t true then; probably not true now. I hate to sound negative, but this just seems like deja vu to me.

The difference is that the internals for the polls in 2008 were not nearly as unrealistic as they are this time around. Math doesn't lie, even if pollsters and the MSM do.

20 posted on 09/20/2012 10:11:42 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy (You can wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which gets filled first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte; All

Come on folks; don’t lose heart. Remember: Gallup Polling had Jimmy Carter leading Ronald Reagan by 6 points on October 27, 1980, just about a week before the election. Reagan won by 10 points. That is a 16 point differential. Relax. I believe the tide is going to turn big-time for Romney after the debates.


21 posted on 09/20/2012 10:12:56 AM PDT by Cherokeesquaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte
Sigh, so the polls said the same thing in 1994 that they said in 1992, and in 1992, Dems got elected so the 1994 polls had to be right, right?

Er, no.

I have explained this to people here a hundred times and apparently no one is listening so I'll try it one more time.

Working in GOP county HQ in 2004 and 2008 we were told EXACTLY the same thing: "If we get out our base, we will win. That's all there is to it."

That was absolutely true in 2004. Do you know why? Because REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR THE REPUBLICAN.

In 2008, we had the same formula: If we get out Rs, we win. So all the polls said that McCain was losing, but all the internals said the Rs were turning out.

Who was right? BOTH. The Rs turned out and 25-30% voted for Obama.

Now, if you really, really think that 25-30% of Republicans will vote for Obama this time around and that no Dems will vote for Romney, feel free to be depressed.

But I happen to think that we are back to 2004: that if the Rs turn out, we win huge, because a LOT of indies (a majority) will vote for Romney and Republicans will turn out in slightly higher % than Dems.

I continue to think that Romney has a real, unadjusted/unjimmied lead of 2-4 points nationally about about 300-310 EVS. But you can call me crazy. . . just as they did here on FR in 2004 when the "exit polls" said at 4:00 that Kerry had won and I was screaming to everyone that our internal poll flushing showed Bush had already won.

32 posted on 09/20/2012 10:45:09 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte

Except that has to do with voter turnout and enthusiasm. McCain didn’t get the turnout and Obama did. People were assuming a big fear of Obama vote that did not happen.

This time around their is a huge voter enthusiasm to vote AGAINST OBama...even if Romney isn’t exciting..because he is a known quantity. Obama isn’t firing up his base as much as 2008.

A lot of the polls are leaning toward a 2008 model, rather than a 2010 model...which would be a Romney blowout win. Obama will get better turnout than 2010 though, because he is on the ticket.

But, it won’t be 2008.

That alone puts many polls in question.


37 posted on 09/20/2012 12:14:24 PM PDT by Crimson Elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Sans-Culotte; Perdogg; justiceseeker93; AuH2ORepublican

Romney may well lose but if so, narrowly. This is no 2008. Many of these polls are just implausible. Like Senate polls in WI showing a radical lesbo ahead of the popular Former Governor, give me a break.

And any poll showing Osama leading in NC, ridiculous, he won 49-49 last time with epic Black and retarded White college turnout.


50 posted on 09/24/2012 5:47:24 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson