Riiiight... Because Recession Obama is going to do so much better now than he did in 2008. New York Magazine is a liberal outfit but even they are skeptical of the RIDICULOUS polling results we are getting.
Robocalling. You know what I do when I receive a robocall for ANY reason? I immediately hang up. I have better things to do with my life. So basically our polling results are being determined by folks who have nothing better to do in their lives than wasting it with robocall pollsters. Think that doesn't drastically skew the results?
Try www.unskewedpolls.com supposedly non partisan.
Also, how many people are on the “do not call” list. How many people have caller ID so do not answer their phone unless they recognize the number? And the big one....how many people only have cell phones which he cannot reach?
This election may just prove that with all the new technology polls are now a thing of the past.
When they call and ask to speak to the registered voter, I tell them that all the registered voters are out buying more ammo, and hang up.
I wonder if they count that as votes for Romney?
The dims want the polls tight because when Romney wins by a large margin they are going to contest the election.
Therein lies the lie. If you randomly call 10,000 people, Romney wins. ALL of the polls telling otherwise, are "adjusted" to make Obama the winner.
The answer is simple: Don't believe the polls.
89.28% refused to answer or didn't answer the telephone. 5.36% support Obama. 4.82% support Romney.
10.72% of an Ohio sample were willing to give personal information to a perfect stranger over the telephone.
And they are basing conclusions on that poll sampling technique? Is this about the same kind of polling technique that GM used to show that people would buy Chevy Volts?
How is the margin of error not greater than 100%?
In large part, I’d say it’s call screening. I rarely answer calls that don’t have a name that I recognize from the caller. I’ve blown off hundreds of robo-calls in the past few months.
The link below is a time machine going back to October 2004 when the maggot infected mediots and their knee pad pollsters were declaring Kerry would be president:
They were wrong then and now!
"The world owes you a living...no matter how lazy, dumb, slovenly, drunk, drug-addicted...no matter how many convictions for distribution/possesion, armed robbery, domestic violence, rape/sexual assualts, murder and mayhem, no matter how many screwups, jobs lost, kids abandoned. Illegals and aliens from other worlds are welcome to our free buffet!"
"The world owes you a living and Obama's gonna make sure US taxpayers pay for it."
The modern bread line in America is over 48 million people long now, its called Food Stamps.
"The world owes you a living...no matter how lazy, dumb, slovenly, drunk, drug-addicted...no matter how many convictions for distribution/possesion, armed robbery, domestic violence, rape/sexual assualts, murder and mayhem, no matter how many screwups, jobs lost, kids abandoned. Illegals and aliens from other worlds are welcome to our free buffet!"
"The world owes you a living and Obama's gonna make sure US taxpayers pay for it."
The modern bread line in America is over 48 million people long now, its called Food Stamps.
I wonder how many of the calls are going to 0 bummer phones.
Today, some demographers think that perhaps a majority of households either dont have or dont answer a landline. In other words, ignoring cell phones risks ignoring more than half of America. I dont know how you can in good conscience release polls in this day and age without that group factored in, says Leve
That is why I believe that much of this criticism about skewed samples is misguided. Oversampling of Democrats is being done to partially compensate for the for those who don't have land lines and are predominately Democrat in voting tendencies. Professional pollsters are not trying to skew the data to mislead anyone but to try to provide more accurate results.
The article did refer to this adjustment as "guesswork." A better term would have been educated guesswork. These adjustments are based on massive amounts of data, so it is not wild guesswork on their part. There is a reason that all the major polling organizations (including Rasmussen's recent polls) have over-sampled Democrats. If only one of the organizations did it, I would conclude that they are out to lunch but if all of them are doing it, I assume it is because they know something that most newspaper columnists and political junkies don't.
I think that it is proper to conclude that Romney is trailing at this moment but that he is within striking distance.
I don't buy the idea that all the polls are wrong. When was the last time that the polls were seriously wrong in a Presidential election? Dewey-Truman? The 1980 election doesn't really qualify because although the last round of polls showed a close election, all of them showed a substantial movement toward Reagan over the last weekend. Presidential polling has a pretty good track record over the years.