Because they weren’t polling takers and idiots via Twitter on their Obamaphones.
Caller on WMAL this morning said he knew three voters who voted for Romney in Philly precincts were Romney got 0 votes.
CHEATING
Nowhere nearly as disastrously as "unskewedpolls.com" did.
It’s the vote-counters, not the voters that count.
Perhaps they had a Freeper running their polls? They sure sounded like that :-)
Why? Really? How about massive VOTER FRAUD that no one has the gonads to expose!!
Welcome to a Liberal Dictatorship. Bend over and get your bar of wooden soap.
Because they only allowed for clinton-scale cheating, and figured that Romney would have a competent poll-watching program, especially in states with Republican governors.
Polls don’t count cheating...Unless there is a “fudge factor”.
Gallop must not have used one. And therefore since the cheating was on such a massive scale then it messed up Gallop.
First, the numbers changed during the final week.
Gallup and Rasmussen both had Romney’s lead shrink, from 5 and 3 to 1 point the day before the election. But, the polls published the day before were collected over a three day period. So, there were on average 2 days old.
The mainstream media polls went from neck-and-neck on average to something between neck-and-nexk and a 3 point advantage for Obama, we’ll call it a 1 point average Obama advantage. Again, the polls released the day before were generally conducted over several days.
So, allowing for these two sets of polls to encompass the possibility of a little bias this way or that way, they tell us the same story. The numbers were changing.
A simple answer is that the storm turned Romney’s cruise to victory into a defeat.
A better answer is that Romney did not run through the tape. He should have hit Obama hard on Benghazi in the final Presidential debate. He shold have said the real issue isn’t the extent to which the President lied to the American people to save his campaign slogan. The issue is how weak is the U.S. and, therefore, how dangerous is the world.
Instead, Romney positioned himself as a non-threatening alternative.
A yet better answer is that he should have attacked fire with fire. When he was attacked personally, he should have attacked the President personally. He should have said, why are they lying about my background, it is because they can’t tell the truth about Obama’s background.
Isn’t it obvious that he’s an empty suit. He doesn’t know a thing about the economy. He was given a pass by the media in 2008 and, now, with our continued economic troubles, we’re paying for it.
But, instead of fighting fire with fire, he thought his corporate perma-smile would convince everybody he really was a nice guy.
Nice guys finish second in the game of politics where if you don’t win, you’re a loser.
So, we are still analyzing fraudulent election results while not acknowledging the fraud?