[MNJohnnie]

The reality is that Pew's election forecasts are almost dead on accurate

The reality is Rassmussen and PEW tied for accuracy in 2008. Yet you want to totally ignore the Rassmussen poll to loudly hype the supposed infallibility of the Pew poll. The fact that your opinions of PEW are based on a complete absence of ANY fact based evidence while the contrary opinions about PEW ARE BASED ON REAL MATH goes right over your head. They cannot both be right. One or the other is correct. The fact that you ignore the facts presented to cling to the emotional opinion is intellectually vacuous.

[trappedincanuckistan]

No reason to skew polls in 2008 in order to prop up one candidate or another. Obama was a lock.

[MNJohnnie]

We are never going to agree so let us ignore the polls, watch the action and the rhetoric.

Obama and Romney are both playing on mostly BLUE state turf. Romney is running the sort of campaign winning camps run, optimistic, hopeful, bland. Obama is running the sort of campaign losers run, nasty, desperate and shrill.

Obama is running around joined at the hip with Bill Clinton trying desperately to fire up the traditional Democrat blue collar vote. Obama is doing nothing to reach towards the middle. Romney is out there acting Presidential and reaching out to moderate and “leans Democrat” voters.

Obama is not acting like a candidate whose internal polling is showing him winning.

[Red Steel]

"Data collection was managed [for PEW] by Princeton Survey Research Associates International and conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source and Abt SRBI"

These libs pollsters reek so bad as this is what they really believe:

"Probability of Obama re-election: Random Drift 98.4%, Bayesian Prediction 99.9%"

-snip-

"...Anyway, the short answer: I estimate Romney’s chance of winning the popular vote at 6%, odds of 16-1 against. ...."

http://election.princeton.edu/

LoL!