The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Nate's a lot smarter than I am, but if the election was held today I think Romney would win the popular vote and would probably win the Electoral College as well. I think Mitt would win at least 257 EVs (NC, FL, VA, CO), and then would only need Ohio or Wisconsin and Iowa or New Hampshire. I've heard whispers from people I used to work with that Romney is at least tied in both Ohio and Wisconsin. There's a serious lack of legitimate polling going on at the state level, and the whole Obama EC lock theory is built on a foundation of sand. The Gallup 7% lead is a mirage, but I think most of the GOP professional class feels pretty damn good about where this race is right now. The idea that Obama is better than 2-1 to win is completely fucking insane.

I'm having a real hard time putting more faith in campaign polls than professional polls. And I imagine most people doing the ground work are very optimistic about their campaign's chances.

Soren wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:just gonna leave this here

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists ... ve_it.html

Perhaps Sandra Fluke might learn a few important lessons from Salim. She could put down her torts-and-contracts books for a few minutes and look into my friend's beautiful blue eyes, listen to him talk about American promise and opportunity, see his brilliant teenager and reflect on the message she's been trying to sell us for the past contentious months.

For all of its superficial imperfections, this country loves its women. It gives us ample space to develop interests and skills, respects our right to earn an education, demands that we be treated equally at work and in the sports world, and even legislates creatively so we can do whatever we want with our reproductive parts.

But for Sandy, that wasn't enough. She and her like-minded friends wanted all of this, plus free birth control. They wanted to make the rest of the country believe that women were being "raped" when they submitted to a legitimate medical procedure. They screamed bloody murder when the highest court of the land said you couldn't dismember an infant and call that "choice."

Malala Yousafzai lies in a coma, because she wanted to go to school. Sandra Fluke earns accolades because she wants the government to subsidize her love life.

Someone needs a reality check.

just. no words.

Chuck Todd ‏@chucktodd
Since '88 winner of Miami-FSU in prez year has accurately predicted which party wins FL. Miami (R) in '88/92/00/04; FSU (D) in 96/08

TomatoPie wrote:I don't trust polls a lot. Campaign polls could be influenced by telling the candidate what he wants to hear, or what the supporters need to hear, or a desire to discourage the opposition. And "professsional" polls are slanted (perhaps not deliberately) by the views and desires of those crafting the questions. I do trust betting sites, though. And Barry is still 2/1 over Mittens.

cshort wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

cshort wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Lawn signs around me favor Romney at least 5 to 1. I suppose not surprising for Chester Co

Wonder how it is in the other counties. The Philly burbs tend to be a good predictor of the final result.

uhhhm, the actual voting habits of people there are probably the good predictor you're referencing, rather than the count of lawn signs...?

Once again, thanks for stating the obvious. Lawn signs, especially in residential areas, might indicate more active support for (or against) a candidate, or in the case of fewer signs, less passion for candidate.

CFP wrote:And Chuck Todd has jumped the shark for a day:

Chuck Todd ‏@chucktodd
Since '88 winner of Miami-FSU in prez year has accurately predicted which party wins FL. Miami (R) in '88/92/00/04; FSU (D) in 96/08

TomatoPie wrote:I don't trust polls a lot. Campaign polls could be influenced by telling the candidate what he wants to hear, or what the supporters need to hear, or a desire to discourage the opposition.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Nate's a lot smarter than I am, but if the election was held today I think Romney would win the popular vote and would probably win the Electoral College as well. I think Mitt would win at least 257 EVs (NC, FL, VA, CO), and then would only need Ohio or Wisconsin and Iowa or New Hampshire. I've heard whispers from people I used to work with that Romney is at least tied in both Ohio and Wisconsin. There's a serious lack of legitimate polling going on at the state level, and the whole Obama EC lock theory is built on a foundation of sand. The Gallup 7% lead is a mirage, but I think most of the GOP professional class feels pretty damn good about where this race is right now. The idea that Obama is better than 2-1 to win is completely fucking insane.

I'm having a real hard time putting more faith in campaign polls than professional polls. And I imagine most people doing the ground work are very optimistic about their campaign's chances.

Why would you trust a Marist poll or whatever over something that's being done by a campaign? Nobody has more invested in getting accurate polling numbers than campaigns.

I like the dichotomy you're drawing up of campaign polls vs. professional polls, as if the latter are clearly superior. Because god knows some of these 'professional' polls are being done with calls by college freshmen who've had a few hours of training in making calls, as opposed to the campaign polls which all use professional call centers.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

mozartpc27 wrote:FWIW, in one of his posts on 538, Nate kinda derided internal polling as usually biased in the direction of its candidate (surprise, surprise).

td11 wrote:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... ith_the_us

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:FWIW, in one of his posts on 538, Nate kinda derided internal polling as usually biased in the direction of its candidate (surprise, surprise).

Leaked internal polls or internal polls in general?

cshort wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

cshort wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Lawn signs around me favor Romney at least 5 to 1. I suppose not surprising for Chester Co

Wonder how it is in the other counties. The Philly burbs tend to be a good predictor of the final result.

uhhhm, the actual voting habits of people there are probably the good predictor you're referencing, rather than the count of lawn signs...?

Once again, thanks for stating the obvious. Lawn signs, especially in residential areas, might indicate more active support for (or against) a candidate, or in the case of fewer signs, less passion for candidate.