• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rasmussen has finally flipped- now not a single poll has Romney in the lead

I just want to say that Chris Christie has my full and loyal support if he were to run for president. He has been a close friend of mine through the years and I have been with him every single step of the way. As you can see he has certainly supported me since a very young age and I just want to go on record by saying I will do the same for him...........until the day comes where I kill him.
 
The 14% lead is unreasonable. However, 6-10% is logical. WI is not in play.
 
Spot the Wonder said:
Reagan was ahead in 1980 after Memorial Day. To use one poll to say otherwise is foolish

trialheats1980-1024x744.png
Click to expand...

Facts are like Republican kryptonite.
 
Food said:
I just want to say that Chris Christie has my full and loyal support if he were to run for president. He has been a close friend of mine through the years and I have been with him every single step of the way. As you can see he has certainly supported me since a very young age and I just want to go on record by saying I will do the same for him...........until the day comes where I kill him.
Click to expand...

How can he be your friend when he kills and cannibalizes you?
 
Spot the Wonder said:
Maybe, but the last three Wisconsin poll are

O +14
O +6
O +7

The Marquette poll last month was O +3, so there's a lot of movement toward Obama. Outlier or not, Romney's finished in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

The 14 is an outlier. Marquette also had Baldwin tied the same day as another WI senate poll had her down like 9 to Thompson. Up until this week, the WI polls were tight, with either candidate up a point or 2 over the other. But yeah, the other 3 this week had Obama up by 3, 6 and 7, so maybe WI is starting to spread some as well. But that 14 is a pure outlier.
 
bobknightfan said:
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-06/...ting-national-poll-new-poll?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Less than two weeks before the Iowa caucuses, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean remains on top of the Democratic heap, with retired Gen. Wesley Clark picking up ground, according to a recent national poll.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Dean-leads-Democrats-in-California-Field-Poll-2600801.php

Presidential candidate Howard Dean -- buoyed by Internet campaigning and strong word-of-mouth among grassroots voters -- has rocketed to the top of the Democratic pack in crucial California, a new Field Poll released Monday showed.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...7_1_new-hampshire-candidate-howard-dean-kerry

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean has taken a lead over rival John Kerry in New Hampshire, the state holding the first presidential primary in 2004, a poll found. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, had 28 percent to 21 percent for Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, according to the poll by the American Research Group of Manchester, N.H.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...2_1_howard-dean-al-sharpton-gonzales-research

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean continues to garner the most support among likely Maryland Democratic presidential primary voters, according to a Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies poll being released today.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Liberal-Democrats-give-Dean-lead-in-Field-Poll-2588262.php


Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, buoyed by liberal, white and college- educated voters, has surged to the head of the pack in California's crowded Democratic presidential primary, according to a Field Poll released today.

"The wind is at (Dean's) back across the country and especially here in California," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. "Every time we've done a poll, his numbers have been up by a substantial margin."

A poll last April had Dean with only 7 percent support among California Democrats, compared with 22 percent for Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and 16 percent for Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. By July, the three candidates were in a virtual dead heat with about 15 percent each.

The new survey puts Dean on top in the March 2004 primary at 23 percent, with Lieberman at 15 percent, Kerry at 11 percent, Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt at 8 percent and the rest of the Democratic field at 4 percent or less.
Click to expand...


Nobody disputes that he had early momentum. I'm taking issue with your claim that he "looked like the nominee." At no point was it apparent that his momentum would be converted into picking up the nomination.
 
Why would you explore individual polls when you can let Nate Silver do all the work for you?

I say that in jest, but seriously, the 538 blog (and Silver himself) is the most comprehensive look at polling trends and actual predictions that exists.
 
PhilliesDeacs said:
Why would you explore individual polls when you can let Nate Silver do all the work for you?

I say that in jest, but seriously, the 538 blog (and Silver himself) is the most comprehensive look at polling trends and actual predictions that exists.
Click to expand...

I actually think Silver's analysis has fallen off quite a bit from where it was before he joined the NY Times. In 2008 he did an incredible amount of statistical analysis. This year that has been largely absent. These days, he just plugs the numbers into his model, writes about it, and does his "50 state" analysis thing, which is pretty much skin deep. Other than that, he just looks at the Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls, says things like, "_______ had a (less/greater) than expected effect on polling numbers".
 
TR1982 said:
I actually think Silver's analysis has fallen off quite a bit from where it was before he joined the NY Times. In 2008 he did an incredible amount of statistical analysis. This year that has been largely absent. These days, he just plugs the numbers into his model, writes about it, and does his "50 state" analysis thing, which is pretty much skin deep. Other than that, he just looks at the Rasmussen and Gallup tracking polls, says things like, "_______ had a (less/greater) than expected effect on polling numbers".
Click to expand...

His model is that statistical analysis you think he should be doing. It isn't any less robust, he's just writing less about the model, and more about what he sees the model telling him. We'll see if he's fallen off by whether he's read this election correctly after it's over. Seems to me that he's been pretty spot on all along the way, as he was in the last two cycles.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
His model is that statistical analysis you think he should be doing. It isn't any less robust, he's just writing less about the model, and more about what he sees the model telling him. We'll see if he's fallen off by whether he's read this election correctly after it's over. Seems to me that he's been pretty spot on all along the way, as he was in the last two cycles.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. In 2008 he did loads of regressions and analysis of economic numbers and other things in addition to his model. In 2008 I spent probably about half an hour a day reading his blog. These days, I only check in real quick to see that Obama's chances of taking the the electoral college have increased by 2.1% based on polling fluctuations. That's information I can glean from looking at the latest polls on RCP.
 
Intrade now has Obama at 70. What's weird is there is a bit of an overlap -Romney at 30.5.

I'm kicking myself about a friend in England about Dems taking the House. I could have bought it at 9. It's now at 31.
 
Obama will win because he has the good fortune of an opponent who is a political knucklehead and a press that will do all in its power to re-elect him.
 
RaleighDevil said:
Obama will win because he has the good fortune of an opponent who is a political knucklehead and a press that will do all in its power to re-elect him.
Click to expand...

Politics really does breed butt-hurt. Whether it's dimpled chads or voter ID, no party seems to legitimately win or lose elections. There is always something to blame.
 
RaleighDevil said:
Obama will win because he has the good fortune of an opponent who is a political knucklehead and a press that will do all in its power to re-elect him.
Click to expand...

Meaningless media blame demonstrates total frustration and resignation of defeat.
 
RaleighDevil said:
Obama will win because he has the good fortune of an opponent who is a political knucklehead and a press that will do all in its power to re-elect him.
Click to expand...

The press doesn't have to do anything. Romney is doing his best to hand Obama the election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top