Are the polls skewed?

[Politico]

There is NO WAY that Obama will get the type of turnout he received in 2008. No way, no how. Even the most rudimentary understanding of what happened four years ago should lead one to that conclusion. Even Bill Clinton got less support in 1996 relative to 1992 when you account for depressed turnout (Clinton received about 2.5 million more votes than in 1992, but Perot received about 12 million less votes whereas Dole received about 100,000 more votes than Bush; altogether, roughly 10 million fewer people voted in 1996 relative to 1992). This environment is nowhere near as favorable to the incumbent as 1996, or even 2004 for that matter.

Simply by virtue of being the incumbent during an economic malaise, Obama is going to lose. The question is whether he will lose by an overwhelming margin like Carter in 1980 or by a close margin like Ford in 1976. At this point, the latter seems more likely by virtue of the president's likeability ratings (they are keeping him afloat, as was the case with Ford, but it is not enough in this environment once Romney gets serious).

[Politico]

The whole story behind these polls is a simple word: narrative.  The media sets the narrative that it is futile for republicans to try.  Obama's gonna win.  It's over.  Etc.  It's all to depress turnout and I guarantee you the psy-op isn't working.

Yep. And I'm gonna explain why the media does what it does, and I do not want to be accused of trolling because I am going to put this as delicately as possible: There are a lot of homosexuals in the media.

Disclaimer for the diehard Democrats: I support gay marriage, so don't jump all over me. I am just trying to explain why many people in the media do what they do.

Get help.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

I am just trying to explain this phenomenon. If you have a better explanation, please share your theory for why the media is blatantly in Obama's corner this cycle. Even Dan Rather was not this blatant.

[Politico]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

[Politico]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is artificially boosting Obama's numbers, making many media members giddy as they report the news that the election is over. Consequently, in mainstream America people are growing increasingly distrustful of the media. What is being reported does not reflect reality.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

[Politico]

I don't understand this notion that by overstating Obama leads you will depress Republican turnout. That makes no sense whatsoever. If Obama was wildly up in the polls vs. Romney that would probably depress Democratic turnout as much if not moreso than Republican turnout. The conspiracy isn't even sensible.

Answer: The media is being played.

What does that mean? For what? How?

They think they're depressing Republican turnout but they're actually depressing Democratic turnout. That is correct.

How did this narrative start? A leaked tape tied to Jimmy Carter's grandson. Who the hell do you think leaked that to him? It's not like he caught Romney on camera saying that Democrats cling to "atheism and abortion." The tape got the narrative back onto the economy, away from the foreign policy disasters that resembled Carter's tenure (Coincidence that Carter's grandson is tied to the tape?). Hardcore Republicans hear from Rush Limbaugh, et al. that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind the tape, and what do think that does for Romney turnout? Furthermore, what has Romney been doing in September about as much he has been campaigning? Prepping for the debates, so of course his poll numbers are going to be down some in the swing states compared to Obama. Why is Romney holding back on hordes of cash relative to Team Obama? Another factor that is boosting Obama's numbers.

You're a smart guy. You can figure it all out if you think about it long and hard.

You're really getting scared aren't you?

Things aren't always what they seem.

[Politico]

I think Democrats are overpolled, but I don't think it's intentional efforts to make Obama look good.

I have always considered you to be a very rational and smart guy, so why are you buying into this? Please understand that except for Rasmussen, nobody else weighs by party ID. So they couldn't be overpolling Democrats (unless you think they have a flawed methodology leading them to contact more Democrats).

The "flawed methodology" is called not being able to get a hold of significant numbers of Romney voters (No, thank you *click* or letting it go to voice-mail; these are the types who are DISGUSTED with our hyper-partisan environment and economic malaise, and will vote for Romney simply because he is not Obama). In comparison, they are having relative ease getting a hold of Obama supporters who are clinging to 8% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits because these fools have bought into "forewarned" just like they bought into "hype and chicanery" four years ago.

Folks, when things are bad most people want "change." Likewise, when things are still bad after the previous "change" most people do NOT look "forward" to more of the same. Instead of clinging to malaise, they want to change course yet again. This is not rocket science.

[Politico]

At this point, the latter seems more likely by virtue of the president's likeability ratings (they are keeping him afloat, as was the case with Ford, but it is not enough in this environment once Romney gets serious).

When is Romney going to get serious?

When he proves in the debates that he is:

A) Not a monster
B) A viable alternative to Obama

He will not be able to accomplish either task until the debates start. In the meantime, there is no point wasting resources (as Team Obama is doing right now, helping some of their most ardent supporters tune out in the process). You only get so much in terms of marginal returns from ads, campaigning, etc. before the debates, especially when you're engaged in a mudslinging contest with an impressive Chicago machine. The Obama machine is too good to try and beat with orthodox strategies/tactics even in this economic malaise.

Hint about is what happening right now: Ever hear of a "Trojan Horse"? Do you know the story behind the term?

[Politico]

I think Democrats are overpolled, but I don't think it's intentional efforts to make Obama look good.

I have always considered you to be a very rational and smart guy, so why are you buying into this? Please understand that except for Rasmussen, nobody else weighs by party ID. So they couldn't be overpolling Democrats (unless you think they have a flawed methodology leading them to contact more Democrats).

The "flawed methodology" is called not being able to get a hold of significant numbers of Romney voters

Or, and I'm just guessing now, there aren't a significant number of Romney voters.

(No, thank you *click* or letting it go to voice-mail; these are the types who are DISGUSTED with our hyper-partisan environment and economic malaise, and will vote for Romney simply because he is not Obama). In comparison, they are having relative ease getting a hold of Obama supporters who are clinging to 8% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits.

Folks, when things are bad most people want "change." Likewise, when things are still bad after the previous "change" most people do NOT look "forward" to more of the same. Instead of clinging to failure, they want to change again. This is not rocket science.

These are probably the people that have been contributing to this hyper-partisan environment by supporting right wing crazies and engaging in below the belt name calling with Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio.

These are people who voted for both Obama and McCain four years ago. They're fed up and want to see us change course. They simply do not want the next four years to look like the past four years nor do they want politicians/volunteers/pollsters bugging them about the election in the meantime.

[Politico]

You guys are naive if you think Karl Rove, along with his disciples/front-men, is not in control of any degree of what is happening right now. Underestimate the ruthless brilliance of Karl Rove at your own risk. I learned that lesson in 2004.

[Politico]

I just don't get it, Politico.  How can some one be so apathetic that they refuse to answer the phone, yet care so much that they will "vote for anyone other than Obama?'

They're sick of the hyper-partisan environment and want nothing to do with it. They're sick of being harassed during suppertime, evening relaxation time, etc. They just want to cast their anti-incumbent vote on Election Day, hope a majority follows suit, and hope Romney gets us better results than the past four years.

It's practicality, not apathy.

[Politico]

I just don't get it, Politico.  How can some one be so apathetic that they refuse to answer the phone, yet care so much that they will "vote for anyone other than Obama?'

They're sick of the hyper-partisan environment and want nothing to do with it. They're sick of being harassed during suppertime, evening relaxation times, etc. They just want to cast their anti-incumbent vote on Election Day, hope a majority follows suit, and hope Romney gets us better results than the past four years.

It's practicality, not apathy.

Again, Obama does not have an opponent who is offering to end the hyper-partisan environment.  If anything, the Obama campaign with Clinton has done more trying to rely that they are the end of hyper-partisan politics and not Romney and it appears to be working.

You're biased. Look at it objectively. Talk to people who do not share our interest in politics. These people are repulsed by the Chicago machine yet they are silent about it because they simply do not want anything to do with any of this in any capacity other than casting a vote against Obama on Election Day, or not voting altogether, and hoping for the best moving forward.

We saw 10 million less people vote in 1996 relative to 1992. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES ANYBODY EXPECT US TO SEE MORE PEOPLE VOTE IN 2012 THAN IN 2008? 8% unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, falling disposable income levels, gasoline well past $3/gallon. Are you people so delusional that you really think more than 40-45% of the country actually wants the next four years to look like the past four years? The only people who can reasonably cling to such a notion are people who are not aware of life before the last few years (i.e., people who have no idea what a good economy actually looks like because they were too young the last time we had a good economy).

[Politico]

I just don't get it, Politico.  How can some one be so apathetic that they refuse to answer the phone, yet care so much that they will "vote for anyone other than Obama?'

They're sick of the hyper-partisan environment and want nothing to do with it. They're sick of being harassed during suppertime, evening relaxation times, etc. They just want to cast their anti-incumbent vote on Election Day, hope a majority follows suit, and hope Romney gets us better results than the past four years.

It's practicality, not apathy.

Again, Obama does not have an opponent who is offering to end the hyper-partisan environment.  If anything, the Obama campaign with Clinton has done more trying to rely that they are the end of hyper-partisan politics and not Romney and it appears to be working.

You're biased. Look at it objectively. Talk to people who do not share our interest in politics. These people are repulsed by the Chicago machine yet they are silent about it because they simply do not want anything to do with any of this in any capacity other than casting a vote against Obama on Election Day and hoping for the best moving forward.

I'm not a crazed Obama hack, Politico.  I've read every word of every page of Romney's website.  There is nothing to that guy.  He's a non-starter.  I don't want the next four years to be like the last four either.  Yet, just by what I know about the candidates, it's pretty obvious Romney won't actually do anything different than what has been done while Obama does have an agenda to pursue.

Romney is such a bad candidate that not only is this a choice election now, but the vote for change is actually on the incumbent's side.

I do talk to people who aren't interested in politics, BTW.  Probably more than you do.  First of all, they have no idea what the Chicago machine is.  Second of all, they all find Romney to be very strange and abrasive.

Yes, and we clearly cannot change this until AFTER the debates. This is why the campaign is conserving a large volume of resources for October/November. It's a strategy that involves thinking at the margins rather than continuing to waste resources.

Until Romney faces Obama one-on-one, the only forum where he will be able to dispel the myths about him, there is nothing that can be done to change the image of Romney. If we allow Obama and Co. to continue making a mockery of Romney, he will only look THAT much better when the debates roll around.

A strong majority are STARVING, ABSOLUTELY BEGGING, for a viable alternative to Obama because NOBODY wants the next four years to look like the past four years. Romney is going to deliver the goods in October. The expectations game is being played FLAWLESSLY, which will be abundantly clear to all of you ex-post.

[Politico]

LOL @ Democrats who think Romney is going the way of Mondale.

What are you going to do when Romney wins on Election Night?

[Politico]

LOL @ Democrats who think Romney is going the way of Mondale.

What are you going to do when Romney wins on Election Night?

Shrug my shoulders and hope for the best.

Fair enough. I confess I will do the same if Obama wins.

[Politico]

Yeah, it appears Obama is gonna get swamped. Do you have some good links to share?

Let the media have their fun with talk about it being "over" because the polls show Romney down by single digits in September LOL

The only people that are truly enthusiastic about the prospect of four more years of Obama are the types of voters who cling to gay marriage and "Obama phones." Nobody is looking "forward" to the next four years looking like the past four years...

[Politico]

...and in Iowa Democrats are asking for absentee ballots at a rate of 5:1 over Republicans... there are all kinds of dynamics, not the least of which being different deadlines and requirements.

If this is all you can point to, good luck to you.  

Yes, we all know the Chicago Machine has flooded Iowa. Big deal.

[Politico]

Oh, and I just found out that my $30,000 job has what Obamacare considers a Cadillac health plan for its employees and I will be taxed for it - fantastic.  Such a wonderful feeling knowing that I'm so rich and the president is ensuring that I pay my fair share.

Yep, and he's going to double-whammy everybody when he lets the 2001 tax cuts expire on December 31.

With the election out of the way, he'll finally get to put the "tax" back into "tax-and-spend liberal."

[Politico]

...and in Iowa Democrats are asking for absentee ballots at a rate of 5:1 over Republicans... there are all kinds of dynamics, not the least of which being different deadlines and requirements.

If this is all you can point to, good luck to you.  

Yes, we all know the Chicago Machine has flooded Iowa. Big deal.

...and now conspiracy theories... keep going.

You guys are clinging to a few absentee ballots in Iowa. I mean, give me a break. We all know why that is happening in Iowa:

[Politico]

I can't wait until he realizes that Chicago is very close to Wisconsin and easily within a good day's driving distance of Ohio as well.

Obviously the Chicago Connection is going to pay dividends in Wisconsin, too. But early voting for non-veterans/overseas folks has yet to start in Wisconsin, right? That's why large resources have been deployed to Iowa right now. You guys are naive if you don't think they're sending volunteers from Chicago into Iowa, and later Wisconsin too. These boys are playing with millions of bucks.

Romney's guys are going to be sending volunteers into New Hampshire from Boston.

This is all part of the game. I think some of you simply misinterpreted what I was getting at.

[Politico]

I think the Polls are skewed along party identification and enthusiasm based on liberal media bias.

Due to media bias, it is still "cool" to be a "Democrat" and "proclaimed Obama supporter" even if in reality the person is a "fairweather fan" who might not even vote or support Obama.

Basically, these "fairweather fans" want to seem cool as an "Obama supporter" but have no real intention of going to the voting booths. 

Even "enthusiasm for Obama may be high because of the media" but in reality people are buying into the media hype, but when push comes to shove, there is no way they are going to vote. 

I could be wrong, but I still think Obama will have a BIG PROBLEM with turnout. 

These polls are definitely the liberal media trying to suppress Romney turnout by depressing republicans.

But I just have a suspicion that on Election Day, the "self-proclaimed Obama supporters" will be far lower than expected. 

Obama might still win, but I just don't buy it that "real-real enthusiasm is there for Obama supporters" - Its "cool" to publicly support Obama but not actually cool to "actually go voting"

Obama has won the "Media Hype Wars" but Romney can still win with a high Conservative turnout. 

Nailed it.

[Politico]

I think the Polls are skewed along party identification and enthusiasm based on liberal media bias.

Due to media bias, it is still "cool" to be a "Democrat" and "proclaimed Obama supporter" even if in reality the person is a "fairweather fan" who might not even vote or support Obama.

Basically, these "fairweather fans" want to seem cool as an "Obama supporter" but have no real intention of going to the voting booths.  

Even "enthusiasm for Obama may be high because of the media" but in reality people are buying into the media hype, but when push comes to shove, there is no way they are going to vote.  

I could be wrong, but I still think Obama will have a BIG PROBLEM with turnout.  

These polls are definitely the liberal media trying to suppress Romney turnout by depressing republicans.

But I just have a suspicion that on Election Day, the "self-proclaimed Obama supporters" will be far lower than expected.  

Obama might still win, but I just don't buy it that "real-real enthusiasm is there for Obama supporters" - Its "cool" to publicly support Obama but not actually cool to "actually go voting"

Obama has won the "Media Hype Wars" but Romney can still win with a high Conservative turnout.  

Um... you are aware that if it looks like an Obama blow-out... it would impact his voters as well. Plus the media would want a close race...

Trust me, it's going to be a close race as we approach the election. The polling companies do not want to go out of business. The media will report closer polls than it ends up being, though. Romney will out-perform all of the final numbers as was the case with Reagan in 1980.

[Politico]

All other evidence aside, one would think that the pollsters will get better at their craft as time goes on, not worse.

Blame cell phones and more persons of color - particularly Hispanics.

Nearly everybody has cell phones now.

Yes, but people who only have cell phones are incredibly difficult to poll relative to people with landlines. That is the point. It's a logistical thing that makes random sampling more difficult than ever before, and many pollsters largely have to assume that these cohorts display identical voting patterns to people with landlines, which is questionable...