Are the polls skewed?

[King]

If you don't understand polls, then yeah.  Pollsters (except Rasmussen) don't do quotas.  Random samples are just that, random.  If 35-40% of random 1,000 people keep saying they self-identify as Democrats, guess what?  It's the same is if 35-40% of random 1,000 people kept saying they like turkey sandwiches, even if only 30% said they did two years ago.  Turkey sandwich eaters are not being over-polled.  Things change over time.

[King]

Fox and Friends pushed the "polls are rigged" message hard this morning
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/fox-friends-polls-rigged-conspiracy.php

For those who are buying into this, is the conspiracy that the polls have always been biased? So when Romney was tied after the RNC was he really 5 points ahead? Or is this a new thing that has been done since?

Nothing helps a campaign down 7 nationally than telling its base that it's really up 10 and not worry even showing up.

[King]

There's going to be a lot of confused and angry people in November because of this.

[King]

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?"

I don't disagree with your idea that people are already wanting change again.  But Obama does not have a major party opponent who is offering change.  Romney himself is not using change as rhetoric. 

[King]

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.

[King]

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.  This opinion is consistent in range from people younger than me to senior citizen Republican grandparents I have.

[King]

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 thinks at the margins rather than wasting.

Romney most certainly can change things before the debates.  Debates these days are basically a series of small speeches given in front of an audience and broadcast on television.  Romney most certainly can give a speech on television.  He can do the interview circuit.  He can write a blog on his website of his thoughts to the American people.  He can do all of this TODAY.

The problem? It will be the same problem likely to doom him in the debates.  He's not a good speaker on his feet.  He doesn't have much of a personality.  He can't turn around his image of himself because the current image of himself is actually the truth.  He's cubicle ant businessman focused on bottomline who doesn't command the attention of the room and stumbles at socializing.  That's not a bad trait.  There's plenty of successful people like that, but there's no such thing as a President like that.  Romney could probably be a useful Secretary of Commerce or maybe even a Representative in the House with the right committee assignments.  But he is not a President.

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.

I absolutely agree with you, Politico.  However, Mitt Romney is not that man.

[King]

You know, Romney isn't the first major party campaign to question polling and accuse them of trying to form a narrative against them with the polls:

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984/fighter

Yeah, that worked.

[King]

Actually, it's kind of funny how Mitt Romney's campaign is a lot like Walter Mondale's:

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984/house

Cut Spending
Close Loopholes
See Me After the Election

[King]

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984/table

The President doesn't meet with world leaders.  What an arrogant ass.

[King]

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984/rollercoaster

We had record unemployment two years ago.  Don't forget, kids.  The President says it's getting better.  But BOOM record national debt, too.  Don't forget.

[King]

You know, Romney isn't the first major party campaign to question polling and accuse them of trying to form a narrative against them with the polls:

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984/fighter

Yeah, that worked.

Romney's also not the president who ordered his justice department to sue gallup over poll numbers - that's Obama.  Also, the difference with the Mondale/Reagan election was that the media was far less ideological at that time - it is much more so now and heavily in the tank for Obama. 

There are other tell-tale signs.  One, why is Obama spending so much time in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire when he has them in the bag.  Three of those are blue states and in Ohio, if you go by polls, he's up by 10 points. 

Bold is not true.  Because the Justice Department is following a case involving a claimed whisteblower who has brought forth a suit against Gallup tied to the False Claims Act does not mean the incumbent President at the time is going after the defendant.  They haven't even presented Gallup with a suit.  They only had it on their docket as something brought to them to research.

The second sentence of your first paragraph is true.  But Mondale was accusing the media of having a Reagan bias just like Romney supporters are accusing the media with Obama.  It's called being a losing candidate who is grasping at straws.

Obama is campaigning because he is running for re-election.  Why you find this to be a tell-tale sign that he will lose I am not sure.  Romney is also traveling everywhere Obama is, too.  In addition, Obama is already considering expanding his campaign into Arizona, Missouri and Montana.  He is eating more into Romney's pie than Romney is doing the other way.

[King]

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.

[King]

You've complete gone off the deep end, Politico.  Your words hardly form sentences anymore.

[King]

I can just imagine Politico sitting at his desk staring at a map of Iowa trying to figure out why Romney is doing to so poorly there only to pull his trembling hand away to unmask the shocking discovery in the corner of the photo: CHHICCCAGGGOOOO!!!

[King]

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.  It shouldn't effect the results.  Cell phone users are so diverse now that the results of those without them probably equal the results of those with them.

Just like the results of the people who do turn out to vote likely would have been the same if turnout were 100%.