National Tracking Poll Thread

[Eraserhead]

Today looks like a big win for no-mentum.

By the way, is it me or are we getting way fewer non-tracking national polls this year than we usually get?

[Badger]

Problem is, the state polls are showing no movement toward Romney. At this point, the national polls are more or less useless, because Romney is likely over performing in places where he doesn't need to over perform, therefore producing a national lead.

Not if you decide to ignore a bunch of them, no.

Of the state polls on the front page here, the only ones that are good news for Romney are one Uni poll, one no-name poll, three Rassies, and one from the spectacularly brilliant firm Foster McCollum White Baydoun.

So you just ignored 6 polls. Kudos.

Considering their source, can you offer any specific reason not to ignore them (or at least take them with a rock of salt)?

Several of them are from good pollsters and the MOE's overlap. 

Which ones are "good" JJ? Rasmussen, the uni poll, or the no names including one claiming MI---FREAKIN' MI--is tied?

[Lief 🗽]

Today looks like a big win for no-mentum.

By the way, is it me or are we getting way fewer non-tracking national polls this year than we usually get?

Not just you. It's pretty annoying too, since those are usually the good ones.

[J. J.]

Problem is, the state polls are showing no movement toward Romney. At this point, the national polls are more or less useless, because Romney is likely over performing in places where he doesn't need to over perform, therefore producing a national lead.

Not if you decide to ignore a bunch of them, no.

Of the state polls on the front page here, the only ones that are good news for Romney are one Uni poll, one no-name poll, three Rassies, and one from the spectacularly brilliant firm Foster McCollum White Baydoun.

So you just ignored 6 polls. Kudos.

Considering their source, can you offer any specific reason not to ignore them (or at least take them with a rock of salt)?

Several of them are from good pollsters and the MOE's overlap. 

Which ones are "good" JJ? Rasmussen, the uni poll, or the no names including one claiming MI---FREAKIN' MI--is tied?

I'm talking about Ohio. 

[Badger]

Problem is, the state polls are showing no movement toward Romney. At this point, the national polls are more or less useless, because Romney is likely over performing in places where he doesn't need to over perform, therefore producing a national lead.

Not if you decide to ignore a bunch of them, no.

Of the state polls on the front page here, the only ones that are good news for Romney are one Uni poll, one no-name poll, three Rassies, and one from the spectacularly brilliant firm Foster McCollum White Baydoun.

So you just ignored 6 polls. Kudos.

Considering their source, can you offer any specific reason not to ignore them (or at least take them with a rock of salt)?

Several of them are from good pollsters and the MOE's overlap. 

Which ones are "good" JJ? Rasmussen, the uni poll, or the no names including one claiming MI---FREAKIN' MI--is tied?

I'm talking about Ohio. 

Fine. Same question--regarding Ohio.

[J. J.]

Problem is, the state polls are showing no movement toward Romney. At this point, the national polls are more or less useless, because Romney is likely over performing in places where he doesn't need to over perform, therefore producing a national lead.

Not if you decide to ignore a bunch of them, no.

Of the state polls on the front page here, the only ones that are good news for Romney are one Uni poll, one no-name poll, three Rassies, and one from the spectacularly brilliant firm Foster McCollum White Baydoun.

So you just ignored 6 polls. Kudos.

Considering their source, can you offer any specific reason not to ignore them (or at least take them with a rock of salt)?

Several of them are from good pollsters and the MOE's overlap. 

Which ones are "good" JJ? Rasmussen, the uni poll, or the no names including one claiming MI---FREAKIN' MI--is tied?

I'm talking about Ohio. 

Fine. Same question--regarding Ohio.

Rasmussen, Suffolk and Angus Reid; none of those are no name, though Suffolk is a Uni poll.  We also have a PPP at +1 Obama.  We have some that are not, CNN/Time, Quinnipiac.  And we have Pharos, that from what I can find is a business research firm. 

[krazen1211]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

and I know how thrilled you are about that.

[Ty440]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

Yawn...Romney is running up the white vote in Texas and Georgia.

Obama is holding his own with whites in Ohio,and that's where it counts.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

Weird how I'm just not seeing it on the ground.

[krazen1211]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

Yawn...Romney is running up the white vote in Texas and Georgia.

Obama is holding his own with whites in Ohio,and that's where it counts.

Mathematically illogical. Those are 2 of the least white states in the nation.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Mathematically illogical. Those are 2 of the least white states in the nation.

Whites in the Deep South vote Republican by margins that are simply unbelievable. I'm talking 80% in some states.

[Ty440]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

Yawn...Romney is running up the white vote in Texas and Georgia.

Obama is holding his own with whites in Ohio,and that's where it counts.

Mathematically illogical. Those are 2 of the least white states in the nation.

Shock poll Romney only +6 with whites in Ohio

Time Ohio poll  (nailed it in 2008)

While Romney is winning 49% of white voters, Obama is still attracting the support of 43% of that demographic group,

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/24/time-poll-obama-leads-by-5-in-ohio/#ixzz2ANF95uX3


developing...

[Badger]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

and I know how thrilled you are about that.

Racial solidarity is very important to you, isn't it Krazen?

[Badger]

Problem is, the state polls are showing no movement toward Romney. At this point, the national polls are more or less useless, because Romney is likely over performing in places where he doesn't need to over perform, therefore producing a national lead.

Not if you decide to ignore a bunch of them, no.

Of the state polls on the front page here, the only ones that are good news for Romney are one Uni poll, one no-name poll, three Rassies, and one from the spectacularly brilliant firm Foster McCollum White Baydoun.

So you just ignored 6 polls. Kudos.

Considering their source, can you offer any specific reason not to ignore them (or at least take them with a rock of salt)?

Several of them are from good pollsters and the MOE's overlap. 

Which ones are "good" JJ? Rasmussen, the uni poll, or the no names including one claiming MI---FREAKIN' MI--is tied?

I'm talking about Ohio. 

Fine. Same question--regarding Ohio.

Rasmussen, Suffolk and Angus Reid; none of those are no name, though Suffolk is a Uni poll.  We also have a PPP at +1 Obama.  We have some that are not, CNN/Time, Quinnipiac.  And we have Pharos, that from what I can find is a business research firm. 

Of which, only the first three even show Romney tied.

So again, are you sticking by the uni pollster being reliable, Rassy, or Angus whatsis?

[J. J.]

Problem is, the state polls are showing no movement toward Romney. At this point, the national polls are more or less useless, because Romney is likely over performing in places where he doesn't need to over perform, therefore producing a national lead.

Not if you decide to ignore a bunch of them, no.

Of the state polls on the front page here, the only ones that are good news for Romney are one Uni poll, one no-name poll, three Rassies, and one from the spectacularly brilliant firm Foster McCollum White Baydoun.

So you just ignored 6 polls. Kudos.

Considering their source, can you offer any specific reason not to ignore them (or at least take them with a rock of salt)?

Several of them are from good pollsters and the MOE's overlap. 

Which ones are "good" JJ? Rasmussen, the uni poll, or the no names including one claiming MI---FREAKIN' MI--is tied?

I'm talking about Ohio. 

Fine. Same question--regarding Ohio.

Rasmussen, Suffolk and Angus Reid; none of those are no name, though Suffolk is a Uni poll.  We also have a PPP at +1 Obama.  We have some that are not, CNN/Time, Quinnipiac.  And we have Pharos, that from what I can find is a business research firm. 

Of which, only the first three even show Romney tied.

So again, are you sticking by the uni pollster being reliable, Rassy, or Angus whatsis?

I would also add PPP, which has a D lean (not that Rasmussen doesn't have an R lean).    I think that we are talking about a tie.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I recall you wanting more info from PPP to see if Romney was surging in OH and WI before you were comfortable in your prediction?

[krazen1211]

PPP is back to a 48-48 tie.

Romney continues to dominate among whites!

and I know how thrilled you are about that.

Racial solidarity is very important to you, isn't it Krazen?

No, but winning the election is. The polls show that the path of victory leans toward rallying white males who favor God, guns, proper marriage, and football.

[Cliffy]

Is PPP coming back to earth on the turnout??? I believe it was D+4

PRESIDENT – NATIONAL (PPP Tracking)
Mitt Romney (R) 48%
Barack Obama (D-inc) 48%

[Minnesota Mike]

Now we know why the gallop tracker is so much more favorable to Willard than others, they are finding a much whiter, more Republican electorate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx

[Cliffy]

Lol, they are finding an electorate like 08.  I've been telling you your terrible three are skewing demographics to get their skewed turnout models, but oh no.  You'll see.

[Skill and Chance]

Lol, they are finding an electorate like 08.  I've been telling you your terrible three are skewing demographics to get their skewed turnout models, but oh no.  You'll see.

The last time I checked this country is more, not less diverse today than it was in 2008.

[J. J.]

Rasmussen:

Romney:  50, u

Obama:  47, u

[J. J.]

Lol, they are finding an electorate like 08.  I've been telling you your terrible three are skewing demographics to get their skewed turnout models, but oh no.  You'll see.

The last time I checked this country is more, not less diverse today than it was in 2008.

From what demographics we have, the electorate is slightly blacker, a fairly good bit older, and more Republican. 

[afleitch]

Gallup's likely voter make up is a little confusing. What Gallup are comparing are their own figures from both 2004 and 2008 based on their pre-election polls, not the exit polls. Whites made up 82% of the voting electorate in 2004 and 78% in 2008 according to Gallup yet the exit polls had them 77% and 74% respectively.

The exit polls showed the following breakdown in 2008:

White 74%
Black 13%
Hispanic 9%
Asian 2%
Others 2%

Therefore if Gallup are not seeing a huge movement from 2008 then we would expect 2012 to look like this

White 74%
Black 12%
Hispanic 10%
Asian 2%
Others 2%