This week we have two offenders: NBC/WSJ and CBS/NYT.
NBC/WSJ just issued a poll showing Obama with a 5% lead in Florida and Virginia and a 7% lead in Ohio. That seems like quite a lot, given that Rasmussen found these states statistically tied and Romney with a 3% national lead. So what’s the real story? Get this.
● On the surface, the Virginia poll shows only +5% Democratic oversampling. This may not sound like a lot, except Democratic turnout that high in Virginia would be identical to 2008 -- which won’t repeat this year. Factor that out and you’ve got a tie. But there’s something even more interesting hidden within this poll. “Independents” are oversampled by around +10%. So who are these independents? Are they genuine independents or leftists pretending to be independents? Well, when you dig deeper, you find that the poll oversampled blacks by 50% and oversampled the rich by about 10%, both of which groups line up on the left. Yet these people don’t show up in Democratic ranks in this poll. Moreover, the overall sample gave Obama a whopping +10% approval rating, compared to a negative 3-4% in most national polls. So it’s likely these independents skew heavily toward the Democrats. Factor that out and Romney wins Virginia easily.CBS/NYT shows Obama with a 3% national lead. They no longer provide their underlying data because they’ve been caught too many times now using laughably biased samples. But get this. . . Romney wins 90% of Republicans. Obama wins 92% of Democrats. So to get a 3% win for Obama, Obama must carry independents, right? No. Romney wins independents by +11%. Think about that. If they used a fair sample, then Romney and Obama should get about the same percentage of voters from their own parties. That means Romney should be winning by 11%, but he’s not. He’s losing by 3%. That tells us the sample was probably around +14% for the Democrats!! There’s also no enthusiasm gap for Obama among Democrats, which is inconsistent with all prior polling.
● NBC’s Ohio numbers are ludicrous. They are +10% Democratic. That’s way more Democratic than even 2008. Factor that out and Obama loses by 3%.
● The Florida numbers are interesting because they are only +2% Democratic. So it sounds like Obama wins by 3%. Except, when you look at the Senate numbers, you suddenly see NBC’s sample going +14% for the Democrat, even though everyone else gives the Democrat a small lead. It’s impossible to know what this really means, except you can’t trust this poll.
Clearly, these polls are fakes, just as so many others have been in recent months. It’s becoming a worn out story how the polls are skewing sample sizes well into the double digits, well beyond the peak of Democratic turnout in 2008, to show Obama with a tiny lead. Why are they doing this?
The answer is simple: the herd instinct.
As I’ve said many times before, humans are by instinct herd animals. Marketing people understand this, which is why so many advertisements tell you that if you want to belong, you better do what everybody else is doing and buy their product. These appeals work on the human instinct to follow the herd and do what everyone else does.
The left is worried that if it becomes obvious that the public, i.e. the herd, is running with Romney, the rest of the herd will follow. That will create unstoppable momentum. By putting out these fake poll numbers, the MSM hopes to stop the public from realizing the direction of the herd so that Obama has a chance to win people back before the election. That’s why they pushing the idea that Obama is slightly ahead. And since they know that few people will ever read blogs or dig into the numbers themselves, they know there is little or no danger they will lose their own credibility in putting out these polls. That’s what’s going on.
87 comments:
http://symbolic-mirage.blogspot.com/2012/09/obama-faked-poll-and-twitter-results.html
I quoted you extensively, adding information about what PRI paid in Mexico to skew polls there in the recent presidential election and added the information about 13 million of Obama's Twitter followers (NY Times/The Blaze).
You're right on with this blog post. Keep it up.
I am noticing another issue with the morning news blurbs that come on the AP on the radio.
They have spent all their time going over the Romneyh quote captured by Carter's grandkid and mentioning Mother Jones. Past couple of days I have heard this may six times in the care going to work and coming home.
Yet none of Obama's gaffes are stated in these segments. Such as his convenient forgetting that Egypt is an ally and the state department's corrcting them.
Sometimes it goets so thick I just turn the raido down for a few minutes when the news comes on becuase I am sick of hearing it.
Oddly enough they constantly pimp these polls. The latest one was Now people thrust Obama as much a Romney on the economy. No mention of the poll, the results or anything else. Just this statement that now everyone trusts Obama as much as Mitt on economic issues. It is the repition of this on the radio news cycle that gets the word out there. They are attempting to "repeat their lie often enough" I think.....
Andrew,
Here is the site I shared earlier with you. It basically is the results of registration of Republicans. It's analysis is in keeping with this blog post.
Here is a New Site I found while digesting yet another skewed poll. The site is called unskewedpolls.com. It is interesting in that it applies what is found at the earlier site on skewed polls. It's results are astonishing. It too is in keeping with this blog post.
Thank you for your post. :-)
*Shrugs* I know there are lots of ways to game polls (the ways one phrases questions, the questions one asks, who one asks) so I don't pay much attention to them.
Individualist, I don't think the gaffe will hurt Romney any more than then 'cling to their guns and their bibles' quote hurt Obama, but it was kind of insane.
I strongly doubt the bottom 47% of earners are more inclined to vote Democratic than the top 53% (Andrew's article specifically mentions that the rich are disproportionately Democratic).
Of course Anthony, Romney made his inartful statement in May. I'm guessing that the Obamaists have ben holding it to cover any pending major screw-ups by Obama. They found the biggest with our President at his Las Vegas fundraiser while our Ambassador lay dead snd our Embassies were under attack. And the MSM needed to create a diversion for His Majesty lest he look completely incompetent.
Bev,
I'm sure that is what the Dems did.
I believe the deliberate skewing serves two purposes: 1) As you say, to encourage the natural herd mentality (but I thinks this likely works far better for encouraging people to choose product iPhone over product Blackberry, than it does in picking Obama over Romney) and 2) to demoralize those who oppose Obama.
It is also intended to dispirit supporters of Romney/Ryan. I am a little bothered by the fact Fox's people don't do a better job of debunking these polls. Let's be honest, those who are political junkies understand this, but television still is the biggest media, and we know Fox is the only outlet that is not fully invested in Obama. It is easy for others to debunk Sean Hannity, but there are a lot of people who may watch Brett Baier, and at best, these people concede neck and neck. Given the horrible failure of Obama, neck and neck scares the hell out of me because that allows the incumbent to steal the election is so many ways.
Lib Av - I agree with you.
Libertarian Adv - #1 herd mentalily leads to #2 as a miscalculation of those who oppose Obama. It will only rev us up more to get to the polls and to double down on campaigning efforts.
BTW - I believe that the polls showed McCain was leading at about this time too in 2008.
Thanks, LL! I see this as a conscious effort to provide skewed results to keep people thinking the election is closer than it really is. That's the only thing that explains why they would use polling data that is so obviously wrong.
Anthony
I am uncertain how this will play but what I have noticed is that it comes out in the AP news. I hear about Obama's state department gaffe only on shows like Boortz or Levin.
Anyone listening to normal music is only going to hear the AP news blurbs. This quote just this morning was announced three times in one half hour. Twice in the AP blurb and once by the local news radio guy Jamie Dupree in "analysis" of it. just find that interesting. it is not jsut the skewed polling result I think it is the constant repitition as well.
Indi, They have been very selective in their presentation of stories.
I can't help but notice, for example, that they are ignoring the polls which show that Obama's supposed bounce from the convention is entirely gone again, and that he's lost a lot of points on handling foreign policy. They are simply cherry-picking the facts they like to present the image that Obama is winning.
TJ, the problem I've had with FOX News for a long time is that they simply report the same stories the same way as everybody else only applying different spin. If they wanted to be a standout news agency, major outlets skewing poll numbers is a story unto itself. But they are trapped in the same media bubble as the rest and cannot see it.
On that note, the radio talkers are trapped in that same bubble. One moment they'll be talking just as we are about media bias in the polls, the next minute they'll nonsensically accuse Romney of failing to get his message out and if he just did that he would be +10 in all the polls. It's like they're all schizophrenic or something!
Joel, Thanks for the link. I think the generic party polling is very interesting and suggests what all the other non-direct "who do you support" polling suggests. It's bizarre to have this big of a difference between all these polls, but I think the skewed data explains what is going on.
Has anybody seen how they've created this story that somehow Romney's campaign is in disarray? They suggested things weren't going well and then treated that as fact and instantly began running stories about how Romney was struggling despite the disarray even though there was never any evidence of disarray. Shameless!
Anthony, I too am frustrated with the simplistic idea among Republicans that ~47% of Americans don't pay (federal) taxes, therefore ~47% will vote for Obama. First of all, I know personally that one does not follow the other b/c I don't pay any federal taxes after deductions and whatnot and I have not and will not vote for Obama. Frankly, if I didn't put my reasoning before my emotions, that stupid equation pisses me off enough to push me away from the GOP. They are lucky I am not a bleeding heart libby.
Anthony, You might not pay attention to polls, but a lot of people do and that's the point. They are trying to present skewed results to keep those people thinking the race is close.
Anthony, I don't think Romney's statement will be a problem. This is just the MSM jumping on anything they can and trying to spin it into "why Romney is finished and you shouldn't bother voting for him." I don't even see any outrage with what he said... at least not outside the ranks of journalists.
I listen to Glenn and Rush most days and I get news at the top and bottom of the hour... Every time the airhead giving the news says that 'the unrest BECAUSE of the film continues to increase'. That is dem talk all over the place. I guess I should have checked for the source of this news days ago.
Sorry - I let the team down on that one.
Andrew,
I think the statement reflects a profound misunderstanding of how/why political lines are drawn.
However I also think the state of the electorate is such that a candidate would have to sacrifice a baby on live tv in order to hurt themselves with either their bases or the extremely tuned out (how can one not have an opinion after four years?) undecideds.
Great breakdown, Andrew. Of course, the media would embargo such analyses like it does anything negative for Obama.
As an even more extreme example, there's one poll which puts Obama up by 8 in Virginia, which has a D+8 sample of registered voters and a D+9 sample of likely voters. Even if the numbers themselves weren't ludicrous, any poll with a likely-voter sample that skews more Democratic than the registered-voter sample should be immediately discarded.
darski, you are singing my song! Events like the one in Egypt and Libya really bring out that the media just runs with the official Democrat Party version of events rather than report what is actually happening.
And as I said to TJ, FOX News isn't much better. They report the same "information" only they spin it differently. If FAUX were truly different, they'd drop the bit about the Mohammed video and report the real cause of the riots.
I can tell this conversation is going to keep pulling me in, today.
Bev, That's how they do it, they hold these things until they need them and Obama needs it right now. He's had a very bad week -- unless you believe the MSM.
As far as this "47 percent" thing goes, I literally cannot grasp why anyone would be outraged by this comment. I mean, really. I thought that was common knowledge at this point. Any Republican who decides not to vote for Romney because of that should be treated like the Andrew Sullivan-esque "Obamacons," and purged from the party.
Libertarian Advocate, I think it serves both purposes. It keeps the Democrats hopeful, it demoralizes the Republicans, and it keep the public at large from running with the herd.
Jed, The problem with Fox is that they don't do a lot of independent work. They just take what is reported by the AP and read it with their spin. Little effort is made to debunk any of these stories unless they have a specific guest who is there to do that -- and even then, they don't really incorporate that into their news, it just becomes a segment.
T-Rav
The outrage is not at what Romney said which you have to get through three paragraphs of "boring" (for the non politically minded) technical talk to get to.
The outrage is to the Obama narrative that Romney stated he did not care about those victims who pay taxes. This is not what he stated. What he did state was that he could not care about changing their minds because they were set in their beliefs. You would get that if you listened to Romney's speech.
However the unwashed are morelikely to listen to Obama's 25 words or less summation than Romeny's five minute speech.
So there you go....
Irony is that they are doing to Romney what they falsely accused the right of doing in misreading Obama's "You didn't build that" speech.
the Principles of Power in 1984 are alive and kickin in the DNC. It is truly fascinating what a prophet Orwell was....
Bev, Oddly, this is the point where the polls have almost always been wrong in the past. McCain was leading (or almost leading), Mondale, Carter, Bush over Clinton... this is a strange point for some reason and I'm not sure if that's an MSM created horse race thing or if there's some psychological reason?
In terms of demoralization... if the polls really did show Romney losing, I think it would demoralize Republicans. People do give up when something appears hopeless. But since these polls are so obviously false and so many people are pointing this out, I think these polls won't cause that effect.
Indi, That's because they are biased.
tryanmax, I just said the same thing about Fox! LOL! I think that's true. They just repeat the same news stories everyone else does only they try to spin them to the right. They should be debunking the falsehoods and reporting on the things the others aren't.
The talkers are a similar problem. One day they blast something like a fake poll, the next day they seem to use that poll as evidence things aren't going well. It's very schizophrenic.
DUQ, That's driven me nuts over the past few days. As near as I can tell, Politico did one of these "unnamed sources tell us" stories claiming that someone on Romney's staff isn't happy with how things are going.
That led to a series of articles about the "disarray" and "dissent" in Romney's campaign. That led to this sudden blast of stories about Romney trying to turn his campaign around now that it's in chaos.
It's totally a manufactured story.
The only poll that I pay any attention to is Rasmussen. The MSM have made themselves untrustworthy and irrelevant, just like their polls.
tryanmax, The thing is, it makes sense that people who don't pay taxes would not be worried about candidates who want to raise taxes. Moreover, it makes sense that people who live on benefits would vote to keep those coming. So it makes sense that people who pay no taxes and who live on benefits are more likely to vote for the Democrats. I've been saying for a long time now that we need to change that equation to get people to work. What Romney said was inartful and incomplete, but I can't disagree with the point he was trying to make.
darski, I agree, that's the Democratic message and it's highly counter-productive for people to believe that.
Anthony, I agree that this won't hurt Romney. There are almost no independents left in the electorate, it's all about turn out right now. And this statement won't depress Romney's turnout or cause Obama's to spike.
That said, I don't think the statement is as wrong as you think. It makes perfect sense that people who pay no taxes (and who get benefits) would have an incentive to vote to keep their benefits flowing and wouldn't care about tax hikes. That means they are more likely to vote Democratic. Is it always true? Obviously not. But I think it makes logical sense and I would not be at all surprised to see a high correlation.
T-Rav, Thanks! True, and yet they report those polls as fact, even though this should hurt their own credibility, because I think they have a purpose in doing so, as explained in the article. I'm amazed at how man plus-double-digit Democrat polls I've seen lately. It's shocking anyone would treat those as legitimate.
tryanmax, I agree. The MSM runs with these stories which are little more than Democratic talking points and they treat them as fact. Even Fox does this, they just try to spin them in the other direction. This is not a great time for the reputation of journalists.
Andrew
Yep they are biased.
the point is that these AP blurbs that are being used a campaign commercials I think have a greater effect on people that don't pay attention to politics than we think. This is because this is all they will hear.
As an interesting exercise. List all the political stories you hear during the week on the five minute morning news blurbs.
Then just use that information right or wrong and ask yourself what this would tell you. This is how we have to look at this and it is why this Romney video will have more impact than say Obama last cycle telling us he'd shut down utilities that burn coal.
Fox news and the AP needs to be fed stories from GOP reporters so that the news cycle on the radio is not so one sided. Like it or not we have to counter bias with bias. Even if it is only responding to and correcting their bias.
T-Rav, I honestly haven't seen any genuine outrage outside of the ranks of journalists. But I think what they are trying to spin this as is Romney calling anyone who isn't rich a leach.
Indi, Obviously, this information would tell you that Obama is doing his best, Romney's campaign is failing, and Romney makes a lot of gaffes. That's what it would tell you. And that's exactly what the nightly news presents as well. But that's not true. Hence, bias.
GRRRRRRR - The MSM should be indicted as a co-conspirator (with TOTUS & Holder) in the attempted murder of the American spirit!
Writer X, Rasmussen is the only one left with credibility in my book. I'm not saying they are always right, but I trust their numbers much more than anyone else because they seem to try to eliminate bias as much as possible. They also have a solid track record lately of predicting elections no matter which side wins, which tells me they are effective in eliminating their bias.
rlaWTX, Grrrr is right! I concur with your indictment! :)
Andrew,
I just don't see a link between not paying income tax (not quite the same as not paying taxes) and support for Democrats.
I think the poor economy and the fact that many are jobless and many of the employed are underemployed isn't Obama's strength, but his weaknesses.
I don't think the Tea Party would exist if the economy wasn't in the toilet, being strangled by the red tape of government (to mix metaphors).
Its also worth noting that Romney's 47% are many of the same people Obama derided for clinging to God and guns.
My takeaway is that politicians of all stripes say disparaging things about the sorts of people who can't afford to attend 50K dinners at 50K dinners.
I don't think what Romney was saying was that the people who don't pay income taxes are all going to vote for Obama. Which of course is not true--I pay little to no taxes after refunds (you know, college students and all), and, well, I wouldn't be here if I was a fan of TOTUS. Rather, I think he was saying that the Obama voting block thinks in terms of what they'll get out of the government, and nothing else, which is causing all the problems. He may not have expressed it that cleanly--even he admitted that--but one can hardly disagree with the basic sentiment underlying it.
Speaking of "Grrrr", for those of you who are interested, today is "International Talk Like A Pirate Day". So, throw in a few "bilge rats" and "scalliwags" today! Aaarrrrrhhh.
Anthony, I think the link is more with people who live on benefits than people who don't pay taxes. And let me assure you, those people are not Tea Party people. I got to know many of them in places like West Virginia and they are Democrats to the core because they know the Democrats are the party that keeps the money flowing.
Also, I think it's quite a leap to think that Romney is trying to disparage people just because they aren't big-time contributors. There is nothing Romney said which would support that conclusion.
T-Rav, I agree with that assessment entirely.
Bev, Excellent! Shiver me timbers! Arggg.
Nothing much to add. The methodology that I see as really skewing the results of most polls is assuming that the turnout will break just as it did in 2008. As you pointed out, the turnout will be quite different this time, with Republicans energized, Independents angry at the incumbent, and Democrats dispirited.
Andrew: Linked this Post here: http://libertarianadvocate.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-do-lying-pollsters-lie-to-push-herd.html
Andrew,
Here is some interesting news. There are minutes missing from the tape of Romney talking about the 47%. It is interesting because this guy who broke the story says that is all he got. Also, it is looking like whoever did tape Romney did it illegally.
Missing minutes, illegal taping..... Do you think Holder will jump on it? ;-)
Lawhawk, That's been what a lot of the polls are doing, though some of these go even beyond that and are assuming greater Democratic turnout than in 2008. To me, that's simply indefensible.
Thanks Libertarian Advocate.
Here's your link: LINK
Joel, If Romney said something clarifying and they have that on tape, then those missing minutes could really backfire. If they don't have the tape, then it won't really matter.
As for taping this illegally, I doubt there will be any action taken because no one ever takes action in these situations.
Polls are media generated hooey. All media outlets including Roger Ailes and FOX want a horserace, it’s good for business. I love to mention that Gallup had Carter up by 8% two weeks before the 1980 election, we all know what happened.
Stan, Polls are notoriously unreliable. But at least in the past, I think they tried to be somewhat fair. It's only been in the past twenty years that they developed push polling and learned that they could use polling to influence rather than inform.
Andrew, my comments (and I believe Anthony's, as well) were directed more toward a popular conservative talking point than Romney's specific remarks. That talking point is that those who don't pay taxes and/or who receive entitlement benefits are automatic Obama/Democrat votes. Romney's remarks, while sounding similar, were much less specific and I am inclined to agree with T-Rav's interpretation.
tryanmax, Unfortunately, by the time things get reduced to talking points, they tend to become simplistic and offensive.
I do think there is cause for concern that people who live off the government will vote for the party most likely to protect that income. But it's not absolute.
I also suspect Romney was trying to say exactly what T-Rav describes.
I think part of the problem is also that the pollsters are largely out-of-touch. Most of them are relying on 2008 turnout models, not 2010 or even a mix of the two. It's probably not even intentional bias much of the time, it's the "I don't know anyone who voted for Reagan" syndrome. That's what happens when you live in a bubble.
In fact, I'm listening to Limbaugh right now saying the very thing I disagree with. He describes it as a simplistic numbers game: if the Dems can just get 4% more people to take a gov't benefit, they'll be in power forever. That's absurd b/c, for one, not everyone receiving a benefit can be described as "living off of the government" as Limbaugh supposes.
tryanmax, I do think the theory makes sense, BUT the application is completely wrong. It's not a simple numbers game, but I think it is true that the more people who end up on government benefits, the greater the likelihood that they will support Democrats. But to assume that every one of them will or that you can look it like a straight numbers game is just wrong.
Andrew and tryanmax, the wild card in that equation, I think, is that a lot of the people receiving government benefits are very socially conservative, not to mention personally prejudiced against Obama. Therefore, it doesn't come down to solely material factors. (This is probably also why a lot of people like the Clintons but not Obama, even though there's not an inch of daylight between them on policy issues.)
T-Rav, I think the decision to rely on 2008 is simply wrong. I can understand why they might think it's valid, but I can't agree.
What startles me, however, and makes me think there is clear intentional bias is (1) the use of more-Democratic-than-2008 numbers which is so ludicrous no one can think that will happen, and (2) the fact so many pollsters are now starting to hide their underlying data so you can't figure out what they've done. Those things tell me this is intentional.
T-Rav, I take it you mean "racist"? That certainly describes the Democrats I met in West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania. They were deeply Democratic and deeply racist.
Andrew,
I enjoyed your post, it's interesting to see how much manipulation is going on behind the polling. It frightens me a bit as well, considering that if actual results are so far off from previous polls the electorate is going to claim disenfranchisement.
Still, it's troublesome when you see articles like this, especially when the source is Karl Rove. But he's relying on averages of phone polls, so again his electoral map could have all the value of an Obama promise.
T-Rav, Andrew, and Tryanmax - Part, if not most of the "numbers" in that 47% include SS/Medicare recipients who tend to be more conservative. And since the Baby Boomers are starting to collect their benefits of same, the number will grow. However, to assume that ALL people on "public assistance" including SS/Medicare will vote for Obama really does not add up to me.
Okay, now I'm truly baffled by Limbaugh, b/c he starts by talking about how the Dems are racking up the number of people on entitlements to build their voting base, and now he's shifted gears to say that most people in the 47% don't want to be there and don't consider themselves a part of it. If I had to guess, I'd say the got some caller/e-mailer backlash since the top of the show.
wahsatchmo, That's the problem with pundits, they make their money criticizing and yelling that the sky is falling. And frankly, Rove has never been particularly insightful in any event.
Bev, I agree. It was poorly stated and not well thought through. The real question should be, how many able-bodied, working age people are living on the government rather than a job?
tryanmax, It sounds like he got backlash. Or it's just this thing a lot of people do when they argue something sensitive and they try to slam people on the one hand and then come back and praise them as victims a moment later so it doesn't sound as harsh. It comes across as strange and hypocritical, but you see it all the time.
Great post, Andrew!
Someone may have already mentioned this, but the MSM did the same thing to Reagan when he was running against Carter.
Funny thing was, they stated to believe their own BS and they were shocked! Shocked I tell you! When Reagan won by a landslide.
This is another indication of how terrified they are/ And like you said in a previous post, more and more voters are ignoring the MSM because they know they are shills for Obama and the demcrat party and they have lied far too many times losing what credibility they had.
Thanks to your blog, Breitbart, Pajamas Media, DC, etc. for calling the MSM out on this and the many other lies they try to spread.
I seriously doubt Obama will win, but if he does I suspect he will try to silence the alternative media in some way.
God help us if he wins and ever gets a democrat majority House and Senate again.
But that won't happen. Romney will win...in a landslide!
Earned Income Tax Credit
•$43,998 ($49,078 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
•$40,964 ($46,044 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
•$36,052 ($41,132 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
•$13,660 ($18,740 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children
Tax Year 2011 maximum credit:
•$5,751 with three or more qualifying children
•$5,112 with two qualifying children
•$3,094 with one qualifying child
•$464 with no qualifying children
Investment income must be $3,150 or less for the year.
Tax on 41K AGi married filing jointly is 5,296 in 2011 per table. This is where the 47% number comes from.
Sorry taxable income not AGI.
Given 8k in deductions for tax payer and dependents (family of 4) and roughly 6 to 7 k in itemized deductions. This is a single taxpayer making 55K a year supporting the family by themselves.
Thanks Ben. I think this is a definite indication they think Obama is losing, otherwise they wouldn't need to do this.
when i see a poll, i keep moving. hell, when i see most msm reports, i keep moving. but that's me, not the herd. the herd can be swayed by lies and it's worrisome.
I'll link this next week. Thanks, as always!
You're welcome Patti! Thanks for the link as always! :)
Agree wholeheartedly, USS Ben (and Andrew). My only concern is that some on the right (and by that I can only confirm Linda McMahon) have fallen prey to this meme and are distancing themselves from Romney's "toxic" comments.
Frikkin' Democrats/modern libs. When are they ever going to understand "United we should stand" isn't just a homemade bumper-sticker on my car???
Andrew,
I just checked out the Pew Poll. It states that Obama is in the lead. The problem is I can't make heads or tails out of it's underlying information. You know, the raw data.
From what I could tell, halfway through they shifted from registered to likely and didn't show the demarcation. Also, I couldn't tell how many Democrats versus Republicans versus Independents were involved. It is as if they deliberately hid or fuzzed up the raw data.
There is no way to authenticate it's numbers and I would ignore it.
Joel, That's become the thing -- a lot of these polls are now hiding their data because bloggers have been taking them apart for their methodology. If you're afraid to share your data, then I think there must be a presumption something has been done incorrectly.
Eric, Unfortunately, that happens all the time on the right, somebody will always support the Democratic spin. I don't get it. I really don't. But it seems to be a problem we will always have.
Gonna be linked on the 25th. Thanky!
Thanks Patti!
Post a Comment