Thought I read today that Romney down about 10 percentage points in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania? Guess it depends what poll you look at. Can't say I'm surprised. Etch-a-Sketch Romney is about as flakey as they come, this coming from a non-affiliated voter who's voted for Republicans in the past.
Interesting article about methodology: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-are-polls-tilted-toward-obama_653067.html?nopager=1
I can't remember... were democrats acting the same way about the polls in 2004 when Kerry was about to lose? Making up reasons to disbelieve the polls? Insisting that the pollsters were biased, were applying the wrong filters, were talking to the wrong people? Denying statistical reality? I don't know. Maybe I was one of those people complaining about the polls back then. I'm sure if I was it felt (to me) more hopeful than desperate at the time. barfo
We were a bit; lots of concern about how the voting machines were going to steal the election in swing states and hand-wringing over the swift boat thing. Regardless of the flavor though, what links Democrats in 2004 to Republicans of 2012 is a sense of delusion.
Delusion how? There is a statistical basis for my skepticism of the polling data. You tell me if you expect 2012 Democratic/Republican turnout to exceed 2008 (which was at a record level for the Democrats). Because that's what the models are predicting in those polls.
Probably not, but I'm almost certainly better with statistics. Mostly, I have analytical skills equal to or greater than a 7th grader. It's ironic, actually. Just yesterday you were telling me that I shouldn't believe what everyone writes about themselves on the Internet yesterday, that I should be skeptical. Now, I'm the one saying you should be skeptical while you apparently believe everything you read on the Internet whole hog, as long as it's a poll.
I didn't read it on the internet. I heard it on the radio and watched it on the news. These aren't average Joe Schmoes making up these stats on an internet forum either.
I'll remember how you heard it on the radio as an authoritative source the next time you bring up Rush Limbaugh.
Here's an interesting article about polling motivations http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/09/27/the-five-false-assumptions-behind-poll-skewing/
I suppose that used to be true. These days, I'm not so sure. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but he sounds bombastic when I hear clips of him. NPR tells complete falsehoods with that smooth, reasoned, soft tone. It doesn't make their words any more credible. I would furthermore argue that NPR is at least as biased as right wing talk radio.
I disagree about them being as biased, but Rush Limbaugh (Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage) all tell flasehoods with loud, abrupt and angry tones and NEVER admit they're wrong. At least NPR admits they get something wrong.
NPR's most conservative regular commentator these days is David Brooks, who barely qualifies as one. Meanwhile, people like EJ Dionne represent their "sensible middle". The fact you can't see the bias in NPR says something about your point of view. By the way, I say this as a long time listener/supporter of public radio. It's a damn shame; NPR used to be worth listening to for politics.
