Solid poll

[Vance2335]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

.Thursday, August 09, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

[adgal]

Yeah, that was pretty much it.  Of course then a new poll gets released showing Romney in the lead and it gets the dems out there..lol.  Really, I think the polls give indicators, but things can change so very quickly.  I so wish I could find the article, there was so much more to it then that.

I'll tell you though, polls changed peoples votes in our last Provincial election.  We are a multi party system.  In my province the liberals seriously have no chance at all.  None.  It's been conservative here forever!  Along came a new Party that was incredibly right wing...and I mean extreme...made your Republicans looks left wing, no exaggeration.  They were polling way ahead for a long long time.  Well, myself and everyone I know that is typically Liberal went and voted Conservative.  If we had voted Liberal, then this newer party could have won and I know I didn't want that.  So I voted against them and for the party that was the only one with a shot at beating them.  So, the polling changed my mind.  Lol, it's hot and I'm tired...did any of that make a bit of sense?

[el_em_en_oh]

So by that rational, if the poll-data that's being released keeps saying that Barack Obama is in the lead, it'll incite Republicans to get out and "rock the vote"???

That's awesome then!!!!!!

Come on polling organizations! Keep on releasing your polls and projections, telling us that Barack Obama is in the lead!!!!!!!!!

[adgal]

I have spent a bunch of time looking for a really interesting article I read on polling during our last Provincial election. I can't find it now (of course), but think you might find the general gist of it interesting.

It claimed that releasing polling data can actually influence the way people vote.  For example, in any democratic society, a relatively large segment of the population doesn't bother to vote.  Apathy is the main reason.  But when a poll is released showing one candidate or the other with a large lead, it can really motivate folks to get out there and vote out of fear.  I wish I could find it, it was far more in depth then that, but it sure was interesting...and made a lot of sense.

[Vance2335]

Well we do not live in a true democracy so.

[el_em_en_oh]

I just wish they'd poll the ENTIRE population, not just 1,000 or 2,000 of us at a time.

Oh yeah, that poll will be taken in November.

And not like the 'Super Poll' in November will matter, because WE THE PEOPLE don't elect the President anyway... the Electoral College does.

What a screwed up country we live in.

[Vance2335]

2 of the most populaist states NY and Cali and now all Dem and will not switch anytime soon.

[brice1967]

Yeah, the electoral college needs to go.  In a state like mine, a democrat running for President doesn't have a chance.... all votes go to the republican running.

[Vance2335]

I have been polled several times in the past. I know how some polls work as my college roommate one year was the nephew of Zogby.

So if the company doing the polling will get a list of names and numbers of registered republicans, democrats and independants. They will make equal calls (or pretty close to equal calls) to repubs and Dems and will do about 1/2 independants. This will be a starting base line and if some time they get a very swewed amount they might not even publish the poll as something went wrong.

Now several companies with is employed by both sides will use a larger number of dems or repubs to show who/what they support is ahead. NYTimes, ABC, CBS, NBC has been doing this for years. Now MSNBC, FoxNews are doing it.

[el_em_en_oh]

You know, you bring up a valid point.

Just WHO do they poll?

I mean, I've never been "polled" before, nor asked for my opinion on a particular subject.

Maybe it's because I've only JUST become one of you (an US citizen)!!!

[teko]

No el, I would still be saying polls dont matter. No one ever calls me for my opinion. Polls are random at best and will change tomorrow and the day after that. I still say nothing matters much until the last month or so before the actual election. Until there is a running mate and the conventions, its all about a bunch of whooy to me. I do agree that elections should be won on the popular vote tho.

[el_em_en_oh]

What I want to know is, of the 538 electoral-college "electors", do they remain NEUTRAL through the process, or does their political affiliation 'skew' their thinking, opinions, and ultimately, the electoral-vote they cast?

Seems to me, that if Texas, say, had 10 electoral-college votes (as an example) and all the "electors" were registered Republicans, and the state's popular-vote came back with a Democrat majority, that said electors could simply vote the other way, on a whim, just because it's not their guy that was voted for.

It's tantamount to Olympic gymnastics, figure-skating or diving judges (too subjective).

The voting process is black & white: He/she who gets the most physical votes, wins.

I read about it here (http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/electoral-college.htm) but still don't really understand how it's still a thing, and adhered to. I know it's defined in the Constitution, but we've amended the Constitution before, so maybe it's time to do it again.

Like you Mike, I really don't purport to know a whole lot about it, and by no means an expert on the topic, but on the surface it looks a bit like a pile of political CRAP to me.

Yet another way to take "We the People" out of the process, and put our election process firmly in the hands of Washington DC.

[mikesimon]

I cannot disagree with you here. I can see the arguments on both sides but I lean towards your view and away from the electoral college. Truthfully, I am not knowledgeable enough to be confident about this issue but it doesn't feel quite right to me the way it is now.

Mike

[el_em_en_oh]

The whole "electoral college" thing REALLY bothers me.

I understand the civic's reasoning behind it and why it's in place, but it's a bit out of date (archaic).

I think that 'popular vote' is the way elections should be won and lost.

If you get more PHYSICAL votes than the other guy, you win.

Plain & simple.

The Bush-Cheney win wasn't legitimate, in this mans humble opinion. As much as I hate to admit that, I call it like I see it.

Gore-Lieberman SHOULD have won that election.

[mikesimon]

The popular vote was won by Gore-Lieberman by 543,816 votes.

    Bush-Cheney - 50,460,110
    Gore-Lieberman - 51,003,926
    Nader-LaDuke - 2,883,105
    Buchanan-Foster - 449,225
    Browne-Olivier - 384,516

Electoral Vote:

The electoral vote was won by Bush-Cheney by 5 votes.

    Bush-Cheney - 271
    Gore-Lieberman - 266
    Nader-LaDuke - 0
    Buchanan-Foster - 0
    Browne-Olivier - 0

[el_em_en_oh]

However, if the poll was in Obama's favor, the you'd be saying:

"SEE!!! Obama's going to win!!!!!!! These polls are SO accurate!!!!!!!"

[Vance2335]

No they don't but the topic posted a day or 2 ago was a flawed poll. Repubs and Dems trust Rasmussen. Swing states are too close, most are within the margin or error.

[teko]

Yeah, and Obama is ahead in the majority of the swing states and with women. Polls dont mean much at this stage of the game I dont think.