CBS/NYT: Obama, Romney tied at 46%

[krazen1211]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57415623-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-among-registered-voters-cbs-news-new-york-times-poll-finds/


Mr. Obama and Romney each received support from 46 percent of registered voters when asked who they would vote for if the election were held today. In March, a CBS News/New York Times survey found that Mr. Obama held a slight advantage over Romney of 47 percent to 44 percent.



Yep, its a month of Mittmentum.

[Jayhawker]

Outllier.

Its clear - any poll that has Romney leading, tied, or anywhere near the margin of error with Obama is simply an outlier. Obama is easily leading this race and is certain to win reelection.

[Sarcasm/]

[Torie]

Yes, there seems to be this assumption that robots can't win.  The Luddite impulse persists.

[mondale84]

Outllier.

Its clear - any poll that has Romney leading, tied, or anywhere near the margin of error with Obama is simply an outlier. Obama is easily leading this race and is certain to win reelection.

[Sarcasm/]

The only reason it's close in polling is because Romney is consolidating 'pub support (at least in polling). Independents are still key and they are in the margin of error. Polls now are useless except to keep this forum alive and entertaining.

[Governor Scott]

Even though liberals here have demonized polls with Obama leading in them many times, clearly it's only the polls we dislike.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Also, the internals for this poll are very pro-GOP.

[5280/East California]

Democrats specifically like to call it a poll junk, Republican friendly or an outllier if they don't like it.  Same goes to Republicans if the poll is DEM friendly, but I'm not going into that since these forums are DEM leaning.

[ajb]

Democrats specifically like to call it a poll junk, Republican friendly or an outllier if they don't like it.  Same goes to Republicans if the poll is DEM friendly, but I'm not going into that since these forums are DEM leaning.

This is why it makes more sense to average the polls than to "junk" the ones you don't like, and brandish the ones you do as signs of some new campaign "narrative."

There's a circular reasoning to declaring polls "junk:" we call them "junk," usually, because the topline results contradict our understanding of how the race looks, yet the whole point of paying attention to the polls is to discover how the race looks. If we simply exclude those polls that don't fit our pre-conceived notions of how the campaign is going, then in effect we reject the possibility of learning anything from the polls.