Current polling, Obama vs. Romney

[mondale84]

Thread title is wrong. It says 'current polling', not pbrower's limited selection of current polling.

It should be pbrower's biased polling or how he feels it 'should' be.  Pick a few polls that he likes and modifies to his liking.

Obama is going to win 50 states + DC, so shut up and stop trolling.

[mondale84]

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 

[mondale84]

It's been interesting how much Obama falls when only likely voters are polled. He did the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

Note well the commonplace observation of Barack Obama in 2008: that the vote for him goes well beyond the "likely voters" model that fits a pared electorate because the electorate is not excited. He campaigns so that he can win over people who might be not-so-regular voters. Such indicates a strong campaign and an adept politician.

"Registered voters late in the campaign"  well described Obama in 2008, but "likely voters" well described the midterm election of 2010.  "Likely voters" tend to be older voters who vote in any election. If the not-so-likely voters are younger and different in their voting habits than the older "likely voters", then pollsters who rely upon "likely voters" models can get a Presidential election very wrong (they didn't see the Reagan landslide in 1980 coming and underestimated that of 1984) but might get a midterm right (1982, 2010). Note that voters born around 1960 were much more 'conservative' on most issues than were their elders and made the difference between the elections of 1976 and 1980. Reagan got the young-adult vote in 1980; he couldn't have done so in 1972 or 1976.   

Barack Obama is a masterful politician with a superb organization. At this point I see no cause other than a collapse of the campaign of either Obama or Romney for the 2012 election to look significantly different from that of 2008. The Obama campaign is going to recruit lots of new voters and goad them to vote. 

I don't think he's experienced as a politician and therefore says whatever is on his mind resulting in things like going to 57 states so far. Obama tried to recruit new voters and it didn't happen. In 2008 as I said before he polled much better than he did against Clinton and to a smaller degree McCain. The youth turnout was exactly the same in 2004 but he did manage to do better amongst them. That said, he still didn't recruit new voters but simply turned more young voters. I don't understand what's so masterful about winning an election where the housing market has collapsed and the incumbent president has a 25% approval rating. As for comparing 2012 to 2008, it's too early to tell because no one is paying attention yet.

Just look at how well experience served Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primaries this year.

Worth noting is that the youngest voters are much more liberal than the national average. In 2008 voters under 29 voted 66-32 for President Obama. They were only 18% of the electorate, to be sure, but that is a horrible trend for Republicans. Ask yourself what the GOP can do to win that age group that will encompass voters up to age 33 in November. How can you win them if your economic program is aid to people much older and richer through which such aid must filter as profit before it reaches down as jobs with low pay? If your culture is 'believe-it-or-burn' religious fanaticism?

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.UBMd_vWMiSo

Political patterns do not change rapidly among a group of people. Any group that votes 66-32 for the liberal Democrat is decidedly liberal. This is the only growing age category.  Groups voting more for President Obama were "liberals", "Democrats", "homosexuals", "people with incomes under $15,000", and "any non-white ethnic groups". It trumped region and even "union households".  (I saw nothing for "Jews", so I shall remain silent).

It may be that President Obama was running against the consequences of the policies of George W. Bush... but GOP policies are essentially the same in 2012 as in 2008. Beyond any question, George W. Bush makes President Obama look great by contrast.

Politics is marketing... but for good reason Ford Motor Company gave up on the Edsel within two years. The GOP needs a new product.   

Indiana Senate and President of the United States are apples and oranges. We will never win the youth vote and they will never be over 20% of the electorate. No Independents in 2012 are going to remember exactly how bad things were in 2008 because they don't pay attention as much as Republicans or Democrats. Obama has taken us further into debt and had an average unemployment rate higher than the average during Bush's 8 years. We had our deadliest months in Iraq during the latter first year of the Obama administration. His response to the Gulf oil spill made Bush look like Superman regarding Hurricane Katrina. As far as winning we need nothing but money and advertisements. Of course we aren't going to recruit Democrats anymore than they're going to recruit us but to independents concerned about limited government when it comes to the free market, the GOP will do quite well. As far as who will win this election, as I've said on every thread, it's July. Obama is about where Mondale and Dukakis were at this time.

Independents are not - contrary to your opinion - dumb s. They are sentient people who suffer economic pain like the rest of us. They are aware of the recent economic trajectory and realize - like most of us - that things have gotten better. They may be upset at the pace, but they do remember 2008.

Also, I love how you admit that your party is trying to buy this election. Some honesty, finally. 

When did I say independents were dumb? I know what you mean about economic pain but I think that's the end of where we agree. Things have gotten better? Stop! Oh I'm sure they remember the promises made in 2008 about how everything was going to be perfect if we just voted Democrat. When did I say buy the election? Let's grow up and realize that both parties do the same thing to try and win.

Things have...we aren't loosing 700k jobs per month...

but that's a fact, so you don't like those...