Cook: Private OH polls "ugly" for Romney

[Likely Voter]

Charlie Cook breaks down how the swing states are polling for the insiders (pre debate)....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

[J. J.]

Even PPP, pre-debate, showed a 4 point lead for Obama.  I doubt if that is too ugly.

[Politico]

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

[cavalcade]

Interesting and always good to have more data.  But

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and

You must be logged in to read this quote.

do not compute.  Romney would only have to win the six states that are characterized as "still quite close" or closer in order to win.

[nhmagic]

Charlie's a democrat hack, in part evidenced by his willingness to appear on MSNBC so often.   Plus, he was saying last week that the race was over.  I watched this guy in 2010 and his race ratings.  He had to adjust the ratings in the last couple of weeks to show the blowout that would occur.  In 2006, he cast the race early for democrats.   Also, the polls are wrong - the dems don't have the enthusiasm, they don't have the anger, they don't have the need to save this country, they don't even like the country for that matter.

A more responsible race rating set is Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.  Yes it shows an Obama lead, but Larry has way better instincts and connections and usually sets the ratings about where the election is and is only off by a state or two in the electoral count.  He has never called the race over, often offers historical nuggets of wisdom in his twitter posts and gives the most balanced view of the race you can get.

FiveThirtyEight cannot be trusted.  One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.  Nate Silver enthusiastically updates his model and writes an article as soon as better polls come in for democrats, but today, he didn't factor in all the Romney polls showing leads in Virginia and Florida and Ohio, which would change both the Now Cast and the November 6th results.  It also doesn't consider intangibles like the Crystal Ball does.  He was also purposefully late to the blowout in 2010.  

It's always a "surprise", a "shock" when republicans do well.  I

[Ichabod]

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

[Vosem]

Charlie's just annoying because he's behind a paywall. Sabato is really awesome -- of the 'mainstream' pundits, he's probably the best out there -- and Nate Silver is pretty good too, though Silver is more interested in the mathematics than the politics and sometimes it can show.

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

Occasionally, they do (two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the California gubernatorial election 1982 and the UK parliamentary election 1992); there's just doesn't seem to be any reason to think there is one in 2012. Though, they're called 'silent' for a reason.

[Politico]

One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.

Figures.

This is the explanation behind a lot of what is said by many people right now.

Obviously nobody wants four more years of the last four years, so the above must be true. No other rational explanation for the fervor in some corners. They are willing to say anything about Governor Romney, the most vile and repulsive things imaginable, if that is what it takes to get the first pro-gay marriage platform a victory in November. Unfortunately for them, most Americans realize how bad this economy is and most Americans now realize in the wake of the debate that the Romney these people have been talking about for months is just a figment of their liberal imagination.

[Politico]

Many Romney supporters are simply not interested in talking to pollsters.

As I previously coined it, The Obama Effect.

You actually know that silent majorities don't exist, don't you?

What reasons could have Romney supporters to lie in a massive way?

It's not lying to them. It's avoiding them altogether. It's letting all calls go to voicemail, or cutting their landline, or getting an Internet phone. The why is complicated.

[Gregory House]

One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.

I highly doubt he is checking voter registration at his local bath house.

[Alcon]

A more responsible race rating set is Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.  Yes it shows an Obama lead, but Larry has way better instincts and connections and usually sets the ratings about where the election is and is only off by a state or two in the electoral count.  He has never called the race over, often offers historical nuggets of wisdom in his twitter posts and gives the most balanced view of the race you can get.

Doesn't Sabato strike you as kind of...dumb?

FiveThirtyEight cannot be trusted.  One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.  Nate Silver enthusiastically updates his model and writes an article as soon as better polls come in for democrats, but today, he didn't factor in all the Romney polls showing leads in Virginia and Florida and Ohio, which would change both the Now Cast and the November 6th results.  It also doesn't consider intangibles like the Crystal Ball does.  He was also purposefully late to the blowout in 2010.  

I don't agree with your summary of Silver at all.  I think it's incredibly unlikely he's picking and choosing WAA polls for that reason.  I don't know why they don't appear to be factored in, but he hasn't engaged in that behavior in the past.  You also are kind of reducing his very complicated model to several criticisms, which are very different in terms of the implications about his methodology, and coming to a pretty simple conclusion.  That's not an unreasonable starting point, but it seems like a really broad, non-specific criticism (of outcome mostly) considering that -- love it or hate it -- his methodology is pretty damn detailed, meticulous and thoughtful.

Disclosure: I like Silver a lot, and it's not because strong polls for Obama send a thrill up my leg or whatever.

[Kalimantan]

. they don't even like the country for that matter.

oh do f**k  off

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Charlie's a democrat hack, in part evidenced by his willingness to appear on MSNBC so often.   Plus, he was saying last week that the race was over.  I watched this guy in 2010 and his race ratings.  He had to adjust the ratings in the last couple of weeks to show the blowout that would occur.  In 2006, he cast the race early for democrats.   Also, the polls are wrong - the dems don't have the enthusiasm, they don't have the anger, they don't have the need to save this country, they don't even like the country for that matter.

A more responsible race rating set is Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.  Yes it shows an Obama lead, but Larry has way better instincts and connections and usually sets the ratings about where the election is and is only off by a state or two in the electoral count.  He has never called the race over, often offers historical nuggets of wisdom in his twitter posts and gives the most balanced view of the race you can get.

FiveThirtyEight cannot be trusted.  One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.  Nate Silver enthusiastically updates his model and writes an article as soon as better polls come in for democrats, but today, he didn't factor in all the Romney polls showing leads in Virginia and Florida and Ohio, which would change both the Now Cast and the November 6th results.  It also doesn't consider intangibles like the Crystal Ball does.  He was also purposefully late to the blowout in 2010.  

It's always a "surprise", a "shock" when republicans do well.  I

Are you f***ing serious?

[pbrower2a]

Charlie's a democrat hack, in part evidenced by his willingness to appear on MSNBC so often.   Plus, he was saying last week that the race was over.  I watched this guy in 2010 and his race ratings.  He had to adjust the ratings in the last couple of weeks to show the blowout that would occur.  In 2006, he cast the race early for democrats.   Also, the polls are wrong - the dems don't have the enthusiasm, they don't have the anger, they don't have the need to save this country, they don't even like the country for that matter.

A more responsible race rating set is Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.  Yes it shows an Obama lead, but Larry has way better instincts and connections and usually sets the ratings about where the election is and is only off by a state or two in the electoral count.  He has never called the race over, often offers historical nuggets of wisdom in his twitter posts and gives the most balanced view of the race you can get.

FiveThirtyEight cannot be trusted.  One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.  Nate Silver enthusiastically updates his model and writes an article as soon as better polls come in for democrats, but today, he didn't factor in all the Romney polls showing leads in Virginia and Florida and Ohio, which would change both the Now Cast and the November 6th results.  It also doesn't consider intangibles like the Crystal Ball does.  He was also purposefully late to the blowout in 2010.  

It's always a "surprise", a "shock" when republicans do well.  I

Are you f***ing serious?

"nhmagic" is a hack blinded by his hatred for anything outside his political view. Contempt for LGBT people under all circumstances is almost a necessary part of such contempt.

The 2010 election reflected right-wingers blind-siding moderates and liberals with well-heeled plutocrats funding right-wing populism and then funding stealth candidates who then doing as 'programmed', probably even closing down Congress early. Maybe the House not being in session does less damage to its reputation than does being in session. 

The stealth candidates of 2010 have exposed what they or the puppeteers behind them want for America. That changes much of the political reality.   

[Cory]

  Also, the polls are wrong - the dems don't have the enthusiasm, they don't have the anger, they don't have the need to save this country, they don't even like the country for that matter.

Christ you're a jackass.

[7,052,770]

I just Googled "Is Nate Silver gay" and didn't find any confirmation.  Did nhmagic just make that up, or does he have secret information that no one else knows about?

[7,052,770]

Charlie's a democrat hack, in part evidenced by his willingness to appear on MSNBC so often.  
FiveThirtyEight cannot be trusted.  One, Nate's an LGBT activist, and I'm sure there's no love lost on republicans.  Nate Silver enthusiastically updates his model and writes an article as soon as better polls come in for democrats, but today, he didn't factor in all the Romney polls showing leads in Virginia and Florida and Ohio, which would change both the Now Cast and the November 6th results.  It also doesn't consider intangibles like the Crystal Ball does.  He was also purposefully late to the blowout in 2010.  

In addition to making up things about Nate Silver that wouldn't matter if they were true, why are you lying about his website?  He posted an article last night about Romney having a good day in the polls and updated the model.

The fact that Silver is unbiased and just uses mathematics rather than gut feelings are what make him the best at this.

[Sol]

I just Googled "Is Nate Silver gay" and didn't find any confirmation.  Did nhmagic just make that up, or does he have secret information that no one else knows about?

Wikipedia says he is, although just in passing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So we're discrediting the person who correctly predicted 49/50 states and all the Senate races in 2008... because he's gay?

Stay classy dingbats.

[Sol]

So we're discrediting the person who correctly predicted 49/50 states and all the Senate races in 2008... because he's gay?

Stay classy dingbats.

Sorry if I seemed as if I was trying to discredit Silver- He's pretty skilled. I was just pointing out what Wikipedia said. I apologize if it seemed that way.

[Alcon]

No worries, Sol, I think he was referring to nhmagic.

It didn't strike me last night, but calling Silver biased because he's an "LGBT activist" is bizarre.  Besides apparently being openly (although quietly) gay, how is he an "activist"?  Even if he were, so?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So we're discrediting the person who correctly predicted 49/50 states and all the Senate races in 2008... because he's gay?

Stay classy dingbats.

Sorry if I seemed as if I was trying to discredit Silver- He's pretty skilled. I was just pointing out what Wikipedia said. I apologize if it seemed that way.

No, that wasn't directed at you.

[Likely Voter]

Cook and Silver are highly respected and have shown great accuracy in their predictions and reporting. Neither are Dick Morris like hacks.  I don't understand the need for some to just dismiss things and scream bias over any information that doesn't fit their narratives and to resort to pointless personal attacks is just sad.

As for Sabato, his latest map (before the debate) had NV, VA, IA, WI and OH as all 'lean Obama' with FL, NH and CO as tossups and only NC as lean Romney. And other reporting from Politico and others has stated that internal polling for OH to be bad for Romney. Public polling has been the same. It is not hard to believe that OH and WI are Romney's hardest states in the list of nine battlegrounds.   

[All Along The Watchtower]

Nate Silver is a hack now?

lol

[they don't love you like i love you]

Nate Silver is the single best political analyst who has ever lived in the entire history of free elections.