MorninginPolljunk, it's quite simple. The links you post prove our point. When party id shifted to Republicans in 2010, NOBODY said the pollsters were in bed with the GOP manipulating polls. It was a sign that midterm electorate had shifted right. Guess what? It means the same thing the other direction.
Wait. The point being made is that party ID is irrelevant, KingSquishyMod. I'm not exactly sure how ANY of the links I posted confirm that. Second, I'm not making the point you seem to think I'm making. I'm saying that Oakvale's (and others) requests to halt ALL talk of party ID is simply ridiculous because A) Why would any anonymous internet poster let any other anonymous internet poster tell them what they can post or talk about? B) Just like ethnicity, age, favorability, job approval, etc....party ID is a topic you should expect to hear about when discussing and analyzing polls in a internet forum. The faux outrage over discussion of how likely voters are identifying with a political party is just that - fake. It's a meme to jump on. A bandwagon to join.
PS - since you made a point that I wasn't making, I'd like to respond to that point. I agree with you that these pollsters are finding more Democratic electorates. I'm just not buying that they will look that way in 4 weeks. King, lets meet again and discuss Ohio party ID after the election. Can't wait to see if those D+10 samples really pan out.
