CBS/NYT: Romney up 3

[krazen1211]

If a CBS Poll showed Obama seven points ahead, then all the liberals on this forum would be saying, "Makes sense". But if a CBS Poll shows Romney three points ahead, they say, "Outlier".

I've seen three national polls in the last few days since Obama's gay marriage "evolution", and they've shown Romney +7, Romney +8 and Romney +3, respectively. But of course they're all outliers, right?

The last CBS poll I found was posted by 1 of the liberals who have posted in this thread.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149024.0


Or see this.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132650.0

[krazen1211]

I think it's a reliable poll, the Democrats on this forum will call it junk cause they don't like it.  Typical of these forums, which represent a minority of the voters in the US.

Liberals have junk polled nearly half of the first page of polls.

[old timey villain]

As an innocent bystander in this election, I've learned to just completely ignore national polls until like a month before election day. They toy with my emotions.

[TJ in Oregon]

In the RCP database, in polls completed since May 1 (Note not all of these are in their average):
Rasmussen Romney +2
CBS/NYT Romney +3
Gallup Obama +1
AP/GfK Obama +8
Reuters/Ipsos Obama +7
Politico/GWU/Battleground Romney +1
IBD/CSM/TIPP Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D) Tied

So somewhere ~Obama +2 is probably the actual state of things at the moment.

[President von Cat]

Why do we even care? The election doesn't hinge on national averages anyway, only state by state data really tells us anything. Its an obvious statement, yet seems forgotten in the controversy over this (one) poll.

[wan]

Can't wait for the debates.



Obama 2012

[Bacon King]

This poll doesn't even make sense. They call back the a subset of the same people they interviewed a month ago, but then weigh the sample completely differently?

In April, they weighted registered voters 26% R, 34% D, 40% I. In May, however, they weighted registered voters to be 30% R, 36% D, 34% I. Lolwut?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If a CBS Poll showed Obama seven points ahead, then all the liberals on this forum would be saying, "Makes sense". But if a CBS Poll shows Romney three points ahead, they say, "Outlier".

I've seen three national polls in the last few days since Obama's gay marriage "evolution", and they've shown Romney +7, Romney +8 and Romney +3, respectively. But of course they're all outliers, right?

Will you please be quiet...

I think most reasonable people would look at this poll and say "there is no way the gender and age gap closed up that quickly or that comprehensively".

Exactly the same as the NH poll which has Obama up 12%... the cross tabs don't make sense there and I'm happy to discount a bunk poll that shows Obama ahead, just as easily as I'm dismissing this, because the cross tabs not only go against the general trends, they also go against common sense.

Please understand that not EVERYTHING is based on political allegiance and common sense needs to factor here.

[Lincoln Republican]

POLLS SHOW ROMNEY LEADS OBAMA

Dems:

It's an outlier.  It's a joke poll.  It has to be.  There's just no other way to explain it.

It can't be! 

NO, NO, IT CAN'T BE!  IT CAN'T BEEEEEEEEEE!  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

POLLS SHOW ROMNEY LEADS OBAMA

Dems:

It's an outlier.  It's a joke poll.  It has to be.  There's just no other way to explain it.

It can't be!  

NO, NO, IT CAN'T BE!  IT CAN'T BEEEEEEEEEE!  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
  

Will you please be quiet...

I think most reasonable people would look at this poll and say "there is no way the gender and age gap closed up that quickly or that comprehensively".

Exactly the same as the NH poll which has Obama up 12%... the cross tabs don't make sense there and I'm happy to discount a bunk poll that shows Obama ahead, just as easily as I'm dismissing this, because the cross tabs not only go against the general trends, they also go against common sense.

Please understand that not EVERYTHING is based on political allegiance and common sense needs to factor here.

[Lincoln Republican]

 

Will you please be quiet...

In answer to your question, no, because free speech shall not be silenced.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm happy to listen when there's common sense involved (and before you start no I don't define common sense as agreeing with me)... having been around long enough, if you can honestly look at that poll, away from the headline figures and tell me that those cross-tabs make sense and Romney has turned around a 15-16% deficit among women to a 2% lead... (considering Bush lost women by 3% and that was considered herculean)... if you can honestly say that the detail behind those headline figures are reasonable... go nuts.

Otherwise... yeah, it's a bunk poll and there will be HUNDREDS of bunks polls until Labor Day going both ways and we need to vigilant to not put too much stock into them.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The thing is, it's not that farfetched to assume Romney actually did close the gender gap. Santorum is no longer pulling Romney to the right and the Rosen controversy probably helped Romney win some support from mothers who would have otherwise been complacent.

Moreover, a lot of recent North American elections have shown huge swings in polling. Momentum shifts overnight and candidates surge. We frequently saw it in the primaries. It happened against the Wild Rose folks in Alberta's provincial election. It happened with the NDP surge in Canada's '11 federal election. For whatever reason, numbers swing fast. So why can't Romney be winning women?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The thing is, it's not that farfetched to assume Romney actually did close the gender gap. Santorum is no longer pulling Romney to the right and the Rosen controversy probably helped Romney win some support from mothers who would have otherwise been complacent.

Moreover, a lot of recent North American elections have shown huge swings in polling. Momentum shifts overnight and candidates surge. We frequently saw it in the primaries. It happened against the Wild Rose folks in Alberta's provincial election. It happened with the NDP surge in Canada's '11 federal election. For whatever reason, numbers swing fast. So why can't Romney be winning women?

A nearly 20% swing in a period of a fortnight?

I really think you're reaching here, is it impossible for Romney to be leading among women? No, of course not - but it's highly, highly improbable.

You clearly think the only reason I think it's dodgy is because of a preference for Obama... it's really not. I think it's dodgy because it makes virtually no statistical common sense.

I do understand what it's like to see your people leading in a national poll... and trying to desperately defend it regardless... but this isn't the poll do it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I've never seriously called any poll a junk poll. There's no way of knowing how things could turn out, and basing your evaluation on the fact that something changed in a way you didn't predict is pretty weak. Gingrich jumped about 15 points in just over two weeks. Alberta pollsters predicted the White Rose folks would have a majority government--they got in the neighborhood of 20 seats.

The psychology of the race has changed as it has become Romney v. Obama, sans Santorum. While Obama has talked about gay marriage and Osama bin Laden, Romney has hammered home the idea that what's happened to the economy is universal. All I'm saying is things can change.

And I understand that the new trend would seem odd. I just believe the Dems around here would be a little less likely to point it out off the numbness favored Obama. I know there's some hypocrisy in there, but I guess my position is different. To me, a poll is a poll.