In response to:

Introducing The New Polling Firm of Madoff, Marist, Quinnipiac and Ponzi

amackley Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 6:27 PM
I used to think Intrade was a better indicator, precisely for the same reason. However, I watched Intrade closely during all of the primary season. What happened was very wide swings that lagged behind the news by about 6 to 12 hours. Generally, within about a 12 hour period before the election, Intrade got pretty close to the actual outcome. Before that, it was sometimes right, sometimes wrong. So, I will start watching Intrade sometime around November 4th. I will watch it closely on November 6th, throughout the day. It will end up pretty accurate. If I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would be betting pretty heavy on Romney right now. The odds of a big win are much greater than a great loss.
ReddestNeck Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 10:49 PM
And there is always the self-feeding factor, as it becomes more and more famous. People will "donate" to it. Towards the end, more Republicans will. The game of chicken will end only when the result is all but obvious.

After a few weeks spent tracking down and questioning pollsters and the reporters of polls, I can assure the reader that pollsters are the modern-day alchemists. They promise to turn numbers into predictive gold. We'd all like to believe these magical powers exist, but we shouldn't. The pollsters of 2012 just don't know who is going to win in November any more than did the pollsters of 1980 know that Ronald Reagan was headed towards a landslide in that late-breaking year.

I'd like to believe Scott Rasmussen that the race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is tied. Democrats...