In response to:

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

Paulus Textor Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 3:28 PM
If one or two polling organizations deliberately skewed their polls (thereby demolishing their most important business asset, a reputation for reliability), I would find this perhaps plausible. But ALL the major polling organizations? Perhaps the most reliable poll isn't a poll at all: Intrade's betting line on the election, where people put up their own money. Obama has a clear lead in ELECTORAL VOTES (the only votes that really count) with 334 (270 needed to win). To win, Romney will have to sweep almost all the "battleground states": FL, OH, CO, VA, NM, WI, and MI. Right now, Intrade has Obama taking all of them. The same prediction holds at electoral-vote.com.
ReddestNeck Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 3:59 PM
The vast convenience of phone polls has completely obscured their fundamental methodological lousiness.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 3:45 PM
These polls are run by the same type of liberal leftists as the Propaganda news media that uses the results of the polls. If you believe them, then you are a fool. These are the same people that predicted Carter by 8% only to see the biggest trashing of a liberal democrat in history by Ronald Reagan. The next biggest trashing was the Democrats in 2010 when they lost the House and their Overwhelming majority in the Senate, although sadly the dems did manage to cheat the vote in Nevada and put that leftist idiot Reid back in charge.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 3:31 PM
Now, Romney might still somehow win. Maybe Obama will say something phenomenally stupid in the debates (he's good at that). Or maybe the economy will go into a tailspin between now and November (certainly a possibility).

But as a realist, I'd have to say the odds are we're going to have Obama around for another four years. Not only that, but Romney's such a pathetic candidate, it looks like there will be a negative coattails effect in the Senate, with the Dems likely holding on to control.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 3:46 PM
Look Ma, another RonPaul bot Zombie so PO'd That his "man" lost that he probably wont vote.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 4:39 PM
Actually, the "bot Zombies" are those supporting Romney, for reasons indecipherable to the sane.

Gary Johnson is hardly the ideal freedom candidate, but he is far, far superior to either Romney or Obama (who are almost indistinguishable on almost all the major issues). So, rather than "throw away my vote" on either of two big government corporatists, I'd go for Johnson.
Jenni2 Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 4:44 PM
If the Paultards have their way, then yes, Obama will win. 'Cuz you lot just love freedom so much.
Carl265 Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 8:23 PM
Right on. It only takes a few good men to do nothing.......da da da.
modernmover Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 9:26 PM
And what would make Romney a "pathetic candidate"? I think he has a superb resume', especially when you put it up against Obamas'. He might not be as good a campaigner as Obama, but I don't want a campaigner running the country anymore. I want someone smart, that doesn't have to seal his college records because of bad grades or no grades. (no one would seal good grades, now would they) Obama is the ultimate token.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Sep 29, 2012 9:52 PM
I base my term "pathetic candidate" only on the issues, in which Romney is mostly on the anti-freedom side. (In fairness, occasionally he flips to the rhetoric of the pro-freedom side when it is in his electoral interests to do so, but then he flops back when he calculates he has more to gain from the other position.)

If a person is good on the issues, AND has a "great resume", he might be worth supporting. But I choose to support NEITHER a great campaigner, NOR a guy with a good resume who has almost identical stands on the issues.

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...