In response to:

Lies, Darned Lies, and Polls

Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 03, 2012 10:54 AM
.....other factors like last-minute revelations or news events. Or, there is ALWAYS the possibility of ballot-box shenanigans from one side or the other. So I agree with Steve Deace. If I had to bet, I would put the election VERY SLIGHTLY in Obama's favor, not necessarily in terms of the meaningless popular vote, but in terms of the all-important ELECTORAL vote. In order to win, Romney would have to hold on to FL, VA, and CO, plus move OH, MI, and possibly WI from "leaning slightly" Obama, to wins. Difficult, but not impossible. But if Romney loses FL and OH, it's difficult to see any way he can win.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 03, 2012 5:49 PM
Well, ColdDeadHand, you've definitely met the modern conservative standard of high-mindedness and cool, intellectual argumentation in your post. I am duly impressed.
ColdDeadHand Wrote: Nov 03, 2012 12:31 PM
And you seek approval here for your electoral masturbation? You have gratified yourself in an act that will in no way affects anyone else.

Congratulations. Here's a tissue.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 03, 2012 10:55 AM
As for my own vote, I chose not to waste it by voting for EITHER of these two mirror image candidates. I voted for Gary Johnson.

How accurate are the polls? Is there one gold standard out there? Are they all biased and skewed tools of partisan media?

For my money, the most reliable polling data is the Real Clear Politics polling average.

In 2008, the final Real Clear Politics polling average predicted Barack Obama to defeat John McCain by 7.6 points. Obama won by 7.3 points. In 2004, the final Real Clear Politics polling average predicted George W. Bush to defeat John Kerry by 1.5 points. Bush won the election by 1.5 points.

That’s called nailing it.

Worth noting is which...