Yes.

A 1% Romney PV win this year probably gives Obama four more years. However, what's the score sans Gallup's folly?

on the day of election.

just because they are polling for him, it doesn't mean they will go and pull the lever for him. why do you think republicans are so far behind in early voting? there's no REAL enthusiasm for Romney.

President Obama believes in Jesus Christ. Mitt Romney believes in his prophet, Thomas S. Monson who worked his way up in the mormon church to become the head of it. Romney reports to him since he believes he is the only person on earth who speaks for God. The Jesus Christ the mormons believe in, is the one in the Book of Mormon. A book made up by known scam artist and swindler, Joseph Smith. Romney is a scam artist as well. Why do you think he won't release his tax returns? And why is he hiding his money in the cayman islands and in Switzerland? It's a shell game.

evangelicals will turn on romney. he just doesn't know it yet.

Although I consider most "evangelics" to be lacking a moral or ethical core, so the majority will undoubtedly line up behind Romney.

My suspicion - I think early figures voting might be an indicator - is that Obama's Likely Vote percentage is being underestimated by certain polling firms. As it stands, I have a feeling that voters will favour either candidate by a single percentage point or less, which I strongly believe will be enough to return the President for a second term.

There might be whites who say there voting for Romney but when they get in that booth they switch to Obama because of his Mormonism

-Cinderella

Could we see the opposite in 2012? I don't know. We have had only one electoral college winner in modern times and it was Bush.

since the 2008 election. In fact, some of the polls, like Gallup, are factoring in 2010, primarily based on enthusiasm. There is also the issue of undersampling Hispanics.

Looking at 2000 and 2004 is completely irrelevant.

The point spreads maybe instructive as to how they translate to victory, but the models have changed the data.

how variable the polling firms can be. A stalwart like Gallup was completely awful from 2008-10, and has suspect numbers this time around, too.

Whether polling models have changed is irrelevant; they always weight, but sometimes they get it horribly wrong. If you can, take yourself back to 2000 - Did you REALLY feel as though George Bush had the solid 3-4 point advantage many suggested that he did, or did you suspect whether there was a great deal of very soft support?

Do you have the RCP Average.

Gore outpolled his final aggregated average by about two percent. Most of the polls had it wrong as your link demonstrated.


Look at the Gallup Poll in your link. They had Gore down by thirteen percent a scant ten days before the election.

Bush led in the vast majority.

Here it is again: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

Gallup is just a pollster...Nothing more...Nothing less...They have an outsized reputation because they have been around forever and they are large.

But they aren't any more accurate than any other garden variety poll. In fact, the research indicates they are worse.

For such a big firm to have not been on the money in 28 years (and seldom prior) is something.

In many races, predicting the winner doesn't take much knowledge. But getting the margin right does. And in close matches, picking the winner is crucial and requires a lot more knowledge.

And RCP does not include all the polls. They don't include Reuters/Ipsos.

He'd have no "mandate", though.

They didn't win, either, but it didn't stop them from making a royal mess out of our country.

We cannot afford to let that happen.

I give Obama a 90% chance of winning the election, and a 65% chance of winning the vote counting.

In case you don't know what I mean by that, check out this from the Bush White House on election day, 2004: