US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

Ozymandius2011

The Washington post poll compares "Right Track/Wrong track" sentiment in previous US Presidential elections to get idea about Obama's chances. It's close to 1996 and 2004 when both incumbents were re-elected.

mrsoundie

Brian? wrote: »

I'm actually hoping Fox will great to watch, it'll be hilarious if Obama wins.

For me, CNN is the least biased network news.

Fox News is just laugh a minute, check this site out www.newshound.us "They watch it, so you dont have to".

But still its my guilty pleasure.

Ozymandius2011

Ohio suddenly installing suspicious software patches on their voting machines. Reported by The Free Press website:

Will "experimental" software patches affect the Ohio vote?
by Bob Fitrakis and Gerry Bello
October 31, 2012
Why did the Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's office, in an end run around Ohio election law, have "experimental" software patches installed on vote counting tabulators in up to 39 Ohio counties? Voting rights activists are concerned that these uncertified and untested software patches may alter the election results.

During the 2004 presidential election, the Free Press reported that election officials observed technicians from the ES&S voting machine company and Triad computer maintenance company installing uncertified and untested software patches on voting machines in 44 Ohio counties prior to the election. Software patches are usually installed to "update" or change existing software. These software patch updates were considered suspect by election protection activists, in light of all the voting machine anomalies found during the 2004 election in Ohio.

The Free Press has learned that Election Systems and Solutions (ES&S) installed the software patches that will affect 4,041,056 registered voters, including those in metropolitan Columbus and Cleveland (click here for spread sheet from verifiedvoting.org).

A call to the Ohio Secretary of State's office concerning the software patches was not returned by publication deadline. Previously, the Free Press requests for public records, including voting machine vendor contracts, have been stonewalled by Office Secretary of State John Husted's office through his public records officer Chris Shea. Through other channels, the Free Press has obtained and has posted the possibly illegal full contract online here (see page 17).

The contract calls for ES & S technicians and county poll workers to "enter custom codes and interfaces" to the standard election reporting software just as was done with the controversial 2004 Ohio presidential election.

Last minute software patches may be deemed "experimental" because that designation does not require certification and testing. Uncertified and untested software for electronic voting systems are presumably illegal under Ohio law. All election systems hardware and software must be tested and certified by the state before being put into use, according to Ohio Revised Code 3506.05. By unilaterally deeming this new software "experimental," Secretary of State Husted was able to have the software installed without any review, inspection or certification by anyone. ES & S, for their part, knows that this software will not be subject to the minimal legally required testing as stated in the contract on page 21 (Section 6.1).

The contract specifically states that this software has not been and need not be reviewed by any testing authority at the state or federal level. Yet, it is installed on voting machines that will tabulate and report official election results, which Ohio law forbids. Based on the Free Press reading of the contract, this software is fully developed, being referred as versions 2.0.7.0 and 3.0.1.0. Thus the only thing making this software "experimental" is the fact that it has never been independently certified or tested.

In preparation for the upcoming general election in late April, the Free Press began requesting public records from all 88 counties in Ohio in order to build a broad database of every vendor and piece of equipment used in the state of Ohio. Aside from some minor delays, all 88 county jurisdictions have complied.

However, the office of the Ohio Secretary of State however, has not complied with any requests for lists of equipment, contracts with vendors, schedules of payment and even the identities of the vendors. The Free Press' public records requests, under ORC 149.43 (The Public Records Act) have been ignored by Chris Shea, presumably acting on behalf of Secretary of State Jon Husted. Now that the Free Press has obtained the contract, it seems clear that the secretary of state's office was hiding these last minute "experimental" uncertified software installations.

On page 19 of the contract, terms require the various county boards of elections to purchase additional software from ES & S if they are not compatible with this new "experimental" statewide tabulation and reporting system. This unfunded mandate clause illegally bypasses individual counties rights to make their own purchasing determinations.

The controversial software will create simple .csv files like those produced by spreadsheet programs for input into the statewide tabulation system. According to the terms of the contract, data security is the responsibility of each local board of elections: "…each county will be responsible for the implementation of any security protocols" (see page 21 of the contract).

Most county boards of elections do not have their own IT departments and are reliant on private partisan contractors to maintain and program the electronic voting systems. These piecemeal implementations of security protocols would also be untested and uncertified.

Voting rights activists believe this whole scheme may create a host of new avenues of attack on the integrity of the electronic vote counting system. The untested and uncertified "experimental" software itself may be malware. Public trust in the electronic vote counting system has emerged as the key issue in the Ohio presidential election.

The Free Press will be updating this breaking story as more information is obtained and analyzed, so stay tuned. The story for now is that the Secretary of State in the key swing state in the 2012 presidential has installed "experimental" uncertified and untested software to count a large portion of the Ohio vote.

--

seligehgit

Excellent article by Bob Shrum on why he thinks Romney is likely to fall short.......http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/02/r-i-p-mitt-romney.html.Just can't see the US of Ohio falling to Romney.

Ozymandius2011

PPP poll:

Obama ahead 50-47.
Independents: Obama 49, Romney 44
Whites: Romney 57, Obama 40
Blacks: Obama 89, Romney 9
Young people: Obama 66, Romney 33
Hispanics: Obama leads 67-28

Wisconsin (PPP): Obama 51, Romney 48
---
Des Moines Register poll (Iowa): Obama 47, Romney 42

elgriff

Paddy Power paid out on Obama to win this morning actually

http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

Ozymandius2011

elgriff wrote: »

Paddy Power paid out on Obama to win this morning actually

http://blog.paddypower.com/2012/11/04/paddy-power-pays-out-400000-on-obama-victory-in-u-s-presidential-election/

They are in the habit of paying out prematurely and then having egg on their faces afterwards e.g. Lisbon I.

I have a bet on an Electoral College split with them at 9-1 so fingers crossed.

seligehgit

Still highly probable that Obama will justify the payout.

FootShooter

Swing state tracker from Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight blog: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/swing-state-tracker?hp

He's forecasted a 85% chance of Obama winning, with around 306,9 electoral votes. The media is just using national polls to keep the race exciting so they get more viewers.

Ozymandius2011

Pew poll:Obama 50, Romney 47. Was 47-47 last time. Obama leads in swing states 49-47.

nagilum2

seligehgit wrote: »

Still highly probable that Obama will justify the payout.

What is the rationale for paying out early? Why not just raise the odds?

Ozymandius2011

Breaking:

Yougov poll. Sample 36472!!! :eek:

Obama 48.5
Romney 46.5




--
NBC/WSJ: Obama 48, Romney 47
Battleground/Tarrance: Obama 48, Romney 48

From Twitter:
PPP Iowa poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 50-48. Obama's up 61/39 among those who already voted.

Mark200

nagilum2 wrote: »

What is the rationale for paying out early? Why not just raise the odds?

Publicity! They get a load of attention this way

Ozymandius2011

Twitter:
PollingReport.com
White House 2012: Obama-Biden 49% / Romney-Ryan 48% (ABC/Washington Post tracking, LV, 10/31-11/3) http://t.co/wc9b6LeO 7 minutes ago

Washington Post pollPost-ABC tracking poll: Obama 49%, Romney 48% - Error margin 2.5 points http://t.co/7jewI0LF 11 minutes ago

Black Swan

For some reason after following these polls for months, I am beginning to believe that whomever wins the Ohio swing state will be the next president of the US. I realise it's more complex than this with the Electoral College, including all the possible combinations to meet the 270 threshold (and Ohio only having 18 ECs), but that's my very unqualified and subjective feeling shortly before the 6 November election.

RCP Ohio average at this moment in time for the 23 Oct to 4 November polling period:

• Obama = 49.4
• Romney = 46.5
• Spread = Obama +2.9
• Obama leading in 11 of 12 polls listed by RCP for this time period (+1 to +6)
• Rasmussen Reports shows a "tie"
• RCP Electoral College Map shows toss up
• RCP EC Map without toss ups shows Obama win

Also, I have this feeling that there may be a repeat of the 2000 election, where Ohio (rather than Florida), will have its votes contested by the party that loses the state by a very narrow margin; e.g., problems with absentee votes, voting machine programming errors, claims of some voters being unjustly excluded, unqualified voters voting, voting in the wrong district, some ballots difficult to read, etc.

Duck Soup

The latest national polling averages from the main poll aggregators:

Real Clear Politics
Obama 47.9
Romney 47.4

FiveThirtyEight
Obama 50.6
Romney 48.5

Pollster [Huffington Post]
Obama 48.0
Romney 46.8

PollTracker [Talking Points Memo]
Obama 48.8
Romney 48.3

nagilum2

Cool interactive NYT infographic that summarizes the paths to the White House:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

seligehgit

nagilum2 wrote: »

What is the rationale for paying out early? Why not just raise the odds?

I think it is idiotic that they have paid out early.

Ozymandius2011

Gallup poll: Romney 49 (-2), Obama 48 (+2).

cristoir

seligehgit wrote: »

I think it is idiotic that they have paid out early.

I'd imagine they do it for cheap publicity.

Black Swan

Based on the RCP state polls tracking...

RCP Electoral Map:
Obama = 201
Romney = 191

RCP No Toss Ups:
Obama = 303
Romney = 235

Methinks this is going to be a very tight race Tuesday 6 November, with one candidate winning by a nose.

Inquitus

The reason they paid out is because its all over bar the shouting unless you are some delusional GOPtard.

seligehgit

Recommendations for results coverage,heard somebody mention CNN,very good and unbiased????

cristoir

seligehgit wrote: »

Recommendations for results coverage,heard somebody mention CNN,very good and unbiased????

If you want Obama to win watching MSNBC can be quite good (like watching RTE during an Ireland football match they are on your side :P) and likewise Romney with FOX. A lot of people say FOX's county by county analysis on the states is quite good.

If you want unbiased results with good analysis then probably CNN. I'll be varying between CNN, MSNBC, FOX and the Beeb tomorrow myself.

Inquitus

GOP tears are delicious, if you aren't a right wing religious whackjob, watching Obama win on Fox is tasty.

nagilum2

Inquitus wrote: »

The reason they paid out is because its all over bar the shouting unless you are some delusional GOPtard.

Yep, like Hillary Clinton in the NH primary in 2008. I don't even know why she bothered to contest it with the numbers what they were. All the polls said she'd lose that day big. And the polls are never wrong, right?

Inquitus

nagilum2 wrote: »

Yep, like Hillary Clinton in the NH primary in 2008. I don't even know why she bothered to contest it with the numbers what they were. All the polls said she'd lose that day big. And the polls are never wrong, right?

A few primary polls versus a full election data set, you are comparing apples with delusional pumpkins.

cristoir

The polling data could be wrong. It's about the only thing Romney has left to pray on. Nate Silver has put the likely hood of this at 13 percent.

Basically the GOP need a "shy republican effect" or serious statistical anomalies.

Amerika

So when Romney wins tomorrow, Paddy Power will have to pay out again?

Ponster

cristoir wrote: »

The polling date could be wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time. In 1980 Carter the polls predicted a win by Carter although it was "too close to call" and "neck and neck". Reagan went on to win by a landslide taking 43 states.