US 2012 Presidential Election Polls

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

If lying to the electorate was grounds for impeachment, there would be nobody left in Washington. Which might not be a bad thing.

LOL... so true! The same goes for incompetence.

cristoir

Black Swan wrote: »

Latest RCP Average ending 27 June 2012 for Presidential Election:
Obama = 47.3
Romney = 43.7

It's still early, and ultimately Obama's bid for re-election will be based upon the old saying: "It's the economy stupid!" If the markets and employment stagger before the election, so will he. But if they continue to gradually improve between now and November, then he will be re-elected no matter what Romney and the GOP does.

My prediction at this point is that Obama will win by a small margin, the GOP keeps the House majority, and wins the Senate by one or two seats; i.e., it will be like Clinton's second term.

I'd go with that myself. Although I'd say the margin in the electoral collage could by large enough going by the way most of the swings will probably all go to the winner. The popular vote I'd say will be very tight and might even go in Romney's favor. A repeat of 2000 except with the party's roles reversed.

InTheTrees

Until the Republican convention is over and Romney is confirmed as the candidate, and the campaigns start for real, its very hard to judge.

The unlimited amount of money that's going to be spent will be fascinating to watch.

I think there's going to be a backlash. I've endured swing state blanket advertising when there were campaign limits and it was claustrophobic and confusing, so whats going to happen when the Koch Brothers start their Billion Dollar advertising campaign for Romney?

How many ads can normal human being endure?

Black Swan

At the dawn of the Republican Convention this week (polls conducted 13 August to 26 August), the RCP average:

• Obama = 46.8
• Romney = 45.7
• Spread = Obama +1.1
• Obama leading in 6 polls reported (range +1 to +4)
• Romney leading in 3 polls reported (all +1)

Denerick

Republicans will enjoy a short term poll boost with the convention. McCain briefly overtook Obama in the polls after the 08 Republican convention (And the unveiling of Sarah Palin) Wouldn't read too much into it. The Democrat convention will bring the polls back to earth again.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

The Democrat convention will bring the polls back to earth again.

I don’t know about that. A yawnfest unless you’re into a Abortionpalozza celebration and wish to try and rekindle Bill Clinton’s glory days. Bill Clinton and Jim Sinegal are about the only ones I’d be interested in hearing from. We’ve heard before what Crist (I) will say thanks to Arlen Specter (and remember all the love shown him by the democrats). I might tune in to see Elizabeth Warren… and see the pick that can’t keep Ted Kennedy’s Senatorial seat in democratic hands... in solid blue Massachusetts.

Here is a list of speakers:
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin
Newark Mayor Cory Booker
Former President Jimmy Carter (via video)
San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who will be the first Latino keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention
Former President Bill Clinton
Former Republican Governor of Florida Charlie Crist
Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
Georgetown Law School Graduate Sandra Fluke
Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx
Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau
Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (ret.)
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California
CarMax co-founder and former CEO Austin Ligon
President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Nancy Keenan
Caroline Kennedy
Women’s rights activist Lilly Ledbetter
Obama Campaign Co-Chair Eva Longoria
U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, together with the women of the U.S. Senate
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
Journalist Cristina Saralegui
Costco co-founder and former CEO Jim Sinegal
Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
Los Angeles Mayor, Democratic Convention Chair Antonio Villaraigosa
Senate candidate from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren

The democrats can’t even bring themselves to mention the name of where their convention is being held LOL… Bank of America Stadium.

Little-to-no bump in the polls is my prediction.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Here is a list of speakers:
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin
Newark Mayor Cory Booker
Former President Jimmy Carter (via video)
San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who will be the first Latino keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention
Former President Bill Clinton
Former Republican Governor of Florida Charlie Crist
Former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel
Georgetown Law School Graduate Sandra Fluke
Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx
Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Montana State Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau
Former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (ret.)
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California
CarMax co-founder and former CEO Austin Ligon
President of NARAL Pro-Choice America Nancy Keenan
Caroline Kennedy
Women’s rights activist Lilly Ledbetter
Obama Campaign Co-Chair Eva Longoria
U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, together with the women of the U.S. Senate
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak
Journalist Cristina Saralegui
Costco co-founder and former CEO Jim Sinegal
Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
Los Angeles Mayor, Democratic Convention Chair Antonio Villaraigosa
Senate candidate from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren

The democrats can’t even bring themselves to mention the name of where their convention is being held LOL… Bank of America Stadium.

Little-to-no bump in the polls is my prediction.

I highlighted the ones I'm looking forward to hearing from. The rest I either don't know or don't care. You're looking through red eyes Amerika. Republicans obviously won't be swayed by the convention but a lot of swing voters only begin to really tune in once the conventions are over. Most ordinary people don't begin to pay attention until the last couple of weeks! The Obama campaign has thus far tried to define Romney in the public imagination - as a ne'er do well plutocrat in hoc to the fringe of his party. It has also succesfully presented the Republicans as a dangerous party full of extremists. I'm expecting this election to go big either way, it won't be a narrow one. Either voters will decide that the Republicans with their extremism and their contempt for liberalism is the way to go or the democrats with their moderate social democracy and very moderate liberal agenda (Which seems to amount to preserving existing abortion rights and saying nice things about gay people)

Either way, democrats come off as the more moderate and thoughtful of the two, whilst Republicans appear like a pack of screaming drunks from some badly written sitcom. I think the two conventions will point out this disparity quite nicely indeed.

Black Swan

Day after DNC this week (polls conducted 22 August to 6 September), the RCP average:

• Obama = 47.0
• Romney = 46.3
• Spread = Obama +0.7
• Obama leading in 3 polls reported (range +1 to +3)
• Romney leading in 2 polls reported (all +1)
• One poll tied

It would appear to be a dead heat at the moment, but there are still about 2 months before the election.

My earlier predictions still hold. Obama wins by a slight margin, Republicans maintain control of the US House, and gain a slight majority (1 or 2 seats) in the US Senate; which may appear in some ways similar (and other ways different) to Clinton's 2nd term.

Overheal

Good job on the maps matt.

Black Swan

Weekend after DNC (polls conducted 22 August to 7 September), the RCP average:

• Obama = 47.3
• Romney = 46.0
• Spread = Obama +1.3
• Obama leading in 4 polls reported (range +1 to +4)
• Romney leading in 1 poll reported (+1)
• One poll tied

Obama inches ahead after DNC, leading in 4 polls over Romney's 1. It almost appears as if the polls are back to where they were before the RNC, as if the RNC made no lasting difference.

Be like Nutella

I wonder what chips both sides have been holding on to ; )

There's bound to be a scandal or a major gaffe or some tax thing or something.... what are your predictions?

I think the Reps have nothing new to bring to the campaign bullsh1t table so they'll just focus some serious superpac dollars on cheap corny dramatic attack ads and hope for the best... they can't even go all uber bible basher on us coz their guy is a Mormon and it would raise too many issues which Romney would have to address about Mormonism, which, lets be honest, IF the Dems guy was Mormon he'd be hammered about.

The Dems will do likewise, corny attack ads to beat the band fire with fire and all that, but they can play a few cards vis a vis the whole Romney tax shelter/tax records thing and get the whole anti 1% thing going full swing focusing on the Reps lack of any sort of realistic plan to reduce the def IF they keep insisting on lowering tax on the rich.. which they will being so incredibly stubborn as is their way. They'll have to get their hands a bit dirty on this one to guarantee Obama the W as they'd say... even if it goes against their high and mighty pedestal of morality.

Obama will win by 1% but it'll take effort and some dirty ads.

Any predictions on scandals or 'chip plays' ??
Who'll hit lower than the other over the next 2 months? and how?

Denerick

I hate to say it, but the democrats have been considerably dirtier in their campaigning thus far, focusing far more on personality and 'integrity' than the Republicans. Its an obvious strategy really, the democrats can't talk too much about the economy as they are the incumbent party.

Be like Nutella

Although it may feel that way and unless we were to get hold of every single attack ad from both sides and compare like for like in each individual ad than it would be hard to truly judge who's been truly dirtier - the sheer numbers say otherwise.

The numbers, from what I can tell having gone through the attack ad spend by both sides two main superpacs i.e. 'Restore our Future' and 'Priorities USA Action' say that Romney's superpac (can argue semantics on how that is phrased later) has spent much much more money on attack ads designed to make you NOT VOTE OBAMA than has Obama's superpac... by approx

2.7 to 1

so Romney's one - Restore Our Future
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/#/2012/committees/C00490045
has spent so far - $68 Million on attack ad media buys. Biggest buys were mid Aug - 2 buys in one week totaling approx $20 Mill !!! also a $7mill buy at the end of June.

Obama's - Priorities USA Action
http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/#/2012/committees/C00495861
has so far spent $25 million on attack ads media buys.
Biggest single buys were at start of May >$3 mill and end of June also >$3 mill.

Obviously Romney's crowd has had to outspend his enemy candidates during the primaries (and did so on a maniacal scale) so it's natural he spent so much on attack ads in total... BUT... just those 3 big attack ad buys in June and Aug total $27 Mill alone !! which is more than Obama's superpac spent.... in total !

Also: Romney's attack superpac 'engine' is far bigger and more capable !

Romney's superpac Restore Our Future has been given 22 donations of more than 1 Million dollars - i.e. 22 fat cats who gave a total of

$38 Mill (and we're all aware of Adelson and his wife's $10 Mill donation... also don't forget they gave $20 Mill !!! to Gingrich's 'Winning Our Future' superpac as well... so that's $40 Mill and counting that we know of... mental!)

Whereas Obama got just 14 fat cats to give a total of $17 mill to sling some mud!

Hence: Romney's superpac Mud Slinging machine is far more powerful and capable and has demonstrated this.. (of course this doesn't prove that the individual ads were dirtier... that would require getting all those ads and comparing them using a criteria which wouldn't actually take that much work...hmmm.. maybe later)

And all this only focuses on the two main Superpacs... we haven't even started on Karl Roves American Crossroads guys.... who are just warming up!! They've so far spent $7-8 Mill attacking Obama and have another $30-40 Mill !!!!! in their attack war kitty ready to rock and it's this sum of cash which is going to IMO play a major role in how this thing unfolds - 40 Mill will get ya 2 weeks of hardball nation wide attack ad storm as far as I can tell looking at what specific attack buys has gotten Romney's crowd since he won the primaries.

The overall figs show a 25% advantage to Reps on anti-Obama attack ad buys when you take all candidates superpacs into account but this 25% advantage doesn't reflect the realistic picture IMO when the war kitties held by Restore Our Future AND American Crossroads are taken into account.

The short version is that the Superpacs who buy/create the attack ads are doing so MORE AGAINST Obama than they are against Romney.... by a 1.25 ratio. The actual content of those ads and how dirty they are deemed to be individually or on average is another story. One particularly bad ad done by either side depending on the size of its audience could swing the dirtier debate to either side . Maybe that is the best way to look at it... who has made the single dirtiest ad -

i.e. who has swung the lowest dig so far?

But at the end of all this is the fact that the candidate in question OR the party in question is not individually responsible for the actions of their respective superpacs... even though most of the time you'd have to assume that the actions of the major superpacs are under close scrutiny and control and analsysis and criticism by their respective parties and therefore wouldn't likely do too much to upset the parties to which they owe their allegiance.. so in my view the superpac represent the party and the party is responsible for the actions of their superpacs BUT NOT THE CANDIDATE... if a particularly distasteful attack ad is created by one superpac or the other and crosses all sorts of decent lines I don't think it's necessarily fair to blame that ad upon the candidate in question UNLESS THAT CANDIDATE THEN SUPPORTS THE VIEW OF THE AD IN QUESTION... which has happened before... if they on the other hand weash their hands properly of the bad ad then they can't be held accountable, however, the damage is most likely done at that point? I think so... hence these superpacs are lethal machines and in my view Romney's crowd is way more powerful and observably more active so far than Obama's superpac which is outmatched in dollars and will remain so by quite a margin.

Being outmatched and trying to fight fire with fire (esp with firey talk of new dem backbone : ) ... one would expect dems superpacs to spend more viciously than Romney's lads who are awash with cash PLUS IMO they're is simply more actual dirt on Romney to dig up and serve up in these attack ads... and some of that dirt SHOULD BE SERVED UP in my view so it's all relative really.

southsiderosie

Neither campaign is inspiring, but it is really astounding that Obama and Romney are in a statistical tie, given how weak the economy - and in particular the labor market - is, and how sour voters are about the future. And this holds even with the obscene spending by PACs.

I have never not voted in a national election, and I will vote in November, but I don't think that either party in Washington is interested in reform, fiscal or otherwise. It is almost enough to make me want to stay home - almost, but not quite.

Black Swan

Obama extends his lead over Romney, apparently realising a boost after last week's DNC. For some reason the Republicans did not register a similar jump in percentage immediately following the RNC, only a very small and temporary one that did not surpass Obama.

Week following DNC (polls conducted 23 August to 10 September), the RCP average:

• Obama = 48.8
• Romney = 45.7
• Spread = Obama +3.1
• Obama leading in all 6 polls reported (range +1 to +6)
• Romney not leading in 6 polls reported

Unless something unexpected and dramatic happens, I would anticipate that the above poll spread with Obama in a small lead will fluctuate a bit between now and November, but generally exhibit this 3 percentage point lead at election time; i.e., Obama should win by a small margin.

Amerika

One thing I wish they told you in many of these polls is the mixture of D/R/I (Democrat/Republican/Independent) used in the samples. I often see these samples using a D+7 ratio, with the reasoning of utilizing more democrats in their samples based on the 2008 election, which had a national turnout of D/R/I = 39/32/29. But the 2010 midterms had a national turnout of D/R/I = 35/35/30. I highly doubt this election will be the same ratio of political parties voting as we saw in the 2008 election, as Democrat enthusiasm is not what it was in 2008. I’d be curious what these polling samples would look like if they used a 50/50 split of D to R (based on the 2010 midterms). Somehow I think you would then see Romney either tied or ahead of Obama.

20Cent

Can anyone confirm if this story is true?
According to the New Yorker magazine Romney wants his wife to stand beside him for the three presidential debates! Bizarre situation.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/romneys-wife-to-stand-next-to-him-at-debates.html

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In a move that some political observers are calling unprecedented, the Romney campaign today officially requested that Ann Romney be permitted to stand next to her husband during his three scheduled debates with President Obama.

Overheal

While the request drew immediate howls of protest from the Obama campaign, Mrs. Romney issued an official statement claiming that she was not trying to give her husband an unfair advantage.

“I want to stand next to Mitt for my benefit, not his,” Mrs. Romney’s statement read. “Mitt is so human and so warm, I can’t imagine being away from his warm humanity for as long as two hours. That’s how warm a human he is. Really warm and really human.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/romneys-wife-to-stand-next-to-him-at-debates.html#ixzz26D2Difh5

You have got to be flipping my ****.

In other words, the Romney campaign thinks Mitt is too mechanical and they're trying to make him look like a 'warm human being' wherever possible.

Mjollnir

Overheal wrote: »

You have got to be flipping my ****.

In other words, the Romney campaign thinks Mitt is too mechanical and they're trying to make him look like a 'warm human being' wherever possible.

Andy Borowitz's site is satire.

Overheal

Thank God: I've only just been onion'd

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

One thing I wish they told you in many of these polls is the mixture of D/R/I (Democrat/Republican/Independent) used in the samples...

There was a discussion, as well as cautions regarding the specific RCP poll averages on this thread. You may wish to visit them. There was also mention by posters that the RCP site tends to favour Republicans over Democrats, especially when they do reports and offer comments on their site about polls.

Given that the RCP cites many different polls conducted by various polling organisations not related to RCP, the research designs and sampling methodologies would differ, and would have to be consulted individually before any conclusions could be drawn about the validity and reliability of each poll, as well as their confidence levels and confidence intervals.

Amerika wrote: »

Somehow I think you would then see Romney either tied or ahead of Obama.

The preponderance of very different polls from different organisations using different designs and sampling methods during recent months show Obama in the majority of cases with a small margin lead over Romney, which does not support an overall tie or lead by Romney per your suggestion.

Duck Soup

Be interested to see what happens in the polls in light of Romney's comments after the deaths at the American embassy in Libya.

One political commentator made the point that in 2008 the polls began to show clear blue water between the candidates after McCain's decision to suspend his campaign after Lehman Brothers went under. The divergence in the polls held to election day. McCain was seen as panicky and grandstanding in a crisis.

The point is that the behaviour of the candidates interacts directly with the perceived immovability of the polls. Faced with a persistent deficit in polls, the underdog needs a gamechanger. Either Romney's attack that Obama is an 'apologist' for America gets credence and drags Obama's level of support down or - like McCain - he's seen as an opportunist and showman. Or worse still, exploiting a tragedy.

I'll be watching to see what happens this week in particular.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

There was a discussion, as well as cautions regarding the specific RCP poll averages on this thread. You may wish to visit them. There was also mention by posters that the RCP site tends to favour Republicans over Democrats, especially when they do reports and offer comments on their site about polls.

Given that the RCP cites many different polls conducted by various polling organisations not related to RCP, the research designs and sampling methodologies would differ, and would have to be consulted individually before any conclusions could be drawn about the validity and reliability of each poll, as well as their confidence levels and confidence intervals.

Is there a problem with me throwing in a bit of caution in that the RCP average is drawn from various polls that more often than not seem to favor Democrats in their sampling? I don't recall seeing this in the discussion regarding caution of the RPC average, but I could be wrong. And if true that the RCP "site" might favor Republican writings over Democrat writings, I don't think that rolls over into their polling averages.

The preponderance of very different polls from different organisations using different designs and sampling methods during recent months show Obama in the majority of cases with a small margin lead over Romney, which does not support an overall tie or lead by Romney per your suggestion.

Do you know of a reputable recent poll that represents a 50/50 split of D/R of voters (or likely voters) in their sampling, as was the national average in the 2010 election? If so I would be interested in seeing if it supports my contention.

Denerick

Duck Soup wrote: »

Faced with a persistent deficit in polls, the underdog needs a gamechanger. Either Romney's attack that Obama is an 'apologist' for America gets credence and drags Obama's level of support down or - like McCain - he's seen as an opportunist and showman. Or worse still, exploiting a tragedy.

I'll be watching to see what happens this week in particular.

Unfortunately I don't think it'll make much difference. America is a 'post-truth' nation now, people believe their own sets of 'truths', there is 'truth' and there is 'untruth'. If their leaders say the past didn't happen it didn't happen. If 5 + 5 = 10 but Limbaugh says it equals 11, then it equals 11 (I'm sure there are some parallels on the left, but not as many) Yes, this truly is the first 'Orwellian' election.

By christ we need a new George Orwell to write about modern American politics. Its frightening at times.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't think it'll make much difference. America is a 'post-truth' nation now, people believe their own sets of 'truths', there is 'truth' and there is 'untruth'. If their leaders say the past didn't happen it didn't happen. If 5 + 5 = 10 but Limbaugh says it equals 11, then it equals 11 (I'm sure there are some parallels on the left, but not as many) Yes, this truly is the first 'Orwellian' election.

By christ we need a new George Orwell to write about modern American politics. Its frightening at times.

I think people should also take a chill pill every time someone mentions the NWO.
Didnt you know words kill people :rolleyes:

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Black Swan wrote: »

There was a discussion, as well as cautions regarding the specific RCP poll averages on this thread. You may wish to visit them. There was also mention by posters that the RCP site tends to favour Republicans over Democrats, especially when they do reports and offer comments on their site about polls.

Given that the RCP cites many different polls conducted by various polling organisations not related to RCP, the research designs and sampling methodologies would differ, and would have to be consulted individually before any conclusions could be drawn about the validity and reliability of each poll, as well as their confidence levels and confidence intervals.

Is there a problem with me throwing in a bit of caution in that the RCP average is drawn from various polls that more often than not seem to favor Democrats in their sampling? I don't recall seeing this in the discussion regarding caution of the RPC average, but I could be wrong. And if true that the RCP "site" might favor Republican writings over Democrat writings, I don't think that rolls over into their polling averages.

The preponderance of very different polls from different organisations using different designs and sampling methods during recent months show Obama in the majority of cases with a small margin lead over Romney, which does not support an overall tie or lead by Romney per your suggestion.

Do you know of a reputable recent poll that represents a 50/50 split of D/R of voters (or likely voters) in their sampling, as was the national average in the 2010 election? If so I would be interested in seeing if it supports my contention.

Those pinkos at Fox News are at it again. They are blatantly humping Obamas leg again:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/

I would like to see Limbaugh spin that one.

Denerick

jank wrote: »

I think people should also take a chill pill every time someone mentions the NWO.
Didnt you know words kill people :rolleyes:

Words do kill people, if you don't understand that you must be completely unacquainted with history. You don't think 'Mein Kampf' or the 'The protocols of the learned elders of Zion' led to many deaths? I could name many more, 'The Koran', 'The Bible', 'The Talmud', 'The Communist Manifesto', 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. The list goes on and on.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Do you know of a reputable recent poll that represents a 50/50 split of D/R of voters (or likely voters) in their sampling, as was the national average in the 2010 election? If so I would be interested in seeing if it supports my contention.

A poll that used a survey research sampling method that ensured a "50/50 split of D/R" voters would be statistically classified as a purposive sampling method, not a random (or systematic random) method of sample selection. Such a purposive "50/50 split" sampling method would not meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for parametric statistics, consequently no valid or reliable estimates of the population could be made.

One necessary condition for polling is randomness in sample selection, and without it, the sample is non-representative of the population, and no generalisations can be made from sample to population; i.e., your purposive "50/50 split of D/R" would not provide a valid or reliable poll of the population of voters, consequently, the results would be meaningless in terms of suggesting whom was leading between Obama and Romney as pertains to voter opinion.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

A poll that used a survey research sampling method that ensured a "50/50 split of D/R" voters would be statistically classified as a purposive sampling method, not a random (or systematic random) method of sample selection. Such a purposive "50/50 split" sampling method would not meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for parametric statistics, consequently no valid or reliable estimates of the population could be made.

One necessary condition for polling is randomness in sample selection, and without it, the sample is non-representative of the population, and no generalisations can be made from sample to population; i.e., your purposive "50/50 split of D/R" would not provide a valid or reliable poll of the population of voters, consequently, the results would be meaningless in terms of suggesting whom was leading between Obama and Romney as pertains to voter opinion.

Would that make any polls that use a D/R of 39 to 32 ratio, based on using the national voting average of the 2008 election argument, equally as meaningless becasue they would not be random samples?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Would that make any polls that use a D/R of 39 to 32 ratio, based on using the national voting average of the 2008 election argument, equally as meaningless becasue they would not be random samples?

To revisit earlier comments, each election poll survey design and sampling method would have to be reviewed individually before someone could answer your question.

Further, survey design and sampling methods change over time, not only between polling organisations, but also within a polling organisation.

Unfortunately, most polls do not share detailed information regarding their survey research designs, sampling methods, size, errors, limitations, etc. Further, the average voter lacks the requisite research design knowledge to review, interpret, or understand the methods used to produce the poll results.

I think it's safe to assume that voters rely greatly on others they respect to do the interpretation for them, and to the extent that they do this, it becomes more an article of faith, rather than understanding.