Gallup Tracking Poll: Romney 44% vs Obama 47%
On 4-17 Romney had a 5 point lead,now its Obama +3.
8 point swing in Obamas favor in a month and a half
Romney Looks Like the Next Pres
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Gallup Tracking Poll: Romney 44% vs Obama 47%
On 4-17 Romney had a 5 point lead,now its Obama +3.
8 point swing in Obamas favor in a month and a half
and does this poll oversample democrats by 7 to 11 points?
well lets see... they don't really wish to tell us, how they do their weighting.
conclusion...
useless poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154973/Structure-Presidential-Race-Shows-Little-Change-Far.aspx
"Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design."
well lets see... they don't really wish to tell us, how they do their weighting.
conclusion...
useless poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154973/Structure-Presidential-Race-Shows-Little-Change-Far.aspx
"Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design."
Quote from AK Forty Seven:
Gallup Tracking Poll: Romney 44% vs Obama 47%
On 4-17 Romney had a 5 point lead,now its Obama +3.
8 point swing in Obamas favor in a month and a half
Actually they are indicating how they do their weighting. Clearly they are aiming for a representative sample of the general US population. As they did NOT weight for political affiliation, that variable would be randomly selected. It's a valid and reliable method that I can see. Interesting that they did not select for "likelihood of voting", so their initial sample must have been sizeable.
Clearly they could be aiming for anything at all. They don't say. We do not know if that variable is randomly selected.
We also do not know or care about those who are not likely to vote. When trying to predict outcomes of elections. (as you pointed out)
they did not show us the number of dems or repubs in the sample. so we have no idea what they are doing. significant lead... over sample dems by 7 - 11 points.
It is random because they don't look at it when selecting their sample. So it will reliably reflect the distribution of dems/reps in the general population, to a degree of variance. And the sample must be of a certain size to achieve +/- 3% variance (or is it 4%?) (Over 1000, or over 3000, I do not remember the formula though.)
This really is mental masturbation though, correct polling technique performed too early, when the population is still making up its mind.
To me, Romney's problems are that he isn't perceived to stand for anything (except being pro-business - not exactly flavour of the month), and he is somewhat reactionary on individual freedoms and social progress (which will alienate younger voters, progressive centrists, and minorities). If he could drum up some kind of conviction in a message with popular appeal (like politicians such as Reagan and FDR did), then he would have a good shot at unseating Obama, who currently doesn't have much of a message either except the muddled healthcare reform. But Romney has never been a conviction politician, and doesn't have a populist bone in his body. His oratory and political charisma is pretty weak.
So, even though he might be a superior executive to Obama, I don't think he is likely to win.
Romney's advisers really need to be fired. Any skilled political adviser will tell a candidate, especially one running against an incumbent, to get his message clear, and then repeat it persuasively again and again until it becomes obvious to everyone what he is going to do better than the opposition. If Romney had done his job right, even people in Timbuktu would know what he stood for. At the moment, I have no real idea what his major policy proposals are, I have no real idea what his major ethical principles or political convictions are. It's the same as Mayor Bloomberg - these kind of people just don't stand for anything. The difference is that being Mayor is a purely an executive position, so competence is all that is required. Being president is much more demanding, it sets the political tone of the US, he can sway the direction of Congress and propose sweeping legislative reform. So, mere executive ability is not enough - you need some kind of platform that will capture the imagination of voters. The opportunity is there - people are pissed off, there would be a huge potential gain if you could seize the imagination of the disaffected. But Romney's team are totally squandering it.
So, even though he might be a superior executive to Obama, I don't think he is likely to win.
Romney's advisers really need to be fired. Any skilled political adviser will tell a candidate, especially one running against an incumbent, to get his message clear, and then repeat it persuasively again and again until it becomes obvious to everyone what he is going to do better than the opposition. If Romney had done his job right, even people in Timbuktu would know what he stood for. At the moment, I have no real idea what his major policy proposals are, I have no real idea what his major ethical principles or political convictions are. It's the same as Mayor Bloomberg - these kind of people just don't stand for anything. The difference is that being Mayor is a purely an executive position, so competence is all that is required. Being president is much more demanding, it sets the political tone of the US, he can sway the direction of Congress and propose sweeping legislative reform. So, mere executive ability is not enough - you need some kind of platform that will capture the imagination of voters. The opportunity is there - people are pissed off, there would be a huge potential gain if you could seize the imagination of the disaffected. But Romney's team are totally squandering it.
Republicans 35.7%, Democrats 33.8%, Unaffiliateds 30.5%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends
There are now more republicans than democrats.
I think the polling samples need to be adjusted.
AK weren't you telling me there were far more Dems than republicans?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/partisan_trends
There are now more republicans than democrats.
I think the polling samples need to be adjusted.
AK weren't you telling me there were far more Dems than republicans?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney picking up 46% of the vote, while President Obama attracts 45%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll