Originally Posted by Weave

Pretty good analysis by Jay Cost at realclearpolitics.com about the skewed polls that are weighted up to 10% pro Dem. Even with this heavy skew many are within the margin of error. Even Rasmsussen has a +2 Dem Skew...Does anyone think that'll be the numbers on election day...if you do, please enroll in AA....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_653067.html

Weekly Standard. Rush Limbaugh with more polish. When President Obama was up 5 the right-wingers claimed that the pollsters were weighting things 6 points in his favor. When he is up 10 the right-wingers said that the pollsters are cheating by 11 points.

If there has been any media bias it has been that the media want people paying attention to the Presidential race instead of tuning out. Such would be so no matter who was ahead. If the President had been way ahead back in July the media would have been playing up the chance of a comeback for the challenger. If it were the other way they would have been playing up the chance that the President were going to imitate the Truman victory.

Recent polls suggest a Romney collapse. Constituencies that went for John McCain don't support Romney as much. Maybe the elderly and near-elderly distrust privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Maybe people who like a strong defense don't like reckless saber-rattling or diplomatic bumbling.

Quinnipiac is a very good pollster. It polls few states, but it polls the ones that matter. Florida and Ohio are consistently very close to the US as a whole in their voting. on Presidential elections. Ohio has voted 'wrong' once since WWII -- and then by a narrow margin in a narrow election (1960).

Do you know what happens when one side wins Ohio by 10% or more?

1988 Bush 55.0% Dukakis 44.2% in Ohio -- Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.7%

1984 Reagan 58.9% Mondale 40.1% in Ohio -- Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.1% nationwide

1980 Reagan 51.5% Carter 40.9% in Ohio -- Reagan 51.8% Carter 41.0% nationwide

1972 Nixon 59.6% McGovern 38.1% in Ohio -- Nixon 60.7% McGovern 37.5% nationwide

It ain't pretty for the loser.

Face it: Barack Obama became President with lots of question marks about him. He has resolved almost all of them to his advantage.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Recent polls suggest a Romney collapse. Constituencies that went for John McCain don't support Romney as much. Maybe the elderly and near-elderly distrust privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Maybe people who like a strong defense don't like reckless saber-rattling or diplomatic bumbling.

From what I see the Republicans--that is to say the professionals, not the followers like JPT and Weave, believe that something close to a cratering of Romney's support has happened.
The professionals now see what most of us see. Namely that the GOP is going to lose and lose big if nothing changes. Therefore, since barring a debate miricle Romney is going to be unable to change the preception of himslef as an aloof elitist with a sense of entitlement they need to change the dynamics of the race with a ace in the hole so to speak.
That ace will not be televised.As others have posted a lot of GOP money has been pulled out of TV ads. Televisions is mostly geared at the true undecdeds. There never have been that many undecideds in our highly partisan early 4T environment and it appears that the undecideds are breaking strongly for Obama.


That ace, they believe is the evangelical vote.
See, a lot of Republican money is now going into the ground game. It is estimated that 26 percent of all Americans consider themselves evangelicals. And evengelicals vote about 70% Republican. And what all of this tells me is that the GOP is going to try to hyper mobilize the eveangelicals for this election. This is a big reason why the GOP is now saying that the polling samples are too pro Democratic. They think that they can expand the evangelical vote to the point where models that assume a 2008 electorate will be less accurate than ones, like Gallup and Rasmussn, that use land lines only for selecting their polling universe. They also hope that at least some of the voting restrictions that they have placed on Democratic leaning groups hold up well enough to limit the part of the electorate that is against them.

The Democratic ground game is repute to be top notch. It had better be or else a repeat of 2004 where a rumored landslide victory for Kerry turned into unprovable cries of fraud after Bush won a small but not overturnable margin for a second term.

If, as noted above, Nate Sliver is correct that Iowa becomes key (with Ohio moving to safe for Obama), then there’s some indication of bad news coming for Team Romney –

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...934388786.html

Democrats have a 6-1 edge in ballot requests so far, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Democrats requested roughly 100,000 ballots, compared with 16,073 ballots requested by Republicans, the newspaper said. Absentee voting and in-person early voting begins on Sept. 27.

"I see the early vote numbers, and I grimace a little bit," said Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Iowa Republican Party and the editor of a popular blog, told The Journal. "It feels like an Obama state…. The president has been more accessible to voters than [Mitt] Romney and [Paul] Ryan."

Those still averaging national polls are a little more that a tad behind on what's really happening.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Obviously, you're wrong.

You need to get use to keeping those curtains shut. Yes, there's 2016, but that comes with Hillary.

That depends upon how the next four years go. Your prediction for 2016 to me comes across as a Candyland kind of optimism.

~Chas'88

Ya I wouldn't go betting on Hillary. She's got the brains and the policy knowledge, but she doesn't have the charisma to spend much time in the spotlight. Hell, I always assumed she was the smarts behind the Clinton presidency, but she just can't give a speech like Bill can.

Further, she's always been a corporate centrist and she can't really play the progressive card in a primary as well as a younger, lesser-known candidate like Obama could.

Real Clear moves Ohio into leaning Obama. That is curtains for Romney if it holds up. Right now the average is listed as +5, with some recent polls much higher. No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. And Romney is behind in Florida too.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Ya I wouldn't go betting on Hillary. She's got the brains and the policy knowledge, but she doesn't have the charisma to spend much time in the spotlight. Hell, I always assumed she was the smarts behind the Clinton presidency, but she just can't give a speech like Bill can.

Further, she's always been a corporate centrist and she can't really play the progressive card in a primary as well as a younger, lesser-known candidate like Obama could.

She almost beat Obama at his best.

She's proved herself in the Senate and as Secretary of State.

Independent women will vote for her and GOP women will crossover to vote for her if there is no woman on the GOP ticket in 2016. If the GOP puts Palin back up, then the entire GOP party will either crossover or not vote.


Most important, she's got Bill, who, like Ray-gun, looks better and better in peoples' memories - he'll be approaching mythical status by 2016.

Candyland, my ass; she'll win in a landslide.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Real Clear moves Ohio into leaning Obama. That is curtains for Romney if it holds up. Right now the average is listed as +5, with some recent polls much higher. No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. And Romney is behind in Florida too.

Well, Nate Silver should be happy. He wanted some time to write about the baseball playoffs. He may get his wish.

Originally Posted by playwrite

She almost beat Obama at his best.

She's proved herself in the Senate and as Secretary of State.

Independent women will vote for her and GOP women will crossover to vote for her if there is no woman on the GOP ticket in 2016. If the GOP puts Palin back up, then the entire GOP party will either crossover or not vote.


Most important, she's got Bill, who, like Ray-gun, looks better and better in peoples' memories - he'll be approaching mythical status by 2016.

Candyland, my ass; she'll win in a landslide.

Well, the only thing is, her chart is somewhat weak. If the Reps put up Paul Ryan, look out.

Some on Team Romney are figuring out some of the reasons they're lossing in Ohio -

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/politi...hio/index.html

Putting a finer point on the matter, one longtime Ohio GOP strategist called Obama's advantage on the auto bailout "a kick in the balls" for the Romney campaign.

Team Romney has thus taken defensive action -

Originally Posted by playwrite

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Ya I wouldn't go betting on Hillary. She's got the brains and the policy knowledge, but she doesn't have the charisma to spend much time in the spotlight. Hell, I always assumed she was the smarts behind the Clinton presidency, but she just can't give a speech like Bill can.

Further, she's always been a corporate centrist and she can't really play the progressive card in a primary as well as a younger, lesser-known candidate like Obama could.

She almost beat Obama at his best.

She's proved herself in the Senate and as Secretary of State.

Independent women will vote for her and GOP women will crossover to vote for her if there is no woman on the GOP ticket in 2016. If the GOP puts Palin back up, then the entire GOP party will either crossover or not vote.


Most important, she's got Bill, who, like Ray-gun, looks better and better in peoples' memories - he'll be approaching mythical status by 2016.

Candyland, my ass; she'll win in a landslide.

I've gotta go with JohnMc82 on this one. There is virtually no chance that the country will decide to elect a 70 year old in 2016. If anything, they'll be looking for a 40-something. Let's admit it; Boomer politics are wearing thin. Our kids like us, but even they won't elect us to anything important. They already know they have a lot of fixing to do, and our generation had a lot do with the mess ... in fact, amost all of it.

Now, one or two of us might be in the running for jobs like this:

or this or even this

and remember the song ...

Here we stand before your door,
As we stood the year before;
Give us whiskey; give us gin,
Open the door and let us in.
Or give us something nice and hot
Like a steaming hot bowl of pepper pot

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've gotta go with JohnMc82 on this one. There is virtually no chance that the country will decide to elect a 70 year old in 2016. If anything, they'll be looking for a 40-something. Let's admit it; Boomer politics are wearing thin. Our kids like us, but even they won't elect us to anything important. They already know they have a lot of fixing to do, and our generation had a lot do with the mess ... in fact, amost all of it.

It sounds like you may have bought into Xer magic pony land of hoping Boomers will just go away.

Boomers are just entering the age of most reliable voters -



If anything is changing, its the graph on the right side (pun intended). I think this election with Team Romney has reversed the course of the elderly voting for the GOP - it is becoming increasingly obvious that to continue to do so is economic suicide for anyone over 65… and, anyone who plans to be over 65 someday in the future.

New national poll by Bloomberg has Obama up by 6, 49-43, nationally -

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rhMzOK9Gexhs

Those cheating pinkos at Bloomies!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is virtually no chance that the country will decide to elect a 70 year old in 2016. If anything, they'll be looking for a 40-something. Let's admit it; Boomer politics are wearing thin. Our kids like us, but even they won't elect us to anything important. They already know they have a lot of fixing to do, and our generation had a lot do with the mess ... in fact, amost all of it.

LOL not much to disagree with there, but there is one boomer woman who fits the profile and is possibly about to get a whole lot of experience in D.C.: Elizabeth Warren. Now, she doesn't have things like 'Walmart Board of Directors' on her resume, but she does seem to excite millennials in a way that Hilary can't.

Getting millennials out to vote is going to be an important point for anyone who wants to win, and that is only going to become more true until the next prophets come around. I doubt Obama's squishy-center attitude is going to win him the same millie enthusiasm as last time, but we won't know the details until after the election.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think this election with Team Romney has reversed the course of the elderly voting for the GOP - it is becoming increasingly obvious that to continue to do so is economic suicide for anyone over 65… and, anyone who plans to be over 65 someday in the future.

Interesting angle. I've been despairing of an end to the unravelling stalemate. I've always heard that the incoming Millenials are trending democratic. If the above charts develop as suggested, the unraveling stalemate could unravel after all.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If anything is changing, its the graph on the right side (pun intended). I think this election with Team Romney has reversed the course of the elderly voting for the GOP - it is becoming increasingly obvious that to continue to do so is economic suicide for anyone over 65… and, anyone who plans to be over 65 someday in the future.

There was a recent Zogby poll, and I don't know how much I trust them these days, but it showed that Romney/Ryan's lead with the over 65 crowd had dropped to about 3%. The Quinnipiac battleground poll says Florida's 55+ crowd favors Obama by a whopping 53 to 45 margin.

If the Republicans can't even get old people to vote for them, what hope do they have as a party?

Originally Posted by Weave

Pretty good analysis by Jay Cost at realclearpolitics.com about the skewed polls that are weighted up to 10% pro Dem. Even with this heavy skew many are within the margin of error. Even Rasmsussen has a +2 Dem Skew...Does anyone think that'll be the numbers on election day...if you do, please enroll in AA....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ma_653067.html

I'm not prepared to say yet that all of the polls are wrong, and/or being manipulated. But the main point of the above article is extremely valid. None of these polls show Obama winning among Independents. Obama's lead is due entirely to a projected massive Democrat turnout. Not just a repeat of 2008, but in excess of 2008.

Did the DNC really fire up the Democrat base so much that they will outdo 2008? That's what the polls seem to be showing. I don't see much evidence of it, even on this forum. But who knows.

And 2008 wasn't just a result of massive Democrat turnout. It was also a result of a lot of Republicans staying home.

This article suggest the same thing:

PRO-OBAMA POLLS RELY ON RECORD DEM TURNOUT

Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:

Florida:
In 2004 the vote was R+4.
In 2008 the vote was D+3
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

Ohio:
In 2004 the vote was R+5
In 2008 the vote was D+8
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9

Pennsylvania:
In 2010 the vote was D+3
In 2008 the vote was D+7
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.

What I think can be said is that if Romney wins, we will be told that he miraculously turned it around at the last minute, and that will be a lie.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not prepared to say yet that all of the polls are wrong, and/or being manipulated. But the main point of the above article is extremely valid. None of these polls show Obama winning among Independents. Obama's lead is due entirely to a projected massive Democrat turnout. Not just a repeat of 2008, but in excess of 2008.

Did the DNC really fire up the Democrat base so much that they will outdo 2008? That's what the polls seem to be showing. I don't see much evidence of it, even on this forum. But who knows.

And 2008 wasn't just a result of massive Democrat turnout. It was also a result of a lot of Republicans staying home.

Yeah Im not seeing the type of excitement there was for Obama in 08 at all. That doesnt mean he isnt going to win but if he does it will be with a more traditional model of voters. These polls are outpolling Dems and being pushed as lead stories in the "mainstream" media in an effort to depress Republican turnout.


Romney will need some good debate perfomances which he is certainly capable of. Of course even if he mops the floor with Obama the media will find a way to spin it as a loss.....

Originally Posted by Weave

Yeah Im not seeing the type of excitement there was for Obama in 08 at all. That doesnt mean he isnt going to win but if he does it will be with a more traditional model of voters. These polls are outpolling Dems and being pushed as lead stories in the "mainstream" media in an effort to depress Republican turnout.


Romney will need some good debate perfomances which he is certainly capable of. Of course even if he mops the floor with Obama the media will find a way to spin it as a loss.....

I'll give the argument for a repeat of 2008:

1. In 2008, a lot of Republican voters were fed up with the Republican Party, and unenthusiastic about McCain. The same could be said to be true today about Romney.
2. The intensity of Obama's support in 2008 was due largely to enthusiasm among minority voters, especially black voters. People who have race as their motivation will turn out again regardless of how bad the economy is, and how poor his performance has been.

But there are huge problems with that argument:

1. 2010, and all elections that have taken place since 2008 have been massive Republican routs. It seems unlikely that Republican voters have suddenly become unenthusiastic, and willing to stay home.
2. Black voters cannot give Obama the win on their own. Enthusiasm among Hispanics and young voters has been way down from 2008 in the polls, consistently. White Democrats are highly unlikely to be nearly as enthusiastic as they were in 2008.
3. All of the typical indicators for re-election are against Obama. The economy is terrible, unemployment is high, and the polls show a race closer than 2008. No president has won re-election with a smaller share of the popular vote the second time, and no president without a major third party candidacy has won re-election with a smaller share of the electoral vote. Right track/wrong track numbers are upside down by a wide margin. Obama's approval rating and standing in the polls consistently struggle to get near 50%.
4. Perhaps most importantly: 2008 would have been much closer if the economy had not collapsed less than two months before the election.


However, Gallup suddenly shows Obama with a 6 point lead today, up from 3 yesterday, and a tie before that. I don't know what to think. I know that the fix is in on the part of the media, I just don't know how much of a fix it is.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Weekly Standard. Rush Limbaugh with more polish. When President Obama was up 5 the right-wingers claimed that the pollsters were weighting things 6 points in his favor. When he is up 10 the right-wingers said that the pollsters are cheating by 11 points.

If there has been any media bias it has been that the media want people paying attention to the Presidential race instead of tuning out. Such would be so no matter who was ahead. If the President had been way ahead back in July the media would have been playing up the chance of a comeback for the challenger. If it were the other way they would have been playing up the chance that the President were going to imitate the Truman victory.

Recent polls suggest a Romney collapse. Constituencies that went for John McCain don't support Romney as much. Maybe the elderly and near-elderly distrust privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Maybe people who like a strong defense don't like reckless saber-rattling or diplomatic bumbling.

Quinnipiac is a very good pollster. It polls few states, but it polls the ones that matter. Florida and Ohio are consistently very close to the US as a whole in their voting. on Presidential elections. Ohio has voted 'wrong' once since WWII -- and then by a narrow margin in a narrow election (1960).

Do you know what happens when one side wins Ohio by 10% or more?

1988 Bush 55.0% Dukakis 44.2% in Ohio -- Bush 53.4% Dukakis 45.7%

1984 Reagan 58.9% Mondale 40.1% in Ohio -- Reagan 58.8% Mondale 40.1% nationwide

1980 Reagan 51.5% Carter 40.9% in Ohio -- Reagan 51.8% Carter 41.0% nationwide

1972 Nixon 59.6% McGovern 38.1% in Ohio -- Nixon 60.7% McGovern 37.5% nationwide

It ain't pretty for the loser.

Face it: Barack Obama became President with lots of question marks about him. He has resolved almost all of them to his advantage.

Do you really think O'Bummer is up 12% in Ohio, a state he won by 4% in 08?? Really? In a year when Repubs were not fired up and many sat home, the Dems swept the House and Senate adding seats and winning conservative states like Indiana? Really? Get real. O'Bummer is probably up 3-4%, with six weeks to go. Plenty of time for Romney.

Several things to observe here.

1) "Independents" are not a separate category from Republicans and Democrats in terms of voting behavior. This is a catch-all category for those who choose not to identify themselves with either of the parties. "Independent" and "moderate" are not synonyms; self-labeled independents are all over the map politically. The great majority of so-called independents are Republicans and Democrats without the labels. If Obama isn't winning among independents, it means only that more Republican-leaning independents are expected to vote than Democratic-leaning independents. It is more than offset by the advantage in number of labeled Democrats voting compared to labeled Republicans.

2) I don't expect the enthusiasm of Democratic voters to be as high as it was in 2008 this year. However, I do expect there to be more voters for Obama overall, due only to demographic changes in the last four years, with more Millennials entering the voting ranks and more Silents leaving them, as well as increases in the partial pressure of black and Hispanic voters. Also, we should bear in mind the impact of as bad a candidate as Romney on the enthusiasm of Republican voters.

All in all, I don't see any reason to doubt the polls on a prima facie basis.

Originally Posted by Weave

Do you really think O'Bummer is up 12% in Ohio, a state he won by 4% in 08?? Really? In a year when Repubs were not fired up and many sat home, the Dems swept the House and Senate adding seats and winning conservative states like Indiana? Really? Get real. O'Bummer is probably up 3-4%, with six weeks to go. Plenty of time for Romney.

I don't have data for past years to compare it to, but what is clear is that there is a very wide variation between different polls this time, fairly close to the election. The other thing that stands out is that the RCP average has been moving in such a way that when Obama's numbers go up, Romney's numbers go down, and vice versa. They have been directly proportional. That would only happen naturally if there were a large number of voters flip-flopping back and forth, saying one day they'll vote for Romney and the other day they'll vote for Obama. The way that it happens un-naturally is if the shifts result from polling methodology, where party ID and enthusiasm are the main driving factors, and small shifts in those components drive large shifts in the polls.

To the extent that there have been any real-world events that could impact the race, they have all been bad for Obama. Bad jobs numbers, bad economic forecasts, chaos in the Middle East. There is no explanation for a sudden pro-Obama shift. TV ratings for the conventions were low, which suggests a low-turnout election. We know that people across the spectrum are fed up with both parties. We know that the economy is terrible.

If the polls are as skewed as some are suggesting, Obama's lead is probably even less than 3-4%. It's probably more like 1-2%, if that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

However, Gallup suddenly shows Obama with a 6 point lead today, up from 3 yesterday, and a tie before that. I don't know what to think. I know that the fix is in on the part of the media, I just don't know how much of a fix it is.

what's much more likely is that people just don't like romney. and the more they see him, the less and less they like him.

the 47% video is a killer.

the gop has nominated a real howler of a candidate this time.

tell the truth now. even *you* don't like him, just passing through.

crying about the media doesn't hide the fact that mitt's unfavorables are just too high to get him elected. and in fact he may drag down other republican candidates.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I don't have data for past years to compare it to, but what is clear is that there is a very wide variation between different polls this time, fairly close to the election. The other thing that stands out is that the RCP average has been moving in such a way that when Obama's numbers go up, Romney's numbers go down, and vice versa. They have been directly proportional. That would only happen naturally if there were a large number of voters flip-flopping back and forth, saying one day they'll vote for Romney and the other day they'll vote for Obama. The way that it happens un-naturally is if the shifts result from polling methodology, where party ID and enthusiasm are the main driving factors, and small shifts in those components drive large shifts in the polls.

Here is a very good source for earlier elections. I post heavily there. http://uselectionatlas.org/

About every pollster has gone to a 'likely voters" screen that tends to skew older and more conservative. Rasmussen really skews old because it does not call back to those that it missed, which ensures that it is less likely to catch people away from home (shift work, which skews young).

Lately the statewide polls have gone more toward President Obama. If you think that his nationwide lead is stagnant despite recent polls in such swing states as Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and Florida -- then he must be losing ground where it does not matter. If you don't like the results of the recent statewide polls, then that's your problem. The many pollsters are not conspiring to elect President Obama. They are more interested in accuracy than in advocacy.

I have noticed that the some of the pollsters that I thought were R-leaning have been making the biggest moves in recognizing an Obama gain. One pollster that polls only Michigan that was showing Romney leads this summer now shows Obama up more than 10%. One pollster that operates only in North Carolina that showed several 10% leads for Romney earlier this year now shows a 4% lead for President Obama.

I have seen some of the criticism of pollsters -- and one election analyst caught evidence of either plagiarism or fabrication in 2008 by some outfit located in a strip mall in rural Georgia. The catch was that the pollster got too few results with the numeral '7' in them. That pollster went out of business before the election was over.

To the extent that there have been any real-world events that could impact the race, they have all been bad for Obama. Bad jobs numbers, bad economic forecasts, chaos in the Middle East. There is no explanation for a sudden pro-Obama shift. TV ratings for the conventions were low, which suggests a low-turnout election. We know that people across the spectrum are fed up with both parties. We know that the economy is terrible.

The conventions had low viewership -- but the Republican convention had really low viewership. If people wanted to see what the Republicans had to offer as an alternative to a catastrophic failure as President, then they would have been paying rapt attention to the clear alternative that the Republicans offer -- as they did in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. Democrats in contrast had far better viewership, and by all accounts they had a better show. Democrats got their diverse populist and mainstream figures coordinated well... and good as some of those performances were, Barack Obama gave one awesome speech. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 about Dan Quayle:

I have heard Ronald Reagan, and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. If Republicans wish to fantasize that Barack Obama is the new Jimmy Carter... well, they have no Ronald Reagan.

If the polls are as skewed as some are suggesting, Obama's lead is probably even less than 3-4%. It's probably more like 1-2%, if that.

Anonymous authority, except as well-established precedent as in trade lore or common law, is worthless.

Polls lag political reality. It takes time for what might seem rhetorical blunders of Mitt Romney to manifest themselves in bad results (for Romney) in polls. As a liberal I cannot judge whether something that some candidate says should help or hurt him until I see objective measurements in polls. I know what my bias is and and how it can deceive me. The pro-Obama trend is not the result of some unlikely news event that fades; it looks like the result of Mitt Romney showing himself unsuited for the Presidency.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

what's much more likely is that people just don't like romney. and the more they see him, the less and less they like him.

the 47% video is a killer.

the gop has nominated a real howler of a candidate this time.

tell the truth now. even *you* don't like him, just passing through.

crying about the media doesn't hide the fact that mitt's unfavorables are just too high to get him elected. and in fact he may drag down other republican candidates.

My best assessment right now is that the polling is modeled on an electorate that looks like 2008, and the changes that we see are based on small changes in enthusiasm between Republicans and Democrats. These are the assumptions of the media and the elite in general manifesting themselves in polling methodology. The fact that it has been as close as it has is a result of increased Republican enthusiasm applied to a 2008 model.

While it is true that many Republicans were not enthusiastic about Romney in the primaries, there are plenty of indicators that show they are in a much better position than they were in 2008. Republican registration in swing states is up. They have an advantage in registration many of those states. From 2008 until today, the growth in people identifying themselves as independents has come almost entirely from people leaving the Democrats. The number of people identifying themselves as conservatives has risen to over 40%, making them a plurality, which had previously been held by "moderates".

They say you can't beat something with nothing. But this election may be a question of who can beat nothing with nothing. Considering that the (D) nothing has been a disaster, the (R) nothing has an advantage. If Romney can succeed in the debates at providing some substance, meaning a clear critique of Obama and a vision for the future, likability may not be decisive.

All I know is that what we're seeing right now doesn't make any sense. Considering everything above and the state the country is in, there is no explanation for Obama having a substantial lead. It is significant that even with a 4% average lead, Obama's total is just over 48%. Bill Clinton was polling around 52-54% throughout the election year of 1996, for example. What that means is that Romney's numbers (just over 44%) are low. The majority of voters are not supporting Obama, but enough are unsure or unenthusiastic about Romney to make it look like Obama is "winning".

Is it possible that American voters could re-elect someone based on a perceived advantage in "likability", and because of the color of his skin, despite the fact that his policies are extremely unpopular, the economy is terrible, people overwhelmingly think the country is on the wrong track, and his job approval is low on the issues voters view as most important? I guess maybe it is, but it seems unlikely. If so, the country is suffering from a level of superficiality and detachment from reality that is severe enough to be fatal. Then again, that's how we got here in the first place.

But to re-iterate the more analytical view of the polls: it seems clear that the polls are not measuring changes among people who have not made up their minds, but rather they are reflecting varying predictions among the pollsters about who will turn out to vote. In that regard, there may be quite a bit of wishful thinking factored in, meaning that the polls reflect the biases of the people who run them. And those people are mostly left-of-center.

EDIT: As for the "47% video", it's meaningless.