Macfury said:
Only four presidents have been elected by the electoral college without winning the national popular vote: Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush II. Each of them received within 0.5 % of the popular vote of the other candidate. Based on current polling results and underlying methodology, Obama would have to pull that off while losing the popular vote by 2 to 3 per cent.
As someone who appears to disregard reason and science when it doesn't fit your preconceived outcome I shouldn't expect you to understand that correlation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with causality. I expect that next you'd have us believe that since no incumbent President except one has prevailed when the Washington Redskins have lost their final home game before the election, this also has some bearing on the Electoral College totals. What's next, "Hamburger polls across the nation point to Romney landslide"?
Macfury said:
Based on current polling results and underlying methodology, Obama would have to pull that off while losing the popular vote by 2 to 3 per cent.
Says the eminent polling analysis organization, the
Macfury Institute for Obama Hatred. I'm sure you realize that even your esteemed GOP-centric Real Clear Politics currently shows the average national polls being up by half a point for Obama.
Oh sorry, I see that after applying the
Macfury Patented Magical Poll Analytics™ to that number shows he's actually behind by 2 to 3 points. I see.
Macfury said:
I've searched the methodologies of most of the polls and all of the recent polls on RCP over the past month and have found no poll that oversamples Republicans. I've also checked polls not included on RCP, such as Quinnipiac. Even the last FOX News poll showing Obama and Romney tied oversamples Democrats by 5 per cent--that's because these polls are prepared at arm's length by third parties, in this case Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research.
However, I've also studied The Electoral College positions carefully this election, and I've been downloading the methodologies of significant polls in swing states, particularly Florida and Ohio. The national results are replicated on a state-by-state level, with most pollsters assuming a 2012 turnout identical to 2008, while ignoring 2010 entirely. While New York and California are out of reach to Romney, Obama is fighting for his life in a large number of states believed to be solidly in the Democrat fold. If you'd told David Axelrod last month that a major Michigan poll released on the eve of the election showed Romney ahead by a point, he'd have called you crazy.
…. aaaaaand here we go down the right-wing conspiracy theory rabbit hole with Macfury.
Sorry MF, I know that the polling numbers are no comfort to your desired result, but you have no basis for making these claims of oversampling and skewed polling. Over time, with the sheer volume of endless polling that happens during US Presidential elections the polling averages have been shown to be very close to the final result.
Macfury said:
Polls can change, even in the final days, but if the vote were held today, Romney would win handily.
Yes, polls can change, although at this point historically they've been fairly well settled. But yes, Romney can win, although if he does it will be a squeaker for him. Not "handily", not a blowout.
Or on the other hand, you can believe the right-wing fairy tales such as the ones pedalled on
UnSkewed Polls.com. Here in amongst the clearly unbiased articles like "Vote Mitt Reagan" and "KinderGarden Of Eden: How the Modern Liberal Thinks" and links to books and web sites for the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Morris and other fair and balanced members of the punditocracy, we see articles railing against the corrupt polling companies who are all in the tank for Nobama and predictions of 359 EVs for Romney.
Hurry up everyone, and head over to Intrade. $1000 on Romney to win will get you almost $3000. According to the rock-solid polling analysis of MF, it's a sure thing.