REUTERS: Obama up over Romney by 6 points due to economic optimism

  • Thread starter Thread starter redgreen5
  • Start date Start date
R

redgreen5

Guest
LOL

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/10/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE8691DP20120710

Obama expands lead on Romney, voters more optimistic

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama expanded his lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney to 6 percentage points in the White House race this month as voters became slightly more optimistic about the economy, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

Four months before the November 6 election, Obama leads Romney among registered voters 49 percent to 43 percent. In June, Obama held a slim 1-point lead over the former Massachusetts governor.

Obama's improved standing was fueled in part by a slight rise in optimism about the future, with the number of Americans who think the country is on the wrong track dropping 5 percentage points to 58 percent.

Obama's approval ratings ticked up 1 point to 48 percent and the number of Americans who disapprove of his job performance dropped 3 percentage points to 47 percent.
Click to expand...
 
I am not surprised...I am not too keen on Romney either....but that a majority of people like something, does not make that something good. Ever hear of Hitler?  Or maybe the crowd who wanted Jesus crucified?  Polls just reflect where the society is, and that is not a good place.
 
jimmudcatgrant said:
That's because they only polled idiots like yourself that are still drinking the kool aid.
Click to expand...

Wrong, moron.  The point of this poll was to gauge the mood of the public, and how it could impact the 2012 presidential race. In that respect they polled precisely the correct people:  a statistically representative sampling of the US public.

The world and the U.S. economy is in real trouble.  Anyone with half a brain understands this.
Click to expand...

I understand far more than you do about the current situation.

Our children, and our children's children future is in dire straits.  Here is the real scoop on the economy:
Click to expand...

No, that is Nouriel Roubini, who never has a good word to say. He makes his living by predicting disaster. That's why he's earned the nickname "Dr Doom". His track record of accuracy is mixed:
http://www.economicpredictions.org/nouriel-roubini-predictions/index.htm

As I told you:  I know far more than you do about the current situation - and the players, such as Roubini.
 
A "statistically representative sample of the US public is", however, not what you want to accurately predict election results. For that, you need a statistically representative sample of "likely voters". That's because most of the "US public" doesn't vote.
 
Izdaari said:
A "statistically representative sample of the US public is", however, not what you want to accurately predict election results. For that, you need a statistically representative sample of "likely voters". That's because most of the "US public" doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

Izzy -

Is the the point where I call you a moron or should I use some other insult?

:P ;)
 
Izdaari said:
A "statistically representative sample of the US public is", however, not what you want to accurately predict election results. For that, you need a statistically representative sample of "likely voters". That's because most of the "US public" doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear:  the sample was as follows:

The poll of 1,154 adults, including 885 registered voters, was taken between Thursday and Monday.

 
redgreen5 said:
Izdaari said:
A "statistically representative sample of the US public is", however, not what you want to accurately predict election results. For that, you need a statistically representative sample of "likely voters". That's because most of the "US public" doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear:  the sample was as follows:

The poll of 1,154 adults, including 885 registered voters, was taken between Thursday and Monday.
Click to expand...

Right. And of those registered voters, what % actually vote? To have a poll that's of much use in predicting election results, it needs to be limited to people who have a track record of actually voting and who probably are going to vote this year. That's what a "likely voters" sample is.
 
rsc2a said:
Izdaari said:
A "statistically representative sample of the US public is", however, not what you want to accurately predict election results. For that, you need a statistically representative sample of "likely voters". That's because most of the "US public" doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

Izzy -

Is the the point where I call you a moron or should I use some other insult?

:P ;)
Click to expand...

I am a person who has worked in enough campaigns to know what kinds of polls matter and what kinds don't. I didn't know "moron" was the technical term for that.  :P
 
Izdaari said:
redgreen5 said:
Izdaari said:
A "statistically representative sample of the US public is", however, not what you want to accurately predict election results. For that, you need a statistically representative sample of "likely voters". That's because most of the "US public" doesn't vote.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear:  the sample was as follows:

The poll of 1,154 adults, including 885 registered voters, was taken between Thursday and Monday.
Click to expand...

Right. And of those registered voters, what % actually vote? To have a poll that's of much use in predicting election results, it needs to be limited to people who have a track record of actually voting and who probably are going to vote this year. That's what a "likely voters" sample is.
Click to expand...

Partly agree.  % actual voters can only be computed by looking at past voting histories on a per-person basis. But in every election, there are sporadic, one-time, or first-time voters. 
If we know what percentage of total votes cast were accounted for by:

1. % of likely voters
2. % of remaining voters (sporadic, one-time, first-time, etc.)

then we could create a more accurate sampling.

The other thing to consider is what the historical difference in outcome we see in elections by using registered voters as a proxy for likely voters.  Is there a big gap, either in turnout or voting preferences?  If there's only a 1-2% difference in registered vs. likely, then it may not matter. If they're 4-5% apart, then it could be a huge difference, because many such elections are close and 4-5% is the margin of error (and margin of victory) in a lot of those races.
 
Right, those are valid considerations.

However, looking at it from the perspective of a candidate and not an academic political scientist, in internal polls that campaigns conduct themselves and rely on to see how well they're doing, "likely voters" polls are what they care about.

It is true that if a bunch of people who don't normally vote, get energized and go to the polls, as happened last time with Obama, you can get an anomalous result.
 
Izdaari said:
Right, those are valid considerations.

However, looking at it from the perspective of a candidate and not an academic political scientist, in internal polls that campaigns conduct themselves and rely on to see how well they're doing, "likely voters" polls are what they care about.

It is true that if a bunch of people who don't normally vote, get energized and go to the polls, as happened last time with Obama, you can get an anomalous result.
Click to expand...

Likely voter polls have them neck and neck. With Romney with a slight lead. Either way...All the polls are generally with the margin of error.
 
[quote author=clueless and divided]
Likely voter polls have them neck and neck. [/quote]

Wrong.
[1]
President Barack Obama has gained an advantage over Republican Mitt Romney in a Pew Research Center poll of public confidence in handling of the economy.

Obama leads Romney by 50 percent to 43 percent among registered voters surveyed, Pew reports, with the Republican Party
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top