George008

What a great show this was!

Always thought a version of this would have made a great opening!

Lord knows I would never try to speak for Vee. Really. Never. But, I think it's important to remember that the term "outlier" traditionally doesn't refer to POLLSTERS it refers to specific POLLS. Gallup and Rassmussen may be "the two most experienced and established pollsters." (Although I contest that description for Rasmussen.) but that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of having the occasional flawed poll for whatever reason: sampling error, poorly written questions, technical/geographic issues, etc... No pollster is immune to outliers.

I just stick with Nate Silver when it comes to crunching polls. He's a slave to the numbers and nothing else. Dude's practically a Vulcan.

Was Gallup right or wrong in 2008? Or any election for that matter? Going back to Truman.

Anyone else besides Silver you can point to in 2012? Silver did well in 2008, but you're basing that on ONE Presdential election.

I feel more comfortable with five decades of results.

You mean these numbers, Casey? Here, I'll even put in RCP's laughable version of "national average."

You'll forgive me, but I think the Obama edge in many of these and the very tight race otherwise looks pretty good - particularly since RCP is a known, slanted and shamed right-wing organ.

According to what source? I can cite several reputable organizations that label RCP as non-partisan.

As for Scott Rasmussen, he's another infamous right-wing hack who has been criticized heavily by the media for years now because of inaccurate and poorly-sourced polling which often tightens just before Election Day. And then there's Gallup, which has been a laughingstock for months but particularly in the past month, or as the New York Times puts it, it's Gallup vs. the World.

NYT= Nate Silver...Alright, I'll give you Rasmussen. BTW I love the liberal name-calling..."Rasmussen is a HACK!!" ..

The ABC poll completely avoided and low-sampled the Northeast, and really, there was no point in polling during Sandy because of that. But some people will poll anyway to try and preserve a horse race.

"Horse race" ..Check ABC/Washington Post polls several days before Sandy.

If you really want to go with this, though, and never step outside the right wing noise bubble courtesy of Breitbart, Drudge and RCP or look at the real numbers, sampling and other factors, then good luck, Casey. Just don't look at me with doe eyes on Election Night like you guys did in 2008 when everything was 'good news for John McCain.' Republicans are always baffled when they lose, but a large part of that confusion stems from the fact that they never get out of the RW bubble, and only accept the facts and numbers that they choose to believe.

I'll be more than happy to check back a week from now! We'll see who has "doe eyes".

All inconvenient truths are blamed on bookish homosexuals like Nate Silver.

Whaaa!? Who called Silver a homosexual?! Also, anyone else besides Silver point to a projection that makes you warm and fuzzy?

BIG + What about NPR??..Still waiting on an answer for that one! ;-)

I'm saying you're not showing me any actual polling to deal in.

I'm also saying that even RCP's electoral maps have Obama at 290 - and that's the one with no toss-ups in the mix.

We've discussed FOUR polls in just the last few minutes...Gallup, Rasmussen, NPR, & ABC News/Washington Post. RCP has a link to all details with each poll. All you have to do is click on the poll title in the national averages.

It's good to know you agree with the "crusader's " electoral count while dismissing their national average.

Check the map by Friday to see the swing state polling. :-)

So..you've expressed your thoughts on the two most experienced and established pollsters as "outliers ", how do you translate the polls from NPR and ABC News/Washington Post?

RCP? Those crusaders against "anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias?" LOL.

Is that an answer? Are you saying NPR and ABC News/Washington Post are inaccurate?,

Rasmussen and Gallup are outliers

How about NPR & ABC/Washington Post? realclearpolitics.com

gingrich wants to have poor children work as janitors.

Haha!

I've heard Newt speak about that many times. It's not quite that simple. He has said that poor kids (or ANY teen) would benefit from working at their schools or with an after school program. Not ONLY as janitors, but in the library or offices. There's nothing wrong with learning to develop work ethic at a young age and to appreciate pay checks.

This is going to be a wild ride until November. These out of context and over simplified quotes are just ridiculous.

Isn't this the very same "safety net" that Romney and his cohorts have repeatedly pledged to destroy, and which so many in his party insist is full of lazy bums and cheats?

I guess this is another round of, "You stupid poor people, get a job

Which "safety net" has Romney (or cohorts?) pledged to destroy? I've followed the primaries closely and have yet to hear him pledge to destroy anything.

He's said that he wants to repeal Obamacare and replace (fix it) with a much more fiscally sound alternative. Not a bad idea considering our debt situation in combination with a very weak economy.

Although this statement from Romney provides meat for Liberals to repeat to the uninformed, he's actually right. The very poor already have medicaid, food stamps, WIC, section 8 housing, and so on.

If you can provide a source of Romney wanting to destroy any of these...I'll vote for Obama.

Liberal bias in the Obamamedia? No way! | Nealz Nuze | www.boortz.com http://m.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/06/liberal-bias-obamamedia-no-way/