About those polls

And people who purport to run polls say "Your side is way behind, so there's no point in you wasting your time lining up to vote".

Kinda like what the networks did in the Florida panhandle in 2000.

Polls are for dogs.

John George Diefenbaker c 1958

Rick, you beat me to it.

Polls with a covert agenda influence those who are too lazy to think for themselves.

it wouldn't surprise me if Romney's behind- i've always believed he would find a way to lose, i think of him as the american Paul Martin- great in his own niche, but guaranteed to flop in the big chair.

Somebody should show this to that oxygen-thief waste of space and rations, Michael Colton who wouldn't know how to present a balanced story if his life depended on it. Lord, but I cannot stand that "we know best" attitude that oozes from CBC announcers. Why do I have to pay for that crap!

I'm not sure if it's a covert agenda of the pollsters. I admit, it COULD be, for many professionals are, by virtue of being outside of the real private sector economy, leftists or Democrats. But couldn't it simply be a valid overview of the population?

The very essense of the left is to first and last, maintain one's own comfort and only second, as a component of this comfort, remove the 'others' from one's own environment. So, the left do not want to see people begging on the streets, or be made 'uncomfortable' by seeing decrepit run-down areas, or, be threatened by theft and criminal behaviour.

So, to maintain this comfort, the left isolate themselves into a life of security. They accept and take no risks. Therefore, they move to government funded jobs, all protected from risk or harassment by public service unions. So the left is in the bureaucracy, academics and teaching, health care and government funded contracts.

NOTE: Obama has increased the numbers of people working in this sector of the population.

The other sector of the economy who vote left, are those not working but equally funded by the government. These are those on welfare, food stamps, and various other programs.

NOTE: Obama has increased the numbers of people working in this sector of the population.

These two sectors are NOT in any sector of risk; they do NOT engage in private sector businesses, in small businesses, in entrepreneurship, in any action that requires individual risk taking and exposure.

The bureaucratic and academic left will insist that The Government remove threat and risk to their comfort by removing the 'impoverished sector' of the economy from their view. They don't want their lives to be affected by what they consider is the result of poverty (an incorrect view by the way).

This bureaucratic sector of the population consider that wealth comes via NON-government jobs and is as criminal as the behaviour of the lowest class. They are profoundly ignorant of how an economy operates. Therefore, they want The Rich to be punished for..

The welfare sector of the left want their lifestyle, just like that of the bureacuratic sector, to continue without risk.

So, since Obama has increased BOTH these sectors of the population and made them an essential component of the left - this 2012 electorate is not the same as that of 2008. The polls might very well be accurate.

Polls that turn up a majority of Democrats could readily be valid if that geographic area was filled with this bureaucracy.

This is by far my favorite and most amusing SDA theme. Nobody here is willing to admit that Romney is an awful choice of candidate. It's like

"grumble, grumble, grumble...yeah yeah polls are totally off this time..even though they're usually pretty damn close in other times...Romney's gonna pull one out yet" says the SDA regular from a sinking ship.

This place has gone mad when a guy can offend half of the American electorate (probably more considering some of the 53% were offended too), and then you blame a liberal conspiracy for his crappy numbers. And then everyone cites the Quebec and Alberta elections as evidence that polling just 'aint' what it used to be. Do any of you have any clue what the sheer difference is in polling scales between Canada and the US? There are way more companies down there crunching data than in Canadian elections. Oddly enough when you average the results out from all the players, ya usually come close to the actual result on election day. So sorry to break to you all, you are actually losing, by quite a bit lately.

Come on right wing, aren't you guys all about owning up to responsibility? Why not start by admitting you chose a crap nominee?

More wishful PollyAnna thinking.

Look, the election is going to be a closely contesed match. All colse races in modern US history are prone to rigging - we all know with Diebold and hanging chads, the US balloting system is rife with fraud and stealing elections - this election will be won by the side who are most adept and artful at rigging balloting results.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-- B. Disraeli

Larry, the issue is not as simple as you suggest; it's not between a 'crap nominee' and a 'great president'. The issue is about Obama and his governance, both his internal socialism and his abandonment of foreign policy and rejection of the West. The issue is also that the media, who are supposed to provide us with information, have failed in this task.

As I outlined above, Obama has increased his voting base over the last four years by increasing the bureaucracy. In just two years, to the end of 2010, he increased the federal sector by 12%. It's even more now. The private sector lost over 7% of their jobs. The state and municipal either lost or remained static (his stimulus kept them static and 'his' in any vote).

Food stamps alone have increased by 15 million. Got that? They are 'his' in a vote as well. Increased unemployment, and disability payments has exponentially increased.

The cost to the taxpayer of these Obama-Voters is enormous. The public service, for example, gets his above-private sector salary, plus about half of that is ADDED on as untaxed benefits.

So, the problem isn't Romney, who would, in my estimation, make an excellent president. The problem is the changed voter based, where more of the electorate are dependent on Obama, who has shrunk the private sector to irrelevance.

Since the only wealth of any economy is produced by its private sector, Obama is reduced to massive borrowing and an additional 5 trillion in debt.

Do you approve of all of this agenda of Obama's?

I'm starting to believe that the US is completely over forever. I'm selling all my US paper and putting it all in gold if Romney loses which at this point is entirely possible. 100,000 terrorists voted in the early polls in Ohio and only 6000 republicans did.

Really, ET, I'd thought it was us, the citizens that put those programs together over the last few generations... Think any of those on food stamps actually benefited by them; what was the alternative, Ron Paul?

Do you really think it has discouraged those out of work from trying to find anything to do for a few dollars and some self respect; really?

Reagan hitting up the Social Security for some fast cash fueled the start of his good times and our current trending.

Banks' deregulation that got Bush 1 into a mess (though his family benefited greatly...read, millions); and our forced cashing in of Natl. assets... then Bush 2 deregulating Wall Street, laws in place since the depression... do I really need to go on.

I'd always thought highly of your views, but don't at all agree with your current simplistic synopses; puerile.

54% was my prediction 3 years ago and remains my guesstimate, though it's starting to look a bit to low~

Larry, Obama is such a bad POTUS that the Republicans could run a turnip as candidate and Americans would still crawl over broken glass to vote against Obama.

That said, all the polls are skewed because they only represent people who still have hardline telephones in the second decade of the 21st century.

Poll showing Romney has unprecedented libertarian support.

ET, I don't agree with everything Obama's done, nor do I think he's been a great president.

What I'm saying is, the polls are likely accurate, despite all of that. Sure, maybe the media hasn't been fair or whatever, but neither is life and you pick the candidate that can best weather the circumstances. If there is a huge liberal bias in the media, choose someone who works well in that environment. Don't idealize the political landscape you'd like. Go with what you have. Charisma gets votes and Romney doesn't have any by the standards of the majority. He's also ridiculously gaffe prone. You should always tailor your remarks in a media savvy manner. As he's learned all too well, not doing so can come back to bite.

r sinkowitz, sorry, but I have no idea what your post was about; it's too disjointed and unclear.

Larry, I'm also saying that the polls are probably right, but not because of your reason, which is that Romney is a 'crap nominee' but because Obama has increased his voter base the four years he's been in office. Obama has increased two sets of dependents on government funding: the bureaucracy and the unemployed.

As for charisma in a president, I reject that as a quality. I'm uninterested in that as a value.

Indeed, Obama has charisma; that's all he has, that megawatt smile, the wave, the laugh. And the lies, the constant lies, the emotional manipulation, the lust for power, the contempt for Congress and the people, the refusal to work and face reality, the empty rhetoric.

I'm not interested in charisma, for someone with that quality usually has relied on that in his life - and charisma is a manipulative quality. I want someone as leader who rests within reality, the real world of facts, who doesn't rely on emotional manipulation, and who has a solid grasp of the key issues in the economy and world affairs. Obama is ignorant in these areas and too lazy and reliant on his charisma to bother learning anything - he leaves all that work to others.

Obama's father was a Muslim! Obama claims that he is not a Muslim! Why does he refuse to say/use the word “Terrorist” when Muslims are involved? We have had 3 acts of Terrorism since Obama took office; none are listed as such. Has Obama ever told the Truth about anything?

The Murder of our Ambassador was a terrorist act planned by the UN & executed by Muslims.

The Film is part of a UN game used to condemn our freedom of expression, Obama is a UN toad.

We need a President who is not a Muslim

Well, in one sense, I have to agree with Larry. Regardless of their respective records and positions, Obama won't win this election, but Romney seems to be working pretty hard at losing it. How many times can one man shoot himself in the foot?

Charisma may not make a good president, but it's key to electing anybody to the position. Without charisma, you're just poor ol' Bob Stanfield, arguably the best prime minister this country never had. Smart as a whip was Bob, good businessman, charming in small rooms, but he simply could not get elected because he had the charisma of a damp kleenex. Running him against Trudeau was like putting up a two-toed sloth against a rabid hyena. Pity, that.

My only objection to a very good article is that he didn't stress enough that huge numbers of people being polled simply aren't necessary for statistical accuracy. He's all around it, but too many comments have been posted on the net saying that there's no way just 1,500 people can provided an accurate answer. Not a complaint, because the article is indeed a good one, just a whistful dream that reality and science could be force-fed to some people.

You know who else is a really bad campaigner? Our prime minister. So it can be done.

Banks' deregulation that got Bush 1 into a mess (though his family benefited greatly...read, millions); and our forced cashing in of Natl. assets... then Bush 2 deregulating Wall Street, laws in place since the depression... do I really need to go on.

Ah you mean the deregulations that NEVER HAPPENED. Those ones. The ones you like to lie about?

If it's true that Libertarians are supporting Romney then it makes me sick. Romney is totally out of his element and basically doomed. Like a lost puppy. Voting for him is asinine and a total waste. Gary Johnson is superior in all ways and a high vote total for him would send a message to the GOP...if they're not to dense to get it.

If it's true that Libertarians are supporting Romney then it makes me sick.

Good. Maybe if you get sick enough you'll go into a fugue state and have an epiphany about realpolitik.

ET said, "I'm not interested in charisma, for someone with that quality usually has relied on that in his life - and charisma is a manipulative quality. I want someone as leader who rests within reality, the real world of facts, who doesn't rely on emotional manipulation, and who has a solid grasp of the key issues in the economy and world affairs." Well said. In my opinion Canada has a leader like that at the moment.

Romney needs to get a little fire in his belly.

LAS, unfortunately most Americans and Canadians do not subscribe to libertarian values, but prefer different levels of the nanny state.

That's true Ken. Libertarians can act as an electoral block however and gain leverage that way.

This poll has Obama up by 5 points, same as earlier this month. Must be more Dem oversampling from those Liberal bastards at...Fox news.

http://reason.com/24-7/2012/09/28/fox-poll-has-obama-ahead-by-5

It's really a moot point. We are screwed no matter who wins. Little faster if Obama wins, and the bottom of the gene pool seems to have the numbers. These are still the good times but the ruling elite seems to be running out of sunshine to pump up the electorates as*es.

Whether one likes it or not, the choices are as follows: Romney or another four and very disastrous years of Obama, the liar, coward and thief.

That's it and that's all.

Watch the debates. I hope Romney goes for the throat.

let's try that again.

Nice video, I've linked in.