Unskewed poll results at www.unskewedpolls.com

Quote from charles052 : Of what exactly? The man is extremely intelligent and he knows how gullible Obama voters are. It's not really rocket science since there are morons that are going to vote for him because they think he got them free cell phones, "Obamaphones' to be precise. He's a man who simply knows the golden rule of politics: Never underestimate the power of... *ahem*... 'naive' people in large groups.

Quote from 124nic8 : If he's so intelligent, why does he keep putting his foot in his mouth when he reveals his disdain for the unwashed masses? Not everyone bows to worship accumulators of great wealth.

Quote from charles052 : You need to stay on track here. Neither myself, nor my friend, are politicians. So I can reveal as much disdain for anyone I want.

You need to stay on track. The subject was Rmoney's intelligence, not what random internet posters can reveal.

Quote : Actually, I do know what it takes to get elected if your one of the big 2. A really good poker face, the ability to lie constantly with a straight face, and a complete lack of a conscience.

If that were all it takes, Rmoney would be a shoe in.

Quote from charles052 : Actually, you said it best: I've observed.

What have you observed?

Quote : It's been rebuked. Just accept it and move on. Spewing out more BS isn't going to change that.

Since it has not been refuted, I'll keep on trying to educate you about the difference.

Quote from 124nic8 : You need to stay on track. The subject was Rmoney's intelligence, not what random internet posters can reveal.

No, the subject was my friend's intelligence. I see now why you've posted the way you have. No biggie. Easy enough mistake to make since my post that you responded to didn't specify who I was talking about.

Quote : If that were all it takes, Rmoney would be a shoe in.

Not with so much competition, he isn't. Obama is just as good if not better.

Quote from 124nic8 : What have you observed?

Dude, I'm not going to write out a 20 page post here on slickdeals.

Quote : Since it has not been refuted, I'll keep on trying to educate you about the difference.

Ah... denile.

Quote from charles052 : No, the subject was my friend's intelligence. I see now why you've posted the way you have. No biggie. Easy enough mistake to make since my post that you responded to didn't specify who I was talking about.

OK, I see now you were talking about your friend.

Quote : Not with so much competition, he isn't. Obama is just as good if not better.

So it takes a lot more then....

Quote : Dude, I'm not going to write out a 20 page post here on slickdeals.

How about just the observations that convince you "the powers that be" control election results?

Quote : Ah... denile.

No, reality. Polling = collecting data = scientific methodology when done according to proven principles.

Quote from charles052 : No, the subject was my friend's intelligence.

Your friend's intelligence level is not an appropriate subject for this forum. Kindly adhere to the forum rules so that legitimate topics of debate can remain unmolested.

Quote from Radeck : Almost every single poll number that is published oversamples democrats, some by ridiculous margins of 11% or more, because they ASSUME there are more democrat voters than republicans, which is a false assumption. enter www.unskewedpolls.com that takes said polls, and recalculates the numbers to unskew the results, giving a strikingly different result...

Did you notice that they don't explain how they "unskewed" the results? They just added 10 or 15 points to Romney. That doesn't "unskew", it re-skews.

The polls published their data and their methods. The Un-Skewer does not. So all you know is he added 10 or 15 points to Romney, which is not scientific or based in any fact.

Quote from Radeck : Almost every single poll number that is published oversamples democrats, some by ridiculous margins of 11% or more, because they ASSUME there are more democrat voters than republicans, which is a false assumption. enter www.unskewedpolls.com that takes said polls, and recalculates the numbers to unskew the results, giving a strikingly different result... Code: UnSkewed Polling Data Monday, September 24, 2012 11:01:07 AM Poll Date Sample MoE Obama(D) Romney(R) Spread UnSkewed Avg. 9/4 - 9/20 -- -- 44.0 51.8 Romney +7.8 Reason/Rupe 9/13 - 9/17 787 LV 4.3 45.0 52.0 Romney +7 Reuters/Ipsos 9/12 - 9/20 1437 LV 2.9 44.0 54.0 Romney +10 NBC News/WSJ 9/12 - 9/16 736 LV 3.6 44.0 51.0 Romney +7 Monmouth Univ. 9/13 - 9/16 1344 LV 2.5 45.0 50.0 Romney +5 QStarNews 9/10 - 9/15 2075 3.0 44.0 55.0 Romney +11 NY Times/CBS News 9/8 - 9/12 1162 LV 3.0 44.0 51.0 Romney +7 Democracy Corps 9/8 - 9/12 1000 LV 3.1 43.0 52.0 Romney +8 Fox News 9/9 - 9/11 1056 LV 3.0 45.0 48.0 Romney +3 Wash. Post/ABC News 9/7 - 9/9 826 LV 4.0 45.0 52.0 Romney +7 CNN/ORC 9/7 - 9/9 875 RV 3.5 45.0 53.0 Romney +8 IBD/CSM/TIPP 9/4 - 9/9 808 RV 3.5 41.0 50.0 Romney +9 ARG 9/4 - 9/6 1200 LV 3.0 43.0 53.0 Romney +10 http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09...wed-polls/

Are you a Ron Paul conspiracy theorist too?

Quote from 124nic8 : What have you observed? Since it has not been refuted, I'll keep on trying to educate you about the difference.

The sheople don't want all that fancy edication malarkey. Them scientific facks don't mean nuthin to them.

At this point in 2010, I don't think that anybody, including Karl Rove, Dick Morris or whomever the liberals absolutely loathe at any given moment, was predicting the shellacking that the democrats would get in November.

I think most everyone agreed that it would be a historic loss for Democrats and they would certainly lose the house, but not as badly as they did.

And of course ol' Joe said that the Democrats would shock the hell out of everybody in November 2010.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010...body-in-t/

Quote from Rebound : Did you notice that they don't explain how they "unskewed" the results? They just added 10 or 15 points to Romney. That doesn't "unskew", it re-skews. The polls published their data and their methods. The Un-Skewer does not. So all you know is he added 10 or 15 points to Romney, which is not scientific or based in any fact.

Most of the polls are oversampling Democrats and assuming 2008 or better turnouts for dems.

But, if you're surprised by the results in November, blame the pollsters and remember this thread. However, I'm sure you're just laughing at this thread now as I hope you will be in November.

Gallup senior editor was on NPR and said "our weighing system comes from those who are 'leaning' towards a certain candidate, and doesnt weigh based entirely on those who identify as registered democrats/republicans"

HTH for the conspiracy theorists out there.

In 2008, when Obama was elected with the largest plurality in 20 tears, the GOP immediately invoked the "standing filibuster" on everything down to lowly procedural votes, effectively transforming our government from majority rule to super-majority rule.

What will the GOP do to thwart the will of the electorate if they lose a couple Senate seats this time around? Maybe the super-filibuster, which will require an ultra-majority to overcome? lol

The whole attitude projected by talk radio celebrities and Fox News fosters a rigid belief that only far-right views are correct and that any compromise will result in the destruction of the universe. This latest in a loooong string of faux conspiracies just strikes me as a delusional salve to keep heads from exploding. I don't know how they'll respond after November 6th. Where, and upon whom, will the leaders of the far-right direct their followers anger for the next 4 years?

We need a poll on funniest thread of the month.

Bumped for amusement purposes come 11/6. The website's "final projection" is claiming that "Mitt Reagan" will win 54% of the PV and 356 EV!