Well googling it looks that those complaints center around Gallup’s expectation of a much smaller minority turn out than in 2008. Minority portends less likely voter even though the other criteria for likely voter are applicable.
Hard to know if that is a methodological fault or not.
I don’t see Gallup polls of individual battleground states. And at least IMHO, the idea of averaging a bunch of different states together, battleground or otherwise, leaves a lot to be desired.
For example (I know that these aren’t all the Gallup battleground states, but I’m simplifying here) if you average together Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, you’ll find Obama with a very slender lead. But what it really looks like is Obama beating up on Romney in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia, Romney ahead in NC, and Obama with a tenuous lead in FL. And if Obama slips by a couple of points in all of these states by election day, what happens? He’s ‘behind’ in the battleground states on average, but what matters is that he still wins OH, WI, and VA which gets him up to 278.
It doesn’t help Romney to win an average of the battleground states, when what he really has to do is win almost all of them. And if he manages to pull that off, he’ll probably have to be ahead in Gallup’s battleground average by 4-5% to do that. So Obama’s ahead in that silly average from the POV of winning the election, even if he’s arithmetically a point or two behind in it. And if he’s arithmetically in a narrow lead, he’s way ahead from the winning-the-election perspective.
What’s important, in our screwy system, is the polls of individual states. The reason I’m optimistic is that Obama seems on the verge of wrapping up Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia, which will get him over the top.
True. If Obama could trade 100,000 votes in New York for 50,000 votes in Ohio, he’d do it in a heartbeat.
I am quite willing to give all of Obama’s Texas votes in exchange for Romney’s VA votes. 
I’ve been saying for a long time that nothing has changed so nothing new can be said.
But now I have proof.
Realclearpolitics.com’s No toss up state map.
It’s now at 332 Obama, Romney 206. Which is what it was on September 2. And August 12. And July 29. State for state identical.
Too early to say that Romney has lost or too obvious and too late?
Early voting has begun in some states. With the absolutely horrid week Romney has had, and people talking about the 47% instead of anything else, and Romney releasing his tax returns to stem the freefall, can I say that this is the worst time for Romney for early voting? People will likely be voting with his dumbass video in mind, and then its too late: nothing Romney can say or Obama can say would be able to take those votes back
Thank you for the explanation. Is there any speculation why these tracking polls are giving different results than the "snapshot"polls?
Rasmussen’s is explained by only calling landlines and using robocalls. No one’s figured out what the deal with Gallup is yet. At first glance, it looks like they are using the same methods most pollsters use, just getting different results.
But one thing they’ve got going for them, they use a bigger sample size than anybody else.
My conservative cousin was unhappy with Romney to begin with and is now openly wondering if Perry wouldn’t have been a better choice. Fewer people would be holding their nose, he’d do better with hispanics and he had nowhere to go but up.
cite?
Can Romney trade some votes in Utah for votes in Viginia?
Romney was the best candidate next to John Huntsman. Anyone else would have done far worse. Actually, they did. they ran against Romney and actually led him at one point, but then failed in the end. Cain, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum.
I fail to see the appeal to Huntsman. If he couldn’t get anyone to vote for him in the primaries, what would have been his chances in the general?
While it might be a bit early for a postmortem, I’ll join in.
Firstl doing worse in the primaries is not the same as doing worse in the general. But sure, of that bunch he was possibly the least poor candidate they had. Huntsman as you said, and maybe Pawlenty, could possibly have made better general election candidates. The GOP primaries had quantity but not much quality. Most of the others would indeed be much worse off at the this point.
Why is that do you think? Obama has a still weak economy, a health reform law with a public relations problem (it’s to my mind excellence being irrelevant to how the public thinks of it over all), and going into the season a Democratic base that had been bemoaning their disillusionment … a solid candidate should be trouncing him, no?
Personally I’m thinking that a GOP candidate has a difficult needle to thread. They have got to try to prove to the base that they are no compromise “true conservatives” - in ways that to some mean various approaches to fiscal conservative cutting government spending rhetoric and others mean social issues from being hard on illegals to anti-gay to anti-choice to prayer in school - and keep those people at least somewhat fired up into the general - but then also avoid firing up the other side against you too much and appeal to the key swing constincuencies, who want to see some compromise. And best yet, be inspirational in the process. Hard to pull off. A Huntsman who, as a general candidate would have accomplished the appeal to the middle and hit a sweet spot of being conservative enough that the base would still come out to vote against Obama but moderate enough to not inspire the other side to come out against him, had no hope of getting past hurdle one, convincing the base he was a no compromise true conservative in all those ways.
Assume the loss, what do they do from here?
A sure sign that your campaign isn’t going well is when the campaign manager insists that the national polls should be ignored. Obama’s campaign manager just did that very thing. (Link)
Many Democrat leaders have tried to shake the party faithful from their complacency by warning that this election is not a foregone conclusion but will be a tough fight. To little avail though. As with the liberals on this board, Democrats nationwide believe that it’s almost impossible for Obama to be beaten. Let them continue to so believe, it helps the Republicans no end.
See my post in another threadfor a link and discussion of an article addressing the Gallup house effect.
I give you and the other conservatives credit for continuing to post in the “Elections” forum. Most of us tend to lose heart, and interest, when we see our team spiraling the drain.
You have heard of a little thing called the Electoral College, right? That’s what Messina is talking about here. Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the words in your linky thing? Or were you just going off the headline?
The problem that all of the Republicans have is that their party has gone so far to the right they are finally out of touch with the mainstream. This was a poor field of candidates, but if you think about it, Huckabee, Rubio, Jeb Bush, whomever, would have the same problem if they were running. Plus, poor Jeb Bush, I dont think anyone who is not a fanatic is going to associate the name “Bush” with anything good for a long, long time.
This can’t be serious, can it? Have you even been reading the posts in this forum for the past year? A bunch of us have been screaming that the only thing that matters are the handful of swing states. We’ve been saying this for a year or more. That’s exactly what is being said in the article.
The only political reality is that talking about your strength in the national polls is a sure sign your campaign isn’t going well if you are behind in the swing state polls.
I don’t know if Huntsman was really serious about running in this election. More likely, he saw this as an opportunity to run an introductory campaign and get enough national exposure to run a serious campaign in 2016. He was probably hoping to accomplish what Santorum did.
Reminding people they shouldn’t get complacent because they’re so far in the lead is hardly a sign of a campaign that isn’t going well.
“Don’t stop believin’
Hold on to the feelin’”