CNN poll: Romney 53% Obama 45%

[_bcspace]

The latest CNN/ORC poll released today shows a wider lead for President Obama than the previous CNN/ORC poll but it is doubly skewed. It massively under-samples independents while it also over-samples Democratic voters. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll official reports Obama at 52 to percent and Mitt Romney at 46 percent. Unskewed, the data reveals a 53 percent to 45 percent lead for Romney.

This new CNN/ORC survey, unlike many other analyzed, not only over-samples Democratic voters, but also massively under-samples independent voters, to produce a result more favorable to Barack Obama. This survey's sample includes 397 registered Republicans and 441 registered Democrats. But the survey included a total of 822 registered voters, leaving only 37 independent voters at most. The survey clearly under-sampled independent and Republican voters.

Among the Democrats survey, 97 percent favored Obama while three percent support Romney. The Republicans surveys chose Romney by a 96 percent to two percent margin. Those margins display a high degree of party loyalty in each party for its candidate, which is plausible in a campaign like this one where both sides are focusing heavily on boosting turnout among their base. Independents, who are massively under-sampled in this survey, support Romney by a 54 percent to 40 percent margin.

The sample for the CNN/ORC poll includes 50.4 percent Democrats and 45.4 percent Republicans and appears to have only 4.2 percent independents. This means independents are under-sampled 25 percent while Democrats are over-sampled 12.1 percent. Both of those are larger variations in sampling than seen in most polls that are likewise skewed by such sampling variations.

Rasmussen Reports recent reporting of partisan trends among voters, based on tens of thousands of voters surveyed, showed the voting electorate made up of 35.4 percent Republicans, 34.0 percent Democrats and 30.5 percent “Unaffiliated” or independent voters. Clearly 6.5 percent of a sample as independents is a large under-sampling of those voters compared to 30.5 percent.

Unskewing this data to make up for the likely 25 percent under-sampling of independent voters shows the results are quite different. With the weightings of independents, Democrats and Republicans conducted by the Rasmussen numbers, this poll's data would indicate a Romney lead over Obama of 53 percent to 45 percent. That is almost exactly the reverse of the 52 percent to 46 percent lead it reports in favor of Obama. The sampling skew of this poll actually reverses the result that should be shown by the data.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-would-lead-eight-unskewed-data-from-newest-cnn-orc-poll

[_Brackite]

Gallup now has Obama at 50%, and it now has Romney at 44%. Obama is going to win the popular vote, but I don't know about the electoral college yet.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

[_moksha]

What's the current line in Las Vegas?

[_Quasimodo]

The top Republican pundits seem to be in full retreat.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-critics_n_1874573.html?ir=Media
Romney's problem is not that he is a Mormon. His problem is that he doesn't know who he is. He has no sense of self. No soul. Not unusual for the son of a famous and successful father. His lack of "self" is apparent in every speech he gives.

He might be likable enough as a guy you know down the street, but he is not likable as a Presidential candidate. Even the Republicans don't like him. The candidate that is most likable usually wins.

[_iamse7en]

Meh. What's the point.

[_Quasimodo]

Meh. What's the point.

I'm a little lost on what your point is. If you are saying that Paul is the best choice, it's a little late. The reason that Paul is not a candidate is that his positions are often overly simplistic and most people see that.

[_EAllusion]

1) Paul's positions being "simplistic" has basically nothing to do with his lack of the Republican nomination.

2) If Ron Paul is your guy, you have a perfectly respectable candidate in Gary Johnson to vote for. You won't get Paul's protectionism, but on the plus side you also don't get Paul's lunatic fringe (neoconfederates, dominionists, conspiracy survivalists, birchers, etc.) associations either.

[_Quasimodo]

1) Paul's positions being "simplistic" has basically nothing to do with his lack of the Republican nomination.

Maybe. I think Republicans find him on the fringe (even for them).

2) If Ron Paul is your guy, you have a perfectly respectable candidate in Gary Johnson to vote for. You won't get Paul's protectionism, but on the plus side you also don't get Paul's lunatic fringe (neoconfederates, dominionists, conspiracy survivalists, birchers, etc.) associations either.

Ron Paul is not my guy. Both he and his son seem a little confused to me. The only reason I might have a burning in my bosom for Johnson is that he might bleed a few votes from Romney (not many though).

[_EAllusion]

Maybe. I think Republicans find him on the fringe (even for them).

I'm sure that's true, but fringe and simplistic aren't even close to being synonyms. And "fringe" in this case shouldn't be taken to being out of the bounds of what's rationally plausible. It's not fringe to think Obama is a foreign crypto-Muslim. It is fringe to think the US shouldn't maintain a foreign military base in Germany. You also have to distinguish between what's fringe in party politics and what's fringe in the public arena. For instance, Paul advocates marijuana legalization, which is a suicidal position for a presidential candidate to have within both party's nomination processes, but currently enjoys a plurality of public support.

Ron Paul is not my guy. Both he and his son seem a little confused to me. The only reason I might have a burning in my bosom for Johnson is that he might bleed a few votes from Romney (not many though).

Hey, good news. A federal judge recently struck down the Obama admin's unconstitutional and deeply unethical attempts to restrict Guantanamo prisoners from lawyer access.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/us/ju ... .html?_r=2

In less good news, your preferred candidate is into that kind of thing while you probably imagine yourself to be on the side of civil rights.

[_krose]

Meh. What's the point.

Please feel free to write in Ron Paul, if that's your preference.

But I have a few questions about that chart if you are a Paul supporter...

- Does he really want to get rid of the IRS? If so, how are taxes to be collected? Surely that doesn't mean no taxes at all.

- No deficit spending at all? I realize it may have gotten too high in the last decade, but how is a modern economy supposed to function without the flexibility to spend more than it takes in now and then?

- I just read a Ron Paul definition of "corporatism," in which he says that corporations, while appearing to be privately owned, are really controlled by the government. That seems pretty far-fetched. If anything, it's the other way around.