"The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 16-26, 2012, among 2,508 adults, including 1,956 registered voters, finds that, in keeping with his favorability advantage, Obama continues to hold a sizable lead over Romney in the election contest. Currently, 51% say they support Obama or lean toward him, while 41% support or lean toward Romney."
I earned an 'A' in college statistics but I don't understand this polling.
If Democrats outnumber Republicans nationally wouldn't that explain the different party sample sizes?
Example: Democrats outnumber Republicans in Queens by probably a large number. If I conducted a random telephone poll of 1000 likely voters in Queens, wouldn't I have more Democrats in my population compared to Republicans? If I conducted a similar poll in Texas wouldn't Republicans be higher than Democrats?
Or is the 459 Republicans, 813 Democrats, 599 Independents intentionally skewed away too much from Republicans?
It is amazing. They even skew the pols to favor Dems. I think they are trying to cater to human nature liking to be part of a winner. So if they show people that Obama is winning, they think more people will want to vote for Obama. People like to be on the winning team.
Thankfully there are people fighting the good fight and pointing out the injustices.
Presidential election Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 7%.
Why does it change? We have down years and up years for political parties. 2008 was a major down year for Republicans. Eight years of Bush alongside the financial meltdown was a perfect storm of negativity. Many Republicans stayed home and the marginal ones may have jumped over to the other side. In addition in 2008 we had a surge in turnout by minorities and young people (18-24) that were sucked in to the Obama hope and change hype.
Current polling evidence suggests that this time will be different. The enthusiasm just isn't there for Obama anymore. Four years of "you didn't build that" politics have turned many people off. Unemployment has hurt young people and minorities disproportionately as well.
I still think the election will be close because incumbents tend to win. We've only had two incumbent Presidents get voted out of office in the past 70 years or so. One was Carter who was an awful president not unlike Obama. Even then its hard to compare because he ran against Reagan. Who knows what would have happened there if someone else challenged Carter. The next was Bush Senior. His situation was unusual because Perot came in and basically got 19% of the vote handing the election to Clinton.
More numbers fudging...
Beware the Jobs Report of July
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
The American economy almost certainly shed more than a million jobs last month, just as it does every July. But that’s not the “jobs number” that will get most of the attention when the Bureau of Labor Statistics speaks Friday morning.
No, the number we care about will be much smaller. Indeed, it is very likely to be modestly positive. And that is because of something called “seasonal adjustment.”
Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the number of jobs based on a survey of businesses. Then it adjusts the number to eliminate recurring fluctuations — such as from teachers going on summer break — so long-term trends are more visible.
In June, for example, the bureau estimated that the economy added 391,000 jobs. But the headline number, after seasonal adjustment, was just 80,000 jobs.
This is a good and important idea. But right now we have a problem: Some economists believe economic turbulence has disrupted the calibration of those adjustments, undermining the accuracy of the bureau’s estimates.
Federal Reserve officials have cited doubts about the accuracy of the monthly jobs number as one reason for their uncertainty about the health of the economy.
As my colleague Floyd Norris explained last month, one possible distortion that has arisen in recent years, thanks to the weakness of the economy, is that “seasonal adjustments make things look better than they are in the winter, when fewer workers are being let go than the government expects, and worse in the spring and summer, when the workers who were not let go cannot be rehired.”
The issue will loom particularly large on Friday, because the report for July is annually adjusted by a larger amount than for any other month save January, when holiday workers lose their jobs.
In the last 10 July jobs reports, dating back to 2002, the agency has added an average of 1.33 million jobs to its original estimate. Last year, for example, the agency estimated that payrolls declined by 1.3 million jobs in July, but it reported a seasonally adjusted increase of 96,000 jobs.
That places a huge premium on the accuracy of the adjustment: A 5 percent error in the adjustment would have shifted the reported total last July by two-thirds.
And even in the best of times, the bureau’s estimates are rarely that accurate.
The government has estimated an average change of 149,700 jobs in the last 10 July jobs reports, but it has since revised those estimates by an average of 92,900 jobs per year. In other words, the initial estimate is generally off by about 62 percent.
In three of those 10 years — 2002, 2003 and 2007 — the agency wasn’t even correct about whether the economy gained or lost jobs.
So take Friday’s report with a measure of caution.
And one more thing: The other headline number, the unemployment rate, is derived from a separate household survey. It’s also adjusted seasonally. And it has its own problems. But that’s a blog post for another month.
November can't get here soon enough.
Obama is a dog period!
There's a question that keeps popping up in CBS/New York Times polls, and the recurring answer should frighten President Barack Obama and his supporters.
The question goes something like this: Do you think Barack Obama's policies on the economy are improving it now; will improve it if given more time; or will never improve it? And the answer that has come up all four times — in a national poll and in polls of three swing states — is that Obama's policies will never improve the economy.
It first came up in a mid-July CBS/NYT national poll, in which 46 percent of those surveyed said his policies would never help the economy.
The results were even more damning in a Quinnipiac/CBS/NYT poll of the swing states Virginia, Wisconsin and Colorado. In all three states, the majority of voters chose that option. In Colorado, a majority (51 percent) said his policies would never help the economy.
Americans will vote head-to-head in November, and a large part of their decision will come on Obama's existing economic policies vs. Romney's planned policies.
The polls show that Obama still has some advantages on handling the economy — for example, voters think his policies favor a more even spread of income groups, compared with 51 percent that think Romney's favor the rich.
Obama's policies also still get less of the blame than George W. Bush. Moreover, a Reuters poll Wednesday found that voters still think Obama would do a better job than Romney creating jobs and boosting the economy.
But after three-plus years and with a still-sluggish economy, voters have lost a lot of optimism in those policies.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...#ixzz238VnXp3V
My totally SUBJECTIVE take on this election.
I am conservative and dislike Obama a great deal.
BUT, he will be re-elected with some ease. It pains me to say it but Romney is not strong enough to sway the middle ground.
Most importantly, the American people (who are not that bright as a group) are getting used to freebies. Almost half pay no tax and want to beat the more well to do. They want their laziness to pay off.
Further, health care. A good sized segment will get health care because "if you can't afford it, don't worry, the gov will pay".
Unemployment doesn't matter. 8.3% is nothing. Most of those couldn't care less. If it was 13.3% - another matter.
Plus Obama is a rock star. People like that. Plus someone who will take care of them because they are not able (willing) to get it done on their own.
I don's see that happening PD. Most people don't know anything about Romney at the moment. They haven't tuned in to this election. By contrast everyone knows what Obama is about. He is polling in the 46-47% range. That is the baseline bottom for any Democrat. The question at the moment is who will grab the 9% of undecideds.
The numbers are tricky. I have been analyzing each poll as it comes out. The biggest issue for Romney is with Hispanics. Barack's pandering alongside some hard line positions taken by Romney in the primaries have skewed Latinos away from Romney. He needs to recapture some of those votes. Regardless the race is tied right now and Romney should get a bump from the GOP Convention and VP pick.
On the plus side when you analyze the polls we find that Romney is up by 10 points with independents. Democrats and Republicans are both 90-10 for "their guy". The math is simple from there. Add in a move by undecideds to Romney and there you have it. It seems to me that anyone planning to vote for Obama would have already made that decision.
I hope I am wrong for the country's sake. Financially Obama is a catastrophe. From a "character" perspective he is also bad. He is encouraging laziness rather than hard work.