Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Relying on a Newsmax poll would be like relying on a poll run by The Daily Kos, another web-oriented "news" organization as far to the left as Newsmax is to the right.

Newsmax Media is a conservative American news media organization founded by Christopher W. Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It operates the news website Newsmax.com and publishes Newsmax magazine. It is described as one of the top ranked websites for conservative political news in the United States.

Ruddy started Newsmax.com on September 16, 1998, supported by a group of politically conservative investors. The Financial Times reported that Newsmax.com is "one of the strongest conservative voices online".

Have no doubt about that...what is your point ???????

The person who started this thread and any other posts did not seem to take it very seriously !

What is it that you are trying to convey here ? I will be sure to email Newsmax and cancel any subscriptions you have there, and what polls do you trust (Personally, especially at this point in the "game" I put very little trust in PUBLIC polls)

Originally Posted by Bucco

You are correct of course, but I spent the greater part of my life working in politics and it has become sort of a habit to keep involved and keep "my ear to the ground".

One thing I know....you never ever know what will happen in any election.

I know of what you speak however....some on here are absolute slaves to the party lines and their point of view. Despite my loathing of what Obama stands for, I have and will support many Democratic plans.(not the "progressive" plans)..though the last 3 years, our President has stalled the country with a total lack of leadership. So sick of him blaming congress when he should be leading....from what I hear publicly and privately, he doesnt even speak to the Democrats.

Bucco why would Obama bother speaking with fellow Democats when he has the counsel of Michelle and Valerie Jarrett. And by the way the term "progressive" in this case is a misnomer. The liberal left more appropriately ought to be called "regressives" Liberals hve become snobs and actually believe that they are the intelligentsia and as such defined any opinions or suggestions by the masses is of no consequence. It certainly explains why they are so cluless or detached from the masses on so many important issues. This attitude is hurting all of us unnecessarily. It also explains why political correctness makes sense to them. It explains why 62% of voters believe we are still in a recession and why Obama believes the priate sector isdoing fine...........................................

Originally Posted by rubicon

Bucco why would Obama bother speaking with fellow Democats when he has the counsel of Michelle and Valerie Jarrett. And by the way the term "progressive" in this case is a misnomer. The liberal left more appropriately ought to be called "regressives" Liberals hve become snobs and actually believe that they are the intelligentsia and as such defined any opinions or suggestions by the masses is of no consequence. It certainly explains why they are so cluless or detached from the masses on so many important issues. This attitude is hurting all of us unnecessarily. It also explains why political correctness makes sense to them. It explains why 62% of voters believe we are still in a recession and why Obama believes the priate sector isdoing fine...........................................

In my opinion, you are on the brink here......first of all I put "progressive" in quotes in my post to make the point you are making.

But most importantly, I think one of the most serious flaws of this President and this administration is counsel taken. He does rely heavily on the two you mentioned and as you recall many of the Chicago crowd was with him at the beginning.

All Presidents have "go to" folks....ALL of them. I think this President is so reliant on them because of his own insecurities....he knows he is over his head and when you feel that way, you hang on to only the most trusted. If you know you are on the right track, you go forward with great confidence.

He does not feel confident with many folks beyond his magic group....of course I am talking about confidence as a basic element but confident as you are in your job and your duties.

He would probably have made quite a good senator on balance.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Correct. Republicans gave us George W Bush, the worst president in US history and Richard M Nixon, the only president forced to resign.

wrong - democrats got bush elected for failing to get more votes out to the polls!

polls are simply fodder for debate/comment/one-upmanship and cannot be taken seriously! we are all old enough to know and smart enough to accept the fact that the only polls that count are the ones that are open on election day!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

polls are simply fodder for debate/comment/one-upmanship and cannot be taken seriously! we are all old enough to know and smart enough to accept the fact that the only polls that count are the ones that are open on election day!

For a Jersey girl, pretty shrewd observation !!!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

polls are simply fodder for debate/comment/one-upmanship and cannot be taken seriously! we are all old enough to know and smart enough to accept the fact that the only polls that count are the ones that are open on election day!

That is the typical spiel of those candidates - and their followers - who are trailing badly. McBush repeated it at least a thousand times in '08.

How badly is Willard trailing? Glad you asked ....... Obama can lose Florida (where he and Willard are currently tied) AND Ohio - and he would still win reelection.

Originally Posted by coralway

That is the typical spiel of those candidates - and their followers - who are trailing badly. McBush repeated it at least a thousand times in '08.

How badly is Willard trailing? Glad you asked ....... Obama can lose Florida (where he and Willard are currently tied) AND Ohio - and he would still win reelection.

Allow me to give you a short lesson on polls !!!

Polls to candidates are RELATIVE and based on projections.

Do you think that Obama figured he would be ahead at this point in the polls, being the incumbent and no primary fight ? Yes he sure did.

Do you think that Romney figured to be trailing at this point in the polls, just coming off a primary ? Yes, he sure did.

NOW....do you think either Obama or Romney figured it would be this close AT THIS TIME.....no way. Romney figured maybe a slight bump but nothing like this...Obama figured that slight bump also, but then back to his lead and Romney needs to really come on.

At this point, and this can change....Romney is a steamroller and Obama knows it. This all may change but getting your self all excited at this point is fruitless and means nothing. They are all relative to when, etc and right now using the professional method of reading them, Romney is on fire.

Now, as I said that may change but give it a break...geez, the governor of West Virginia, a Dem says he is not even going to the convention...he is not liking Romney much but that is how he is leaning an he is snubbing the Presidents convention. The guy who seconded the nomination of Obama at the convention in 2008, not only is not voting for Obama, he has left the party !

It is too early but all trends right now favor Romney...not the raw numbers as you say......but trust me, Obama has a serious problem right now.

He can change it, but his little stunt this week has really really hurt him...it will become in the next weeks and on, an economic issue and not social as seen now.

His saviour could be Russia, you know the guys that do not count..or didnt when Romney mentioned them. If Obama can control Russia on Syria, etc and make some headway in the ME, he can get back in the game but that he must do to survive. If the ME goes down as it is leaning, he has a big time problem, but even that could be an advantage to Obama depending on how well he handles it.

Originally Posted by coralway

That is the typical spiel of those candidates - and their followers - who are trailing badly. McBush repeated it at least a thousand times in '08.

How badly is Willard trailing? Glad you asked ....... Obama can lose Florida (where he and Willard are currently tied) AND Ohio - and he would still win reelection.

coralway, my one hit wonder, if obama loses florida and ohio he will NOT win reelection!

Excellent political projection on a state by state basis for the election.

Read and heed. By the way, this was current as of 6/18/12.

2012 Presidential Electoral Map | Huffington Post 2012 Election Dashboard

Originally Posted by Bucco

Have no doubt about that...what is your point ???????

The person who started this thread and any other posts did not seem to take it very seriously !

What is it that you are trying to convey here ? I will be sure to email Newsmax and cancel any subscriptions you have there, and what polls do you trust (Personally, especially at this point in the "game" I put very little trust in PUBLIC polls)

I don't trust any of the political polls completely. I've taken quite a few courses in advanced statistics and I know how poll results can vary based on who is sampled, where they live, their demographics, the size of the sample, when they are sampled, and many other factors. Probably the biggest factor effecting the accuracy of political polls is the time between when the poll is taken and when the election is actually held. Lots of people can change their minds. Political polling is done so frequently because it's like shooting at a moving target.

I generally watch polls run by major news organizations or professional market research companies. But I accept none of them individually. Rather, I try to get the "drift" of things. The better ones come up with results reasonably close to one another, but all have a margin or error that would win or lose a close election. (That's lousy polling by the way. It's done that way because it would be way too expensive to design and conduct a poll with a 1/2% or less margin of error.)

A properly designed poll of a proper statistical size should not have a "margin of error" of 3-4%. Political polls measure a moving target, of course...how voters feel on a given day long before the election about a candidate or a question. If you wanted to actually pick a candidate that was the true statistical choice of the majority of the country, or state, you could do it without actually holding an election. Probably with less error than actually occurs in polling places and counting votes throughout the country. Remember the hanging chads? The key variable there would be sample size and conducting the poll at pretty much an exact point in time. But of course, none of the candidates or political parties would accept an election result based on a poll run by even the best, most apolitical statisticians anyone could find. I guess on election day, that's why you vote in polling places.

When a poll like Newsmax comes out with a plurality of 65% for one candidate when all the other polls are showing it to be a close election, there's no sense even considering it. It was either ill-conceived or the polling was purposely done to achieve a certain result. I suspect that was true of the Newsmax poll. In that I don't read Newsmax (nor do I read The Daily Kos), I have no idea how their poll tracks with their editorial agenda. But I can guess.

That's my point, Bucco.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don't trust any of the political polls completely. I've taken quite a few courses in advanced statistics and I know how poll results can vary based on who is sampled, where they live, their demographics, the size of the sample, when they are sampled, and many other factors. Probably the biggest factor effecting the accuracy of political polls is the time between when the poll is taken and when the election is actually held. Lots of people can change their minds. Political polling is done so frequently because it's like shooting at a moving target.

I generally watch polls run by major news organizations or professional market research companies. But I accept none of them individually. Rather, I try to get the "drift" of things. The better ones come up with results reasonably close to one another, but all have a margin or error that would win or lose a close election. (That's lousy polling by the way. It's done that way because it would be way too expensive to design and conduct a poll with a 1/2% or less margin of error.)

A properly designed poll of a proper statistical size should not have a "margin of error" of 3-4%. Political polls measure a moving target, of course...how voters feel on a given day long before the election about a candidate or a question. If you wanted to actually pick a candidate that was the true statistical choice of the majority of the country, or state, you could do it without actually holding an election. Probably with less error than actually occurs in polling places and counting votes throughout the country. Remember the hanging chads? The key variable there would be sample size and conducting the poll at pretty much an exact point in time. But of course, none of the candidates or political parties would accept an election result based on a poll run by even the best, most apolitical statisticians anyone could find. I guess on election day, that's why you vote in polling places.

When a poll like Newsmax comes out with a plurality of 65% for one candidate when all the other polls are showing it to be a close election, there's no sense even considering it. It was either ill-conceived or the polling was purposely done to achieve a certain result. I suspect that was true of the Newsmax poll. In that I don't read Newsmax (nor do I read The Daily Kos), I have no idea how their poll tracks with their editorial agenda. But I can guess.

That's my point, Bucco.

I understand what you are posting here !

My question was only asked because we have some folks who cite polls of varying sources all the time, and never once have I seen you even comment on them. It just seemed that THIS poll, for some reason got your attention.

Not only do I not trust the polls, I think they mean very very little at this point.

But, my post was intended only to find why this particular poll got your attention so much. It seemed as if you were the only one who took it very seriously !!!