Polls can be valid but I would suggest this is not a valid poll as there is
nothing solid to pin the data on. If they are disputed and new states, then the
statistical information is few a far between. The Chicago group will come
someone whose numbers support their candidate. The President is out with his
own campaign advertisements about 90 days earlier than any other in-office
President as he knows his numbers are solid, as last time, when he snuffed
Hilliary Clinton out of the race and went on his Hope and Change campaign. His
economic policies have failed with the Secretary of the Treasury who can't
even figure out his own taxes. Geithner is a puppet and knows how to repeat
what he is told to say. We have been waiting for 3 1/2 years for a policy and
an Obama Budget to get through the process on his own. If people want to have
more of the same from this President, we will be deeper in debt and the middle
class will be thrown into the pond without a paddle nor a life-preserver. Hope
for a change is what we want.
Disputed Poll Results = The poll didn't show the numbers we wanted it
to.Nothing new here. If a poll shows Mitt close or on top,
it's a sign of the tide turning, a hint of his chances to be President.If a poll shows the President in the lead, which the vast majority of
polls are currently showing, they are biased and should be discounted.Funny thing was those same biased polls all showed Obama with a 5-6 point lead
running up to the 2008 election. He ended up winning by 7.2%. Guess they
weren't really that biased after all.
Earlier this week, Romney declared he'd let a renewable energy tax
incentive expire while campaigning in Iowa -- another major gaffe in a state
that gets over 20 percent of its electricity from wind energy, and wind is a
significant part of the state's overall economy benefiting farmers (land
leases) and manufacturing in the region. He said this, obviously,
to appeal to his right-wing, Koch-financed base, but all it has done is spark
criticisms from GOP governors and congressional members where wind is booming in
their states -- from Iowa, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. Romney has
essentially lost Colorado given that the battleground state has several wind
turbine manufacturers, and the loss of the tax credit will hurt future wind
development and jobs.What Romney hasn't figured out yet is that
fossil fuels and nuclear have enjoyed massive federal subsidies for decades (for
drilling, pipelines, ports for oil imports, maintaining of nuke waste, etc.) --
and Romney hasn't announced any plans to eliminate any of those
subsidies... I guess the GOP's "all the above strategy" is really a
smoke screen for keeping America addicted to oil, coal, nuclear, and gas.
As they say, "Figures don't lie, but LIARS do figure."
Roland KayserCottonwood Heights, UT,We the employer need to
see the employee's transcript.The chick-fil-a poll puts
Romney in the lead.
To A1994: Obama has indeed released 10 years of tax returns. NO presidential
candidate has ever released college transcripts, so that is not an issue. Bush
Jr.'s were leaked, which is not the same thing.
The numbers don't make sense. No other poll has numbers even close to this
for any of those states. As far as Romney releasing his taxes for the last 10
years, why? Did Obama release 10 years of his taxes? I know he has never
released his college transcripts.
How about next time you write an article with several polls that cover the
political spectrum. Other sites have Penn, Ohio and Florida as
Social security and health care for all is being targeted by republicans so this
polling makes sense. Republicans are more likely to direct money towards tax
cuts for the wealthy and the military.I am very pro national defense
but if we back on our military we are less likely to jump into I'll
concieved wars because we won't delude ourselves that victory will be so
easy.Our money is better spent paying down the debt for now.
I still wonder why so many people are willing to vote for somebody who has
proven to be a failure in dealing with the economy, especially since that is the
The concept here is to be accurate. Not to be something you believe in with your
feelings or bias or to be led to believe because of misleading data. Garbage in
garbage out.That's the difference.
"...conservative skeptics were quick to point out that the polls...may be
highly unrealistic...".I, too, only believe in polls that
support my bias.Don't we all?
Oversampling?No different than push-polling to achieve desired results.
re:atl134Your memory is a bit fuzzy I'm afraid. I recall Nancy
Pelosi "laughing" at the notion of losing her speakership. Remember
that?? Also - please don't pretend to suggest that the GOP landslide was
foreseen by your dem's and liberal media - It WASN'T!. I still
remember the 'shock factor' from Obama after the results rolled in as
well as the 'silent' Obama media. finally - Chick-Fil-A is
most certainly a mood indicator for your rainbow pres!!!!
@ECR and others:Facts are facts, regardless of who first reported them.
Check them for yourself if you'd like. This poll is only valid if
Democrats are far more likely to vote than they were in 2008 and Republicans
even less so than in 2008. Does anyone see that happening?
The major media outlets in this country are left, no doubt about it. I quit
believing polls. I quit reading articles that praise one politician and slam
another. As you read articles or hear reports from any media outlet whose
articles are consistently positive toward one candidate and negative toward the
other, then it is time to walk away. When the Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Pres.
Obama, I said then and there I would never subscribe to that newspaper. Not that
I cared who they endorsed and not because of the candidate they endorsed, but
because I knew that no one running against him would get a fair shot from them.
The media needs to report the news and stay out of politician endorsement.The
polls that are out now are of no real significance supporting either side. The
only time they will mean anything will be after election day. Up until then I
pay no heed to media propaganda.
@patriot"I remember before the 2010 mid-terms the Obama media (CNN,
NBC, CBS, ABC) all predicted democrat victories nation wide"I
remember that the Democrats were predicted to lose the house and possibly lose
the senate. The house projection underestimated how much they lost by about a
dozen or so seats and the senate projections were pretty much right on, that
Republicans failed to take the senate because they ran some fringe candidates
like O'Donnell and Angle. As far as I'm concerned, you're
questioning projections that I don't think were made by any sizable number
of people/organizations/networks."If you want to see the real
mood of the country check out the support for Chick-fil-A."Yeah
I get it, a lot of people don't like gay people. That doesn't tell me
The top one half of one percent can only vote once for their tax breaks. If
Governor Romney did not pay any taxes for some years, he can get 80percent of
the super wealthy.
Hey, thanks Mitt!You and your staff keep up your great, goofy work!
I remember before the 2010 mid-terms the Obama media (CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC) all
predicted democrat victories nation wide and all the polls show tight races with
the democrat candidate slightly ahead for the most part.... and then came the
actual election which ended up a GOP landslide. So much for polls...If you want to see the real mood of the country check out the support for
Chick-fil-A. This support translates into an ANGRY public against democrats and
liberal policy ... especially Obama... or as Newsweek showed on its silly cover
This article reminds me of the scene from Citizen Kane. Kane's newspaper
prepares two headlines for his run for Governor. The first says "KANE
ELECTED", the second says "FRAUD AT POLLS."
Mountainman - Jim Geraghty of the National Review is not really the "Fair
and Balanced" source you are looking for, is he? It is stunning how quickly
the Deseret News and Mr. Shultz have responded to this news as a "disputed
poll". It seems that when a poll is taken from likely voters, like this one
was, instead of a poll taken of just registered to vote, it should be more
accurate. But, of course, after long search the DN has managed to scrounge up
some commenter who will dispute anything that favors Obama. Mr. Romney would do
well to come clean with the contents of his tax returns over the past ten years
and maybe some folks who now doubt him will turn their opinion. Or maybe not.
Republicans find this sort of turnout estimate to be unreasonable because it
doesn't account for their strong voter suppression efforts targeting blacks
and hispanics through modern-era poll taxes.
“So these are some really heavily Democrat samples." In other words,
this poll is worthless!