Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816298-nbcwsj-poll-obama-romney-locked-in-tight-contest?lite

According to this poll, it's down to 4 percentage points with the gap narrowing.

Actually if you look at the sample, they underweighted Republicans in the poll.

Frazzled wrote:Actually if you look at the sample, they underweighted Republicans in the poll.

Undersampled, the poll isn't weighed.

I suspect 4 points is within the margin of error.

I thought Obama was consistantly ahead in the polls?

Joey wrote:I thought Obama was consistantly ahead in the polls?

Gallup trend shows a tight race. Currently tied.

It's going to be close. That is as long as he doesn't pull a McCain and pick a vp candidate that drives the voters right into Obama's camp.

Yea, I was actually a bit glad when McCain did that. I really didnt like either candidate but I seemed to disslike Obama a smidge less then McCain. This time around, I dunno, being from Michigan, Im not a big fan of Romney for things his companies have done in Michigan, but then again, Obama hasnt impressed me one bit. So I think his track record as a President is gak, so IMO, Romney cant really do any worse then how we are going right now

I hate both Romney and Obama. The trick now is deciding who do I hate less. Either way we're all hosed for another four years.

I know in Israel I saw a report about how Mossad has determined Obama will win, and their preliminary reports haven't been wrong since Kennedy vs Nixon.

The J00z have determined the victor.

Harriticus wrote:I know in Israel I saw a report about how Mossad has determined Obama will win, and their preliminary reports haven't been wrong since Kennedy vs Nixon.

The J00z have determined the victor.

Well, if I had money on the election, I would bet on Obama winning.

It all comes down to the electoral college, generic democratic candidate vs generic republican candidate is essentially a dead-heat because most states ALWAYS vote one way or the other, so only the 5-7 "swing" states have their greivences heard. *sigh*

Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

@Grakmar

If Romney is polling this high after all the rhetoric he spewed (sp?) to get the nomination it's likely his numbers are actually still low since he'll be swinging back to the middle as we get closer to November.

His VP candidate will have a lot to do with his chances as well. It saved Obama once (only Palin could look dumber than Biden) and it could again.

Seems appropriate. Mostly because I couldn't find the one of candidates Jack Johnson (Tastycrat Party) and John Jackson (Fingerlican Party) from the same episode.

Biden was a safe choice though. Other than being a US Prince Phillip at the mouth, he was fairly non-controversial as far as policies are concerned.

I would also not be surprised if we end up getting a new Democratic VP nominee.

d-usa wrote:Biden was a safe choice though. Other than being a US Prince Phillip at the mouth, he was fairly non-controversial as far as policies are concerned.

I would also not be surprised if we end up getting a new Democratic VP nominee.

Unlikely, as that will show extreme Obama weakness.

Grakmar wrote:He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

That is if Romney is slowing down now... Thanks to the Super PACs he has gakloads of money to waste on manipulating the general populace.

Here's a somewhat older graph (end of February) showing the amount of money the various candidates had at their disposal, as well as the most important individual donors. Sorry that it's in German, but at least the numbers are universal.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/us-wahlkampf-geld-regiert-die-politik-a-818483.html
Not on this list is the Super PAC "Anyone But Obama" and its $250 million dollar campaign.

Does anyone know what happens to Super PAC funds of candidates who are out of the race? Are they dissolved or would they be pooling their money? If it's the latter, Romney could kick off another wave just about now, couldn't he?

Well, since legally SuperPACs are not part of a campaign they can spend the money however they like.

Hulksmash wrote:It's going to be close. That is as long as he doesn't pull a McCain and pick a vp candidate that drives the voters right into Obama's camp.

If you think Palin hurt McCain in the general election then you weren't paying attention in 2008.

I suppose people are looking for a reason to excuse their vote for Obama ("I would've voted for McCain but for Palin..."), but without picking Palin, McCain would've lost in a landslide.

Polls don't mean a damn thing.

75% of americans agree, from recent polling.

biccat wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:It's going to be close. That is as long as he doesn't pull a McCain and pick a vp candidate that drives the voters right into Obama's camp.

If you think Palin hurt McCain in the general election then you weren't paying attention in 2008.

I suppose people are looking for a reason to excuse their vote for Obama ("I would've voted for McCain but for Palin..."), but without picking Palin, McCain would've lost in a landslide.

If 4 years after the fact you are still insisting that picking Sarah Palin as the Republican VP candidate was a good idea, then I have to truly applaud you for your dedication towards justifying everything the GOP has done.

I still think you are dead wrong on many subjects, but I will applaud such dedication to your convictions.

Grakmar wrote:Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

he's also lost the womens votes, and the gays. so he really doesn't stand a chance.

Sometimes I am ashamed to live in a place that driving a car is a “privilege” and voting is a right

sirlynchmob wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

he's also lost the womens votes, and the gays. so he really doesn't stand a chance.

The gay vote and the woman vote has been pretty strongly Democrat for quite a while now. They're not really in play this election.

Grakmar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

he's also lost the womens votes, and the gays. so he really doesn't stand a chance.

The gay vote and the woman vote has been pretty strongly Democrat for quite a while now. They're not really in play this election.

I think this may have been one election where the "gay vote" was not a sure thing for the democrats. There has been a lot of disappointment in the gay community about a perceived lack of efforts towards gay rights and equality despite DADT and such by Obama. So Obama had to do something to get that vote back. I don't think they would have voted for Romney, but they was a real risk of them staying home and not voting.

Grakmar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

he's also lost the womens votes, and the gays. so he really doesn't stand a chance.

The gay vote and the woman vote has been pretty strongly Democrat for quite a while now. They're not really in play this election.

You're right. No need for you to vote.

d-usa wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

he's also lost the womens votes, and the gays. so he really doesn't stand a chance.

The gay vote and the woman vote has been pretty strongly Democrat for quite a while now. They're not really in play this election.

I think this may have been one election where the "gay vote" was not a sure thing for the democrats. There has been a lot of disappointment in the gay community about a perceived lack of efforts towards gay rights and equality despite DADT and such by Obama. So Obama had to do something to get that vote back. I don't think they would have voted for Romney, but they was a real risk of them staying home and not voting.

well obama did finally say he supports gay marriages, then shortly after that the NAACP joined in and said they support it as well. Plus if obama can get in for a second term where he no longer has to worry about getting re elected, there is a chance he could push for a constitution amendment to ensure marriage equality for everyone and nullifying all those states that changed their constitutions against it.

but if you're not making over a million a year, you shouldn't be voting republican anyways.

Frazzled wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Grakmar wrote:Sorry, but I don't think Mitt has much of a chance.

He's coming off of a big win and months and months of campaigning, whereas Obama's campaign hasn't really kicked into full gear yet. So, the numbers are skewed in his favor, as compared to where they will be in November.

Romney has almost no chance at winning the Latino vote, which is where the Republicans need to go to stay competitive. The electoral college could be a total landslide.

he's also lost the womens votes, and the gays. so he really doesn't stand a chance.

The gay vote and the woman vote has been pretty strongly Democrat for quite a while now. They're not really in play this election.

You're right. No need for you to vote.

Living in Chicago... you're right, there's no way Illinois isn't going Democrat (even if Obama has some major screwups between now and the election)

d-usa wrote:If 4 years after the fact you are still insisting that picking Sarah Palin as the Republican VP candidate was a good idea, then I have to truly applaud you for your dedication towards justifying everything the GOP has done.

Name one VP candidate that McCain could have picked that would've given him an edge over Obama with any voters and was acceptable to the Republican right. McCain would have lost a number of Republicans who would've stayed at home rather than vote for him. Even with Palin, Republican turnout was low.

Of course, if you're going to ignore what happened in 2008, then I suppose you've got a point.

Tigerone wrote:Sometimes I am ashamed to live in a place that driving a car is a “privilege” and voting is a right

I've got some bad news for you...voting isn't a right.

d-usa wrote:I think this may have been one election where the "gay vote" was not a sure thing for the democrats. There has been a lot of disappointment in the gay community about a perceived lack of efforts towards gay rights and equality despite DADT and such by Obama. So Obama had to do something to get that vote back. I don't think they would have voted for Romney, but they was a real risk of them staying home and not voting.

A Republican Candidate would have to be VERY progressive, for lack of a better word, to get the "Gay Vote". Said Republican candidate would not likely make it through the primaries.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:If 4 years after the fact you are still insisting that picking Sarah Palin as the Republican VP candidate was a good idea, then I have to truly applaud you for your dedication towards justifying everything the GOP has done.

Name one VP candidate that McCain could have picked that would've given him an edge over Obama with any voters and was acceptable to the Republican right.

Zombie Reagan.