Battleground Ohio Poll. Obama with a Razor Thin Lead (Obama 45.2% Romney 44.3%)

I doubt it's 45%.I was in the doctor office yesterday and Obama was on the tv flapping his gums about something or another and when I said send his ass back to Kenya people started laughing, not at me but because they felt the same way and wouldn't say it.

"Razor thin lead"??



You gotta be smoking something!

Rmoney wouldn't even be bothering to advertise in Ohio at all if it wasn't a must-win state for him!

Obama wins Ohio easily.



Plus 10.3 points by your own numbers!

What poll is this?

link?

The latest Washington Post poll has Romney losing by 8 points in Ohio.
[link to polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com]

An ALL ADULTS POLL with a +14 D Bias...
±4.5 margin of error.
759 Likely Voters were polled by telephone survey.
It was only +8D in 2008!
+2 In 2010.
The sample of 934 voters and sample of 759 likely voters

This is designed to DRIVE THE HEADLINE, not actually poll any opinion...

WOW....
And you'll note HOW HARD Wapo tries to hide the actual methodology? It takes FOUR CLICKS to get to it!

It's 2010, all over again...

Versus your methodology of pulling an arbitrary 10 points out of your vagina and assigning them to Willard just because?

I’m liking this!
Obama only polling 45%, 40 days out, spells epic disaster!!

Poll breakdown +10D Bias

D - 41.4 %
R - 31.1 %
I - 27.5 %

HANG IN THERE AMERICA! CHANGE IS COMING!!

I’m liking this!
Obama only polling 45%, 40 days out, spells epic disaster!!

Poll breakdown +10D Bias

D - 41.4 %
R - 31.1 %
I - 27.5 %

HANG IN THERE AMERICA! CHANGE IS COMING!!

You're showing your statistical ignorance again. Do you not understand the concept of random sampling? You take issue with the sample pool proportions of party status but have not shown that it differs significantly from what one would expect and instead choose to label any differences as bias without quantitatively justifying your response. Just the usual "herp derp evil liberals and their math."

Pravda said
D - 41.4 %
R - 31.1 %

In other words, +10.3 for Obama, so what's the issue?

D+10?

That is retarded.

Combine 2004 with 2010 and that would be far more accurate, except in 2004 we had a busting economy.

I think 2010 is what we're looking at in terms of Democrats showing up.

And that means a Romney victory.

Someone else mentioned unemployment getting below 8 percent due to people not looking for work -- the question is, will all of these people show up for Obama? Seems unlikely. How does being out of work motivate you to vote for the incumbent? It makes no sense, certainly not historically.

Dave, you're one of Romney's dependent victim 47% worthless pieces of shit, so why are you shilling for him?

All of the polls look bad for Romney.

Except they are sampling Democrats at 2008 turnout levels. We know those levels will not be matched. They will be closer to 2010 and 2004.

[link to www.unskewedpolls.com]

All of the polls look bad for Romney.

Except they are sampling Democrats at 2008 turnout levels. We know those levels will not be matched. They will be closer to 2010 and 2004.

[link to www.unskewedpolls.com]

You don't understand the + - do you?

Yeah, that's when Pravda pulls an arbitrary 10 points out of her vagina and gives them to Romney just because AND OBAMA STILL WINS!

This sums it up completely:

"The mainstream media typically skews these polls by sampling registered voters (which means less enthused supporters of the Democrats are counted even though they are less likely to vote) instead of likely voters, and Democrats are over-sampled."

[link to www.examiner.com]

Dean Chambers's "re-analysis".

Yeah, you go with that.

That's part of the power of Media Propaganda, and Socialist Rhetoric.

Everyone is SCARED to talk politics because of Obama. And you CERTAINLY don't do it in mixed-race company...