The NY Times/CBS poll that ought to frighten Democrats

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The New York Times: Explaining Online Panels and the 2014 Midtermshttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/upshot/explaining-online-panels-and-the-2014-midterms.html?_r=0http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/upshot/explaining-online-panels-and-the-2014-midterms.html?_r=0

On Sunday, the research firm YouGov, in partnership with The New York Times and CBS News, released the first wave of results from an online panel of more than 100,000 respondents nationwide, which asked them their preferences in coming elections. The results offer a trove of nonpartisan data and show a broad and competitive playing field heading into the final few months of the campaign.

The Republicans appear to hold a slight advantage in the fight for the Senate and remain in a dominant position in the House. They need to pick up six seats to gain Senate control, and they hold a clear advantage in races in three states: South Dakota, Montana and West Virginia. The data from YouGov, an opinion-research firm that enjoyed success in 2012, finds the G.O.P. with a nominal lead in five additional states.

The five states where the Republicans hold a slight lead in the YouGov panel include three Southern ones — Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina — where Democratic incumbents face tough re-election contests and where Mitt Romney won in 2012. Republicans also have a slight edge in Iowa and Michigan, two open seats in states that usually vote for Democrats in presidential elections.

The Times obvious effort to downplay these poll results doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It is interesting that the NYT attempts to discredit it's own commissioned poll. A couple reasons to find these results plausible.

It's not all roses and sunshine for Republicans. In Colorado and Alaska, the GOP candidates trail and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is only up 4. In Georgia, Purdue is up 6 on Michelle Nunn — neither margin is particularly overwhelming in states that are deep red in presidential elections.

There aren't a lot of results that look wacky. In four of the Senate races where the GOP candidate leads, the margins are 2 percentage points or less. Flip those, and Republicans only gain four seats, a sum most on the right would find disappointing.

If there's a thumb on the scale, it's the wrong one. If you think of the New York Times and CBS News as liberal news organizations, these results are an argument against interest.

Now throw in this poll result: Americans are so down on President Obama at the moment that, if they could do the 2012 election all over again, they'd overwhelmingly back the former Massachusetts governor's bid. That's just one finding in a brutal CNN poll, released Sunday, which shows Romney topping Obama in a re-election rematch by a whopping nine-point margin, 53 percent to 44 percent.

 

[Gina B]

Everyone seemed to think Obama had no chance the second time around. Everyone was allegedly fed up, on and on.
If it was true, it didn't make a difference then. Why should it make a difference between parties now? Is the game more honest?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Everyone seemed to think Obama had no chance the second time around. Everyone was allegedly fed up, on and on.
If it was true, it didn't make a difference then. Why should it make a difference between parties now? Is the game more honest?

I think it possible there was electoral manipulation on the night of the 2012 election. The day before, Obama was practically crying at one of his last campaign stops. His pollsters were telling him behind the scenes he was going to lose. Then, on election night, eight states fell in the Obama column in a matter of seven minutes. Until they fell, the election was leaning toward Romney. The states in question were in three different time zones. It could be coincidence, but maybe it isn't.

But over the next several weeks and months, constant reportage of "irregularites" in several electoral districts was going on. In the end, only a few were charged with fraud. Seems to me the sudden shift of vote totals and the "irregularities" that did get reported later might have some connection.

 

[Revmitchell]

Everyone seemed to think Obama had no chance the second time around. Everyone was allegedly fed up, on and on.
If it was true, it didn't make a difference then. Why should it make a difference between parties now? Is the game more honest?

Interesting, I never hear, at that time, that everyone was fed up.

 

[Zaac]

Now throw in this poll result: Americans are so down on President Obama at the moment that, if they could do the 2012 election all over again, they'd overwhelmingly back the former Massachusetts governor's bid. That's just one finding in a brutal CNN poll, released Sunday, which shows Romney topping Obama in a re-election rematch by a whopping nine-point margin, 53 percent to 44 percent.

So folks suddenly favor a man who hasn't had to make any decisions that affect the country over a man who has to make the tough choices everyday? Wow, there's a shocker.

 

[Rolfe]

So folks suddenly favor a man who hasn't had to make any decisions that affect the country over a man who has to make the tough choices everyday? Wow, there's a shocker.

For someone who frequently complains about political speech by Christians, you talk politics a lot. :laugh:

 

[Zaac]

For someone who frequently complains about political speech by Christians, you talk politics a lot. :laugh:

Just enough to be able to see the foolishness behind getting so caught up in it. I've never cared about anyone being involved in politics. Only when folks have allowed it to turn them into some mean, nasty, unChristlike looking monsters :laugh: do I speak to it. And that's pretty regularly on this board.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Just enough to be able to see the foolishness behind getting so caught up in it. I've never cared about anyone being involved in politics.

Oh please ... beg me to go through your posting history and see how many threads you've started and posts you've contributed over the years that are either primarily or solely related to sociopolitical issues. I don't think you want me to do that.

 

[Jedi Knight]

For someone who frequently complains about political speech by Christians, you talk politics a lot. :laugh:

It's called hypocrisy.:wavey:

 

[Rolfe]

Only when folks have allowed it to turn them into some mean, nasty, unChristlike looking monsters :laugh: do I speak to it. And that's pretty regularly on this board.

It could be said that you have been a regular offender yourself.

 

[just-want-peace]

It could be said that you have been a regular offender yourself.

WE NEED A GREAT BIG "LIKE" BUTTON HERE!!:tongue3:

 

[Revmitchell]

WE NEED A GREAT BIG "LIKE" BUTTON HERE!!:tongue3:

I will second that. :thumbsup:

 

[Don]

Just enough to be able to see the foolishness behind getting so caught up in it. I've never cared about anyone being involved in politics. Only when folks have allowed it to turn them into some mean, nasty, unChristlike looking monsters :laugh: do I speak to it. And that's pretty regularly on this board.

Pot, kettle.

 

[Jedi Knight]

WE NEED A GREAT BIG "LIKE" BUTTON HERE!!:tongue3:

:thumbsup:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It could be said that you have been a regular offender yourself.

WE NEED A GREAT BIG "LIKE" BUTTON HERE!!:tongue3:

Perhaps a "GREAT BIG THUMBS UP" will do instead?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The Mittster thought he had it nailed in '12.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ould-have-looked-like-leaked-photos-revealed/

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The Mittster thought he had it nailed in '12.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ould-have-looked-like-leaked-photos-revealed/

Irrelevant. The Prez's approval ratings were sinking, but were fully ten points higher than they are now, and Republicans are nearly as "popular" as Democrats in Congress. Which is to say, relative to the Congressional approval ratings, neither of them are particularly popular. That usually benefits the more centrist party in the long run.

 

[Rolfe]

The Mittster thought he had it nailed in '12.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ould-have-looked-like-leaked-photos-revealed/

Nothing to do with nothing.

Had he won and not been prepared for transition,, no doubt people like you would have declared him unfit.

 

[Rolfe]

I am surprised Zaac has not commented today. After all, preaching to those whose god is politics is his calling.... :laugh: