thats not the map they feature on the front page... thats their slanted no toss up one... their featured one has obama down to 217.
Nothing slanted about that map jem,they both use the same polls. The no toss up map shows whos winning the overall polls so if a guy is winning + 4 that map gives the state to that guy and dosnt leave it toss up. I thought you were a Rasmussen guy Jem,I posted thier map as well and they include many post debate polls and Obama is doing better then the RCP poll and Rasmussens last EC map.
the no toss up map is a joke - it was slanted for you to act like it was a real map. when polls are within the margin of error you can't put them on one side or the other.
The map isnt slanted jem,both of their maps use the same polls.Obviously we dont agree but thats why I included right wing maps from Karl Rove and your favorite Rasmussen.Like Fox I'm fair and balanced
you used that ridiculous map... in response to my post about Obama dropping 50 electoral points on the real rcp map.
Another poll changing their methodology a month before the election http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-politics-and-gallup-poll_654143.html Morning Jay: Politics and the Gallup Poll Since about the beginning of President Obamaâs tenure, the Gallup poll has generally been one of the least positive polls for the Democratic party. This has prompted outrage and pressure from the left--even from presidential advisor David Axelrod. Over the summer Mark Blumenthal of Huffington Post wrote a critique of Gallupâs daily presidential job approval poll. The point of which was that Gallup was over-sampling whites and thus understating President Obamaâs position in the adult population. I responded by arguing that Blumenthalâs case was underdeveloped and less-than-met-the-eye, and that was basically where things stood. Until, that is, this week. President Obama enjoyed a bounce in his Gallup job approval number after the Democratic National Convention, as was to be expected, but there was a twist: it did not disappear. And while Gallup on average had found Obamaâs job approval around 47 percent with adults through most of 2012, for the last five weeks it has been regularly above 50 percent. Yesterday, it stood at 53 percent, a number we have not really seen since 2009. Unusual. So, what's going on? Alan Abramowitz of Huffington Post and The Democratic Strategist noticed that Gallup has increased its share of nonwhites from 27 percent the week of the convention to 32 percent last week, a nearly 20 percent boost. In other words, Gallup seemed to have tweaked its methodology with just weeks to go until Election Day to reflect the criticism that has come from the left. And indeed, in a wonky and elliptical statement, Gallup chief Frank Newport essentially confirms the shift: As we began this election tracking program on Oct.1, our methodologists also recommended modifying and updating several procedures. We increased the proportion of cell phones in our tracking to 50%, meaning that we now complete interviews with 50% cell phones and 50% landlines each night. This marks a shift from our Gallup Daily tracking, which has previously been 40% cell phones. This means that our weights to various phone targets in the sample can be smaller, given that the actual percentage of cell phones and cell-phone-only respondents in the sample is higher. We have instituted some slight changes in our weighting procedures, including a weight for the density of the population area in which the respondent lives. Although all Gallup surveys are weighted consistently to census targets on demographic parameters, we believe that these improvements provide a more consistent match with weight targets. So, from the looks of it, the left got what it wanted: Gallup altered its methodology with a month to go until Election Day. And the result â at least on the job approval question â is a shift in Obamaâs favor. Whether or not this has altered the Romney-Obama head-to-head numbers among likely and registered voters, I cannot say. I also cannot speak to the merits of the change in methodology. Back in June, I thought there was less than met the eye to Blumenthal's critiques of Gallup. And I thought Gallup thought the same thing. Maybe the polling outlet changed its mind. Maybe it had other reasons for making the change. Who knows? That stuff is all "black box," proprietary methodology that is not open for public analysis. What I can say is that it's problematic to alter one's methodological approach to polling elections just five weeks before the biggest election in a generation. In fact, I think this is a highly inopportune time to make such a change; do it in the summer of 2012 or the winter of 2013, but for goodness sake not the fall of 2012!
Why are you so surprised the polls would change their samples. Gallup changed because of threats by Obama but the other ones are changing to become more accurate. I told you they would You cant predict an election using samples which skewed as badly as your favorite polls were skewed. I am pretty sure some of the "de skewed" early because of all the attention the skewing received. The polls were / are losing credibility just like the mass media.
Polls did not do this in 2008 or 2010,they oversampled dems from beginning to end and were more accurate then the ones that oversampled republcans I dont want to charge the polls with conspiring to help Obama but what they are doing is in fact helping Obama tremendously
About half the polls do not show how they skew the samples and just about everyone that does reveal their skew has changed their samples over this election. They skewed down into the RNC and skewed up again dramatically to act like Obama had a big bounce after the DNC. And note... I predicted that would happen. I seriously doubt they never did that before. I will bet they were more subtle and people like us were not waking up the media. Note... Most of these pollsters are snakes who will perform all sorts of tricks for the snake handlers. Our politics, our universities and our media are corrupted by big money... Perhaps they always were... but it seems integrity is very rare now.