Yup. At 83.1 it's higher than it was a year before the economic crash at the end of the Bush Admin. Generally speaking, many have been looking to get back to December 2007 levels as the benchmark goal for Obama's 4 year term, and consumers feel he's there.
The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's preliminary October reading on the overall index on consumer sentiment came in at 83.1, up from 78.3 the month before, and the highest since September 2007, the survey showed on Friday.
CBS and CNN paid for real scientific polling to gauge victor. -Kos
Oh, Kos, you poor poor kid. You so want that pat on the head from the "sensible" people, don't you.
Poor fool. You'll never learn.
I've had enough of Darrell Issa's phony CYA investigation concerning the death of our ambassador in Libya.
If he wants someone to blame, the felon can look in the mirror.
It's time to call him and his fellow Republicans what they are and hold them to account for what they did. It's time to push back against their October surprise. They want to do this, then we'll do it with facts.
Libya attack: Congressmen casting blame voted to cut diplomatic security budget
After switching to their likely voter model and showing Romney ahead by 2 points yesterday, Gallup now shows a tied race. The poll covers Oct. 3-9. This would seem to imply that Obama is up again in the poll taken on the 9th, and that once the post debate days trail out of the poll, Obama will be back in the lead.
To skew or not to skew, that's the question.
Yes, the polls are skewed.
No, the polling agencies didn't skew them.
Any poll with an R+3 result won't be reflective of the vote in November, or even of likely attitudes next week. In that sense, the poll IS skewed. In another sense, it isn't. In the sense that the poll is a typically tabulated snapshot of a particular period of time, the poll isn't necessarily skewed. Additionally, there's the timing of the poll. If a poll is taken during an atypical period of time in an election, the result will look skewed, ie it will be an outlier. And this is where some liberals have an argument. Polling experts will say it isn't the job of a pollster to avoid atypical snapshots. But then, most pollsters do running averages precisely to avoid that problem. So the poll defenders are contradicting themselves to some degree.
The problem here is one of semantics, and the eagerness of some liberals to beat up on other liberals for using a word that makes sense in everyday language, but which bad behaving liberals take to mean something else for their own purposes (normally it seems in order to to look smart or sensible to the mainstream).
Liberals beating up on other liberals for pointing this out are being obtuse, and creating division where there need not be any. Many of the liberals engaging in this bad behavior are community leaders on this website, and they should stop it for the sake of the progressive agenda. They need to put their egos aside and start treating their fellow liberals more respectfully.
Liberals who use the word "skewed" aren't all saying that there's some conspiracy to skew the polls for Republicans. Some may. But the majority of them are merely saying that in everyday language, the current poll results are being "skewed" by an atypical post-debate blip for Romney, and that some pollsters are timing their poll sets in such a way that they don't integrate all the data that could tether these results to reality. That doesn't mean they're conspiring, just that their results are being skewed from a broader reflection of reality by unfortunate standard practices. And yes, some liberals may have a good argument that some pollsters are behaving badly - even if it isn't the ones everyone's arguing about right now.
In my opinion, some of the 7 questions that Gallup (and other pollsters) ask respondents in order to get their likely voter results seem... well, questionable - at least in 2012.
The calculation of likely voters is based on registered voters' responses to a seven-question series that -- with some revisions along the way -- Gallup has used since 1952 to calculate voters' likelihood of voting. In some years, such as 2008, there was only a marginal difference between the vote choices of registered voters and likely voters. In others, such as 1996, there was a much more substantial difference.... At this point, Romney voters are somewhat more likely to respond that they will definitely vote, that they have thought a lot about the election, and that they are more familiar with where people in their local area vote. These attitudes indicate that Romney at this juncture will benefit from higher turnout on Election Day among his supporters than will Obama.
Are you wondering why despite a 75% chance of winning in Nate's forecast liberals are still freaking out at the news cycle generated drama over the past week? We knew the traditional media would do this, come on, we all knew it was part of this march to November, the corporate horse-race melodrama. But it still really gets to us now that they have. However, don't fret. The real reason all this drama gets under our skin so much and seems to hit us so hard isn't because Obama is in bad shape - many incumbents would give their left arm to be in his position - the reason any momentary slip in the polls hurts so badly is because of how important it is to liberals for Obama to win in this America, in 2012.
In the debate, Romney outlined a tax plan that would benefit himself and people like him, and pretty much nobody else:
You see, the top 1 percent has its own top 1 percent—the richest of the rich—and those lucky enough to count themselves within its ranks would be the big winners from a cut in the top rate of income tax to 28 percent...