Race tight in four states, Obama holds slight edge: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Comments (36)
RidgewayVol wrote:

No one in his or her sane mind thinks this race is tied.

Oct 31, 2012 2:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
stlucifer666 wrote:

It never was a tie Romney has been way ahead all along. They just keep reporting Obama is doing well so we will all say “wow Obama has lots of supporters” but we all know Obama hates America and Americans.

Oct 31, 2012 2:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eugene31 wrote:

Gee, maybe two years from now the folks at Reuters will wake up and realize that the race was not tied, but they just loved that old horse-race theme a lot. See you at the Obama Inauguration in January.

Oct 31, 2012 2:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Best thing for private citizen Barak Obama would be to fade away before the Lybia scandal and cover up is completely exposed. I still believe he would make the best president for Syria right not. If he really wanted to do something for someone other than himself.

Oct 31, 2012 2:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LMills259 wrote:

It’s hard to see how the storm would hurt Obama; media coverage agrees unanimously that he is focused on the job and FEMA is performing. The situation takes Romney out of the spotlight, and that may be as well for him. The canned-goods collection may have been a stunt or it may have been well-intentioned, but the fact that relief organizations aren’t asking for canned goods shows that Romney neither knew what to do nor sought to find out.

Oct 31, 2012 3:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
aknichols wrote:

I will right beside you!!

Oct 31, 2012 3:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ontoyous wrote:

Tied! And how many lied just to throw kinks into something so crazy as a poll? Polls are worthless except for those who still get paid to make all those nuisance phone calls that so many of us ignore.

Oct 31, 2012 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ontoyous wrote:

Tied! And how many lied just to throw kinks into something so crazy as a poll? Polls are worthless except for those who still get paid to make all those nuisance phone calls that so many of us ignore.

Oct 31, 2012 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Your numbers are very different than what Gallup is reporting. Gallup is predicting a huge Romney landslide. Romney is up by a large margin among early voters and even larger margin among those who intend to vote on election day. Btw, in the 2008 election Gallup was off by 2 points. Reuters was off by 11 points. No other poll oversamples democrats more than Reuters.

Oct 31, 2012 3:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
flojd wrote:

C-n-C for another four years!!!

Oct 31, 2012 3:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matt2323 wrote:

For all the nuts that don’t believe that the race is tied or close, what is your source of information? Every reputable shows a close race for both the popular vote and electoral votes.

Obama is doing what is supposed to be doing. Romney can’t really do much but most voters were decided before the storm.

Oct 31, 2012 3:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
FlBob wrote:

The polls seem to disagree. Another major polling organization shows Romney ahead of Obama by 52%-46% among those who said they have already voted, ahead 51%-46% with all likely voters, and ahead 51%-45% with those who plan to vote on election day. If those numbers are right, it is not “tied”. The question is, which is right and which is wrong? Do any of them really “prove” anything at this point, or is their methodolgy producing the varied results? We will find out shortly.

Oct 31, 2012 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matt2323 wrote:

The right – don’t believe in polls, science, history. What is the source of your opinions?

Oct 31, 2012 3:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PPhermit wrote:

You righties don’t believe in the polls as long as Obama’s ahead. t seen on CNN since the way Obama is handling the storm he has advanced in the polls. Leading in Ohio , Virginia and Florida now. Regardless Its the electorial college is the factor in who will win the election and Obama only has to win two undecide staes while Romney has to win seven or more. By all the polls it looks as if its in the bag for Obama. But I still think the election has been bought and paid for by the Romney super pacs. Money most likely will end up buying the election.

Oct 31, 2012 3:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
LMills259 wrote:

I see several people here who really don’t want to believe what they read – on both sides. Actually, there’s some solid science and math behind polling. The trick is applying it well. Nate Silver is probably the best at it – he makes his living being accurate, not promoting a side. Read him at FiveThirtyEight.blogs.nytimes.com, and learn something about it. Or don’t, and just continue to filter out what you don’t want to know.

Oct 31, 2012 3:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
checkthefacts wrote:

Romney is gaining momentum. For an incumbent to be below 50% should have Democrats scared.

Oct 31, 2012 4:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
xit007 wrote:

Americanguy just make sure you are around after the election. YOu prove that democrats are delusional and have no touch with reality.What an idiot…and a bigot.. I hope more of your party jump on your platform..

Oct 31, 2012 4:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Caspary wrote:

Romney would be like Sandy hitting the whole country. I think G W Bush was a disaster but Romney will be G W Bush II, part deux for those who were asleep during Bush’s presidency.

Oct 31, 2012 5:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:

Those same Wisconsin dirty tricks. Hopefully, it doesn’t work this time around.

Oct 31, 2012 5:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Caspary
And you must have been asleep when Romney himself said he did not agree with a lot of Bush’s economic policies. And do you really believe even after 4 years of failed policy that obama is even close to the same league as Romney in business? Just put the two records on face value side by side. And do you really believe Romney would send 4 people into harm’s way and let them be murdered even while they are asking for help-wrong. obama did and lied about it, more than once and still is lying about it. Retirement or impeachment. The choices are pretty limited right now. There were some red states hit by the effects of Sandy you know…but hey obama has to take care of his base first right. Ohio? They were affected too…and PA, WV, VA, WI, NC they were hit too. You do not think they are wondering…why just the blue states? You and obama have gravely underestimated the intelligence of the American people-big mistake.

Oct 31, 2012 5:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
shawnieh44 wrote:

Oh you poor poor people! Someone said that we Obama supporters “don’t believe in polls unless Obama is ahead”. How does that even make sense? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say we didn’t believe in polls if Romney was ahead? I don’t know..I’m just saying. Why don’t we all do something really crazy and Vote on Tues and then watch the results and see who wins? That idea might be just wacky enough to work. I for one don’t believe in polls because never in my 44 years of life have I (or anyone I know)ever been asked to participate in a poll. Not scientific but it works for me.

Oct 31, 2012 6:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Decatur wrote:

Caspary, 4 years ago the whole country was like the northeast is today. Stocks down, bleeding jobs, losing homes or retirement savings… Obama fixed that, and it was hard work, with no help from tea-party House GOP.

Like the real world advice of diet+exercise to get stronger as you lose weight, we’re seeing economic and job growth rise steadily while deficits dropped 70% 2009-2012. Next year may see 3% growth and 12+% for new hires out of college, highest since 2007. All the trends are moving the right direction.

Instead of harping on Libya (even after relatives of half of the deceased asked the Romney campaign to shut up about this) what about Libor, or the host of other financial scams prosecuted against almost all the big-bank and casino-mogul backer set pouring billions into Romney-Ryan?

Are these the kind of “businessmen” you want buying the election? Not a word-is-bond handshake kind of small business person along Main Street, but self-serving elitists who majored in fine print.

Oct 31, 2012 9:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sally1137 wrote:

Ambassador Stevens was unavailable for comment.

Oct 31, 2012 9:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Is anyone else as sick as me of these daily polls and tv adds? I wonder what it would be like if we didnt allow political adds on TV like Britain?

Oct 31, 2012 9:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DocRockk wrote:

sally1137 wrote:

Ambassador Stevens was unavailable for comment.
———————————————

He will also be unavailable for comment at President Obama’s second inauguration, when the pathetic political witch hunt and fishing expedition that is your “Libya scandal” will be a distant memory.

Oct 31, 2012 10:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DocRockk wrote:

sally1137 wrote:

Ambassador Stevens was unavailable for comment.
———————————————

He will also be unavailable for comment at President Obama’s second inauguration, when the pathetic political witch hunt and fishing expedition that is your “Libya scandal” will be a distant memory.

Oct 31, 2012 10:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DocRockk wrote:

Texas Blue Blood wrote…

in the 2008 election Gallup was off by 2 points. Reuters was off by 11 points. No other poll oversamples democrats more than Reuters.
————————————————————–

Sorry Texas Blue Blood, but you are dead wrong.

IN FACT…Gallup and Rueturs were BOTH wrong by exactly by the SAME amount….they both had Obama at +11. And the BOTH were the farthest off of all the polls!

He won by 7.8% (52.9% to 45.7%)

The 2 most accurate polls in 2008 were IBD/TIPP (Obama +8), NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl (Obama +8)

Google is your friend folks! Dont just buy what people post as if it’s always actually true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Oct 31, 2012 10:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

@fromthecenter,

Couldn’t agree more. For those who follow these polls (either side) too closely and believe they’re solid science, they’re not. Polls can be manipulated to state what ever bias the polsters envision: depending upon the questions asked, the people polled and the label placed on those polled (i.e. “likely voters, strongly supportive, easily misled, whatever).

Oct 31, 2012 10:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Alendria wrote:

Citizens United has been such a boon for Romney. 4 years ago, McCain said he chose Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney because she was the better choice.

On the bright side for Romney supporters, if somehow he’s managed to con enough people to win, he’ll probably get to appoint 2 or even 3 supreme court judges so we’ll be seeing more stuff like Citizens United and maybe that privatization/metering of the internet that corporate interests have wanted for so long.

I don’t really appreciate that you guys are dragging us along in your suicide though.

Oct 31, 2012 11:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Obama is in the lead because Obama is a better candidate. I’ll be voting for him again.

Oct 31, 2012 12:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

George Allen’s VA AG buddy Cuccinelli was the one who sued Michael Mann, the one who warned about the higher sea levels leading to more destructive storms, for fraud claiming that he obtained funding from Virginia under false pretenses. Time to fire this goober macaca mofo and his buddy with extreme prejudice.

Nov 01, 2012 3:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

sally1137: “Ambassador Stevens was unavailable for comment.”

No, he wasn’t, but his parents were, and they’re not at all happy about Romney and the Republicans using their son’s death for political gain. They asked them to please stop, but Romney and the Republicans have only increased politicizing the tragedy. They were very tactful and were careful not to politicize it themselves. But they are clearly upset that it HAS been politicized and Romney and the Repubs are the only ones doing it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218117/Father-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-says-abhorrent-play-politics-sons-death-Benghazi.html

I’ve come to the conclusion that America’s Republicans are some of the least ethical people on earth. Certainly not all of them, but I witness it creeping into good conservatives quite a lot, like a close friend of mine who asked me if I was still planning to vote for the ni__er. I wasn’t amused. Besides rightwing propaganda influence on him, he’s otherwise one of the nicest people I know. (On a side note, I’ve been working on my friend, trying to introduce him to facts. I don’t know if it was due to any of my influence–like most conservatives he prefers to remain delusional regarding the truth about Democrats and Republicans–but he did say to me the other day that he thinks he might have to reconsider who he’s voting for based on an article he read about Romney and a questionnaire he filled out regarding science. My friend has a PhD in Chemistry and teaches at a local college.)

I’m particularly disturbed by the right’s open willingness to believe anything that insults or criticizes Obama and a disturbing readiness to discard anything negative about Romney and the Republicans. It’s not uncommon to see conservatives take positions that are contrary to democratic principles, the very principles that they proclaimed as a good reason to invade Iraq and bestow “democracy” on the Iraqi people. They’ve become very unpatriotic and unChristian-like even though they never hesitate to let you know just how patriotic and Christian they are. And they can’t see it. That’s the most disturbing thing. They’ll call themselves Christians while promoting an ideology that benefits the very rich at the expense of the poor and Middle Class, and they are more than happy to spread blatant lies, growing angry if you show them they are wrong. I don’t think we saw any of that in Jesus.

Nov 01, 2012 3:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Yes indeed, Obama needing only one state to have the 277 electoral votes needed is win the election, is really a tight race.
On Mars maybe, but unfortunately for the American Taliban (Republicans) this is not Mars.

Nov 01, 2012 7:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JebBush2012 wrote:

Mitt will FIGHT for our Job Creator class by joining with Tea Party Patriots to DEMAND additonal tax cuts for the Job Creator class. Obama will continue HANDOUTS like FEMA! The 47% will use this money to buy designer Gucci bags and LCD TV’s because they take no personal responsibility for their lives!

Nov 01, 2012 9:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HDSS wrote:

Though, the true polling without bias opinions are reporting the opposite; Obama is behind and this is why the Obama camp has to do something quickly or else. His family will have to call upon Budget moving trucks to haul his family stuff back to Illinois.

Nov 01, 2012 9:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

The reason Romney’s numbers are slipping again, is that he never connected with voters. He’s a little slippery and very few people identify with Romney. He says one thing in public, another thing in private. Then even the public things change from day to day. His main policy goal appears to be: “Become president.”

Luckily for America, he’s coming up short on that. His electoral votes are nowhere NEAR enough to win the Presidency.

Nov 01, 2012 6:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.