Yes, and depending on which independents you poll, you will get different results, possibly unrepresentative of the voting population. Obviously democratic leaners are going to answer differently from republican leaners. Just lumping all independents into one category will likely result in an unrepresentative sample and a biased poll. That is the point I was driving at.

yes, but polls aren't done based on political affiliation, so your point is moot.  They concentrate on groups like race, gender, education, etc.  If the pollsters do their job right, they get enough samples from each target to get a acceptable sampling that could mirror that population.  That is actually one of the reasons that republicans have been complaining about the polls this year because the amount of democrats being polled are 8 to 10 points higher than democrat turnout in 2008. 

Here is how gallup weights their polls.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In that case, I agree. I was going off of the post that said, "The problem, is that your link has republicans, liberals, and undecided voters as evenly split thirds." Everyone just seemed to run with that assumption, so I assumed that's what we were talking about (choosing a sample based on splitting it into 1/3 republican, 1/3 democrat, and 1/3 independent), and I was arguing that lumping all independents into a single group is elminating a lot of valuable and meaningful information.

except she doesn't admit that he never said it. She says in the video "romney is right when he says for 14 days it was called a demonstration, but it is also true that obama referred to it as an act of terror".

Right in the debate she confirmed what both candidates were saying.

What's so hard to understand:

Even in the link video she says "i knew there was a quesiton on libya, so I reread everything. I knew he said "we will not let acts of terror shaken our country etc", but I also conceded in the moment that Mitt was also right when he says that the administration says tehre was a demonstration for 2 weeks"

I'm really dumbfounded as to how this is so inexplicably hard to understand.

In the debate, she says, 'Barack called it an act of terror, so he's right about that, but you governor are also right about the demonstration part', then in the link you provided she repeats what happened.

I'm so confused that this is being called an apology. Right in the debate she said BOTH were right!

Is this real life?

Well, the sad fact is... both of them WERE right... and wrong... which was my point all along.  Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.  Go Mittrack O'Bomney, 2012!

Nah.  Obama was still wrong.  He never directly called anything a act of terror or terrorist event.

He even admitted so after the debate.  He later when to the woman who asked the question and said off camera the reason why he waited weeks to link it with terror in any way was that he watned to make sure the intel was correct.

Even Obama knew he was lieing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219398/Kerry-Ladka-Voter-probed-Libya-attack-debate-slams-Presidents-response.html

"According to the blog, Mr Ladka said President Obama grabbed a private moment with him after the debate.

Mr Ladka said the President gave him 'more information about why he delayed calling the attack a ter(r)orist attack.'

Mr Obama then explained that the rationale for the delay, was to make sure that the 'intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,' according to Mr Ladka.

Well, from the transcript, it seems to me that Obama was not referring to the 2012 attack, but the 2001 attack as a terrorist attack.  However, he worded it in such a way that he would easily be able to convolute the issue if challenged.  The real issue is that the entire administration was linking the video to the attack and calling it UNpremeditated for days afterward... which shows the true agenda.

However, Romney's wording was such that it was easily foiled, had he said something more akin to, "Your administration was still claiming a dubious connection to the video and lack of premeditation for days if not weeks after the attacks," his wording would have been impregnable.  All I am saying is that (due to wording and battles over semantics) this is not nearly as clear or politically effective as it could have been.