| Avinash_Tyagi said: ^Part of the reason for the loss of independents, had nothing to do with Obama, in fact independents exit polled showed high approval ratings for Obama, but these Dems that ran weren't associated with Obama, Obama didn't do anything to support them, and people aren't blaming Obama for the partisan bickering, in fact the GOP is getting it worse than the Dems, but these were weak candidates with no real ties to the party leader. |
One thing I have noticed (which may be nothing) is that Obama regularly scores about 10% lower in "Robo-Polls" than he does in traditional human-operator polls, and I suspect that the constant claims that racists oppose Obama has resulted in people saying they support the president rather than have people judge them as being racists. This distortion in the polling numbers would not be present in "Robo-Polls" because the fear of being considered a racist when dealing with an automated system is unlikely to be present. Being that the average of all "Robo-Polls" was more accurate of the results on Tuesday's elections than the average of human-operator polls, if this bias does exist I'm not certain that Obama would have been able to help these campaigns much; and as Rath pointed out, he was involved and made several appearances for all Democrat candidates.
Now, one consistent thing that has been mentioned across all polls of independents is that Obama polls very highly as a personality (often getting 60%+ of the vote) while he often sees very low support for his policies (often below 40% of the vote) which begs the question whether independents would vote based on his personality or his policies if he was more involved in elections.
