Well I have several problems with his "so called" analysis ... I'll go through his points though and post my own view...
1. Obama’s voters don’t want to come out and vote for him. They are only lukewarm and are not people who always vote. Cynical and apathetic, they do not begin to approximate the intensity of the Romney voters or even of the 2008 Obama backers.
He's making an assumption not based in fact. Take into account that over the last two years we have had a Mid Term wave, and countless special elections during which it seemed like several years of unending campaigns and people going to polls, it's not only the Democrats that are suffering from a bit of apathy. But if you know anything about human nature you know that when a grown person is told they can't do something they will find a way to do it. Currently we have many Republican Governors trying to push through voter suppresion laws to intentionally drive down the total vote, so you will in effect get more people riled up to get out and vote. The plan to suppress the vote is going to backfire oon them. There are many Liberals, Like me, who are just as excited to vote for Obama as in 2008, because we realize the shape this country was in 4 years ago and anyone who knows anything knows that 4 years is not enough time to accomplish a recovery... expecially with this Congress.
2. Black turnout is traditionally 11% of the total vote. In 2008, rose to 14%, providing Obama with more than half of his margin of victory. Current polls suggest a reversion to the pre-2008 turnout level, but polling firms that do not measure voter intention can’t tell that and weight the black vote up to 12, 13, or even 14 percent, padding Obama’s vote artificially.
He's off his numbers, as well as his rocker. Obama still holds the advantage of the 18 to 24 year olds and is leading by very wide margins with the black vote and the hispanic vote.
Newsroom: Voting: Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election, U.S. Census Bureau Reports
3. Likewise with Latino vote which was 7% of the vote and grew to 8.5% in 2008. Their votes this time show signs of returning to historic norms
see above.. He's underestimating the gravity of the situation.
4. Polls of registered voters tend to weight up the Democratic respondents, according their opinions more weight in the poll. That’s because their data usually shows fewer Democrats in their sample than in national registration figures. But, in weighting for party, they obscure the fact that a great many registered Democrats have left the Party, particularly in the past few years, a finding that is obliterated by the weighting.
Although I agree that polls of registered voters are less accurate he's trying to paint this as one sided and that is false. There are polls that weigh for both sides, so he's not being honest.
The fact is that Rasmussen and Gallup both showed drops for Romney about 4-5 days ago when negative coverage of his foreign trip (itself a sign of media bias) tended to dampen his ratings. But both have shown a recovery since. Rasmussen and Gallup poll every day. The other polls are conducted over a period of several days. So the Rasmussen and Gallup data are a few days fresher than the other polls and reflect Romney’s recovery.
This one has a few lies in it. First.. he claims that " the other polls" run their polls over several days so rassmussen and gallop are "fresher".. This is not true. Gallop and rasmussen cinduct their polls over several days as well, but they poll continuously so they are able to release a poll every day. Rasmussen uses only automated call centers which do not call cell phones and they ask questions and then make a computerized assumption that the person on the other end is a "likely" voter. They then tell you that they only poll likely voters. They don't tell you that they tend to leave off the 18 to 24 crowd because they only poll land lines.. which is why they also tend to lean to the conservative side by an average of 2 points.
Over all this Op ed is merely his opinion , using skewed numbers and false statements leading me to believe he is only pissed off about Obama beating Hilary so he's attacking Obama out of spite. He's never been very accurate so I didn't expect him to start now... although I did read it.