Quantcast
    MAIN INDEX RULES & LEGEND LOG IN  

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Must be right - the polls say so

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All  


big kahuna

Oct 22, 08 14:30

Post #26 of 38 (1550 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Brent F] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

The guys at American Sentinel have an opinion about that (http://theamericansentinel.com/...ything/#comment-6914)


..."If you’ve been trying to follow the Presidential election polls lately, you undoubtedly have observed that various polls are moving in different and contradictory directions each day. Some polls show a narrowing race - - today’s CNN headline, for example, reads CNN Poll: Race May Be Tightening. Indeed, today’s GWU-Battleground tracking poll puts the race at 48% to 47% - - a virtual dead heat.

On the other hand, today’s NBC/WSJ poll puts the race at Obama +10, while the ABC/Washington Post poll has Obama +9. Yet the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll has the race at Obama +4 for the second day and reports, “The race has remained very stable over the past month.”

So there you have it. Our wonderful, expert polling organizations have determined, with all of the accuracy and impartiality that modern statistical science and polling techniques can muster, that (1) the Presidential race is tightening while (2) Obama is pulling away and (3) the Presidential race remains remarkably stable.

Say what???

Well, keep in mind that American novelist Samuel Clemens (a/k/a Mark Twain) wrote, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Presidential preference polls are, for better or worse, a form of statistics.

Parsing through the various polls is difficult because few of them give sufficient data to allow meaningful analysis of why they depart from the norm - - and they do depart from the norm; when the range of poll results is as wide as it has been for the past several weeks, with Obama leads ranging from +1 to +14, somebody is wrong, or is using bad techniques, or both.

The most likely explanation for this insane variation is that pollsters are, deliberately or innocently, using poor data collection and processing techniques. It may be coincidental that polls done for MSM publishers and broadcasters have a strong likelihood of being weighted to favor Obama; but then, it may not be all that coincidental..."


Here's a YouTube bit about "Opinion Polls: Getting the Results You Want." (with Nigel Hawthorne, of "The Madness of King George")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo


And lastly, something from Wizbang entitled: "Odds at Ends - The Pew and Battleground Polls, with a Gallup Chaser" (http://wizbangblog.com/...-a-gallup-chaser.php)

..."I've laid out a pretty harsh accusation against the polls this year, by claiming that all the major polls are far from accurate. The cause of this, in essence, has been that the polls made some key assumptions about turnout, the independents, and the undecided voters. Assumptions which they never tested, and now are finding cannot be trusted. Poll results vary wildly from one another, and not just at different times. The variance for current polls listed at Real Clear Politics for this morning ranges from the Pew poll which advertises a 14-point lead for Obama, to the Battleground poll which says the lead is only 2 points. The variance is too great (and there are polls relatively close to both ends, demonstrating proof of statistical invalidity for the published confidence level) for even the casual observer to accept as a reasonable. There are four polls which show a 10 point lead or greater for Obama, and another five which show a 6 point lead or less. It is mathematically impossible for so many polls to be valid, yet disagree to such a degree with valid methodology. I said this when McCain was ahead, again when Obama climbed in front, and I am repeating it yet again. The starting point to discussing the polls this year, is understanding that the methodology in common use is flawed, and is producing results which cannot be depended upon..."


Mike Lamb

Oct 22, 08 15:36

Post #27 of 38 (1534 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [big kahuna] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Shorter post: Trust the polls that show McCain is close...



f/k/a mclamb6


BarryP

Oct 22, 08 15:49

Post #28 of 38 (1525 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Brian.] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Quote:
Experts and the American public tend to disagree with your viewpoint.

Well really really smart people say you're a jackass. Nyah!
-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485


Mike Lamb

Oct 22, 08 15:51

Post #29 of 38 (1521 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [BarryP] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

What I find interesting is that conservatives have bristled at the notion that Obama/Democrats will imply/state that people who don't vote for Obama are racists, and then some of the same conservatives point to the Bradley/Wilder effect as reasons not to believe the polls/why McCain will win...



f/k/a mclamb6


Beckett

Oct 22, 08 16:06

Post #30 of 38 (1513 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Old and Haggard] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

BTW, You left this out Congressional Job Approval[/url] Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread RCP Average 10/09 - 10/20 14.0 75.7 -61.7 NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 12 79 -67 GW/Battleground 10/09 - 10/15 18 74 -56 CBS News/NY Times 10/10 - 10/13 12 74 -62
More Polling Data | News


Cervelofella

Oct 22, 08 16:43

Post #31 of 38 (1500 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Beckett] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

So today I went to the early voting polling place and cast my vote. I am an independent moderate and have been very conflicted on who to vote for. Last night, I had decided to vote for O'Bama.

This morning, as I entered the polling place I began to have some doubts. The past 6 months of indecision again hit me like a brick wall. I stopped in my tracks and could not mark that box on the ballot scan form.

I began to think about McCains running mate, O'Bama's inexperience and finally everything else that CNN, Fox, NBC and the NY Times had said. What finally swayed me was this deep seated feeling that O'Bama just is not the right guy for the country at this time. I had very real questions regarding his tax policy, his inexperience and finally a feeling that the tone of his campaign has become a religious type of following, a hope for change, a wish that things will get better and a frenzied fervor that just does not make sense.

I remember reading a very well respected economist who said "if everyone is doing and saying one thing, the opposite is probably the right decision. Don't follow the crowd".

I was very surprised by my action. I had made the decision to vote for O'Bama, but in the end I checked the box for John McCain.

God Bless America, I hope that we survive.

-CF


fitzie

Oct 22, 08 16:47

Post #32 of 38 (1495 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Cervelofella] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I remember reading a very well respected economist who said "if everyone is doing and saying one thing, the opposite is probably the right decision. Don't follow the crowd".

So you must have voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.


(This post was edited by fitzie on Oct 22, 08 16:49)


klehner

Oct 22, 08 16:47

Post #33 of 38 (1494 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Cervelofella] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

In Reply To:
O'Bama

It's clear you've given this a lot of thought.
----------------------------------
Of course, with your ears stuffed with outrage cotton balls, all you heard was, rahrahra, govt comes to get your guns, rhahrahrah, stamp out your FREEEEEDOM! - slowguy


Cervelofella

Oct 22, 08 16:49

Post #34 of 38 (1490 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [fitzie] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

In Reply To:
I remember reading a very well respected economist who said "if everyone is doing and saying one thing, the opposite is probably the right decision. Don't follow the crowd".

So you must have voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004?

Actually, no I didn't. Bush really annoyed me.
I voted for Gore and Kerry.

CF


fitzie

Oct 22, 08 16:52

Post #35 of 38 (1485 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Cervelofella] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I voted for Gore and Kerry.

That is great that you said that because I realized that I needed to change my response.
Good for you to stay with your record of "not going with the crowd". Not sure how it's going to turn out this time, but I sense you really aren't happy with either choice, as many people.


(This post was edited by fitzie on Oct 22, 08 16:56)


Cervelofella

Oct 22, 08 17:14

Post #36 of 38 (1476 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [fitzie] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

Exactly, I am of the opinion that if these guys are the best that the USA can do, then we have a serious problem.

BTW, had Hillary Clinton been in the race, she would have received my vote. No question or indecision.


big kahuna

Oct 23, 08 6:30

Post #37 of 38 (1456 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [Cervelofella] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

I'm going to vote for Cynthia McKinney. I figure if we're going to have four more years of gridlock and hyperpartisanship regardless of which of the two of these gentlemen make it into office, I want a really unbalanced individual in the White House, overseeing the madness.

Not that she has any chance of winning, nor of actually getting my vote, but it's a nice fantasy nevertheless :-)

I'll be voting for McCain, even if it's a futile gesture. And as an aside, I've noted an equal spread of McCain and Obama yardsigns on my 16 mile daily commute to work, which is in Southern Wayne Country, a very-reliably blue part of Michigan (i.e., strongly Obama according to the polls here in the Detroit area). Totally unscientific, of course, but of the 18 yard signs, they're evenly split.

T.


Eppur si muove

Oct 23, 08 8:35

Post #38 of 38 (1450 views)
Re: Must be right - the polls say so [old-as-dirt] [In reply to] Quote | Reply

"do you know that the pollster was trying to find out? perhaps the pollster didn't want to know about down the ballot candidates. for the most part they are not stupid people, unlike many of the people they poll."

As I said, this was an automated poll, so there's no way I could ask the pollsters what they were trying to determine. I'm sure they had their own motivations. But even if they were only interested in determining whether Bush or Kerry was leading, their methodology was flawed, because some third-party voters would very likely press 1 or 2 anyway, just to express an opinion, and then go on to vote for their true choice in November.

I agree, though, that pollsters are generally not stupid. It's the people who take their results too literally who are stupid. (Regardless of whether they live in red or blue states, lol.)
-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All  
 
 
 



America's ITU Prowess
Should ITU efforts in the U.S. be considered a success because of its winning women, or a failure because of its lack of consistent performances by its men?
Success
Failure
Both
More complicated
I don't care