Quote:
|
You are REALLY intereseted in this topic, aren't you?
|
Based on your posts, I'd say you're at least as interested. No shame in that.
Quote:
|
Newsweek's in the tank for Obama, no doubt, just look at the make-up of their editorial board. I can't demonstrate that their poll is wrong, because I can't issue an edict for the election to be held tomorrow. That's the only to really test it.
|
So far most mainstream outlets appear to be in the tank for McCain. Regardless, Newsweek's last poll was below the average of the other polls.
Quote:
|
All I knows is that Reuters/C-Span/Zogby managed to get BOTH winners wrong in the CA primary:
|
Zogby is a little off the map. I also remember Rasmussen bricking California badly and indicating Romney would win Super Tuesday. Their op-eds were really pushing for that outcome.
Quote:
|
And my problem with Newsweek was the way they totally screwed up a late PA primary poll just three months ago:
|
I didn't know Newsweek polled primary states. You could insert Newsweek with any other polling organization that conduct polls for nearly every state. MoE will inevitably cause every poll to be wrong from time to time.
Quote:
Quote:
Despite her campaign's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday's critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK Poll shows.
The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
|
That explains it. The poll was a nationwide poll, not a PA poll. Big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmb92
Good link. It shows a nice bounce, showing the average of recent polls.
Quote:
|
It would be more accurate if it didn't average in that Newsweek poll, PA should've taught them something.
|
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmb92
Covered earlier. Margin of error is +-4, which means it has a small but plausible chance of translating into an 8-point swing on either side. Thus, Obama could be up +7 or +23. Given the other polls, it's likely on the lower side. Still, part of it could indicate general momentum in his direction. Seeing a result this high from a poll with a sound methodology could also indicate polls on the lower end (i.e. the Gallup poll of RVs) could have a systematic bias towards lower results.
Quote:
|
A four percent margin of error means if you asked the question 100 times, 95 of those times the percentage of people giving a particular answer would be within 4 points of the percentage who gave that same answer in this poll. That means that for every 20 times you repeat this poll, statistics say that one time you'll get an answer that is outside the MoE, i.e., wrong.
|
Also correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmb92
and Clinton, the newbie everyone wasn't sure about, was also losing to Bush in 1992. Do you have hard data on polling during these election years?
Quote:
|
No, but there may be some online by now. I do remember I saw a poll on Halloween 1992 that was spot on. Perot screwed up the pollsters that year.
|
Perot looked good until he dropped out and got back in. The only consistency was Bush's gradually-falling numbers that year and Clinton's momentum towards the end.
Quote:
|
The demographics change, the data's harder to find, memory is faulty, the curse of a June front-runner with a big lead is what I was addressing.
|
Any sports team will take that nice lead over playing from behind as an underdog. More often than not, the team with the conistent lead prevails.
Quote:
|
The technology's there, but they're actually not more accurate than they were 20 years ago. Truman's win, Carter's loss, were upsets that they supposedly "fixed". Now they need to tweak the exit polling.
|
Exit polls tend to be frantic, chaotic and not as carefully conducted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmb92
Also, this year is unique in that Obama is still in a situation where the Democratic party is not close to being fully-united around him, yet he has a solid lead. That will only benefit him as the summer progresses.
Quote:
|
I'm glad you stopped using the past tense - neither party is unified, the GOP is far more, but it's still "splintered" - the far right will sit this one out, they're intractable.
|
If the far right were really sitting this out, we'd see a sharp difference between RV and LV. Instead, it's a relatively small difference. Scaring the far right about gays and radical Muslims (fear enhanced by Obama's race, name, and small part of childhood spent in Indonesie) is enough to get them to come to the polls. I think they're already committed to doing that.
Quote:
|
vote The Democrat Party is broken exactly in half. National conventions can fix that, you'll need superglue.
|
Not quite. Even before the Clinton concession, most of her supporters nationwide (although not a vast majority) indicated support for Obama. Recent weeks have strengthened the base sum, although there's still some major wiggle room. The convention might solve that.
Quote:
|
In the meantime, an over-the-top positive media blitz would help...
|
That would be nice for the Democratic party. It's been mostly negative from the MSM, as parsing words and juicy gossip in contentious battles is more entertaining.
Quote:
|
He's different - he's old and he's boring, but he IS fully vetted. With that one, the VP choice will matter greatly. In fact, Juan was a MSM darling when he was against Bush in 2000. Make national secuirty an issue, he'll win easily.
|
His advisor sure seems to be hoping for another terrorist attack. Freudian slip on his part, I guess.
06-23-2008, 12:05 PM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
