PDA

View Full Version : John Kerry almost assured of victory and thus becoming our next president.



megimoo
10-13-2008, 01:34 AM
Election Day ballot the only reliable poll

Political polls are an interesting item of which we voters should take lightly.

I, as a campaign volunteer, recall Election Day of 2004. At approximately 5 p.m., reports from exiting polls on the East Coast told of Sen. John Kerry almost assured of victory and thus becoming our next president.

When the voting was closed a few hours later and the votes were all cast and counted, we then heard the news that President George W. Bush was re-elected to a second term of office.

How could the polling be so inaccurate then? And how can the Minnesota polling conducted by the Star Tribune be so inaccurate now, with the huge leads projected against Sen. John McCain and Sen. Norm Coleman?

The answer lies in the method of the polling process. Poll results can say whatever one wants them to say, with the motive being one in the same.

On Election Day 2004, as now with less than 30 days until Election Day 2008, the motive of this polling process is to discourage certain voters and keep them away from the polls.

How is this accomplished? The answer lies in polling voters of which their political party is known, or over-polling the voters of a known political party.

On Election Day 2004, the exiting polling was over-conducted in Democrat precincts. Last week, the polling conducted by the Star Tribune was over-extended to the Democrats and thus less extended to the Republicans.

The Star Tribune, as most major media outlets, lean heavily to the left. They do not want the conservative and Republican principles to exist.

So conservative and fellow Republicans, please get out the vote on Election Day. Do not be swayed by the polling process, which wants you to stay home. Get out the vote on Election Day no matter what you read or hear regarding the projected polls.

The only accurate poll is the one conducted when all the votes are cast and counted.

LogansPapa
10-13-2008, 01:43 AM
http://nooneisreadingthis.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/despair1.jpg

so sad. :(

Speedy
10-13-2008, 01:43 AM
The funniest part of the 2004 election was the media meltdown afterwards. Susan Estrich drunk off her ass on Fox threatening to take an investigation to the very top. Dan Rather pointing out that if Kerry won this state, and this state and this state went for Kerry, he could still pull it out and then recoil in horror as those states went for Bush. So he would recalculate saying well he can still win with this state and this state and this state and another state would go read. The as the other networks projected that Bush won, Rather was still trying to say that this state this satate could make a difference. The night ended with him refusing to declare Bush the winner. The meltdown this year will be even better. The funeral pyres will burn for days.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 01:46 AM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/dtharman/Obama/carville.jpg

xavierob82
10-13-2008, 01:52 AM
This day on October 12, 2004.

Electoral map projection gleaned from polling data projects:

Kerry 260 Bush 274

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Pngs/Oct12.png


With the exception of New Hampshire and Nevada, the polling was fairly accurate in 2004.

Kerry was never assured victory.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Oct12.html

Speedy
10-13-2008, 01:57 AM
Obama's numbers have pretty much stagnated since the middle of last week. Get ready because the ACORN and Ayers issues are starting take hold. You think the Stock Market numbers hit a slide, just wait. On top of everything else, the market may have bottomed out and huge money is going to flood in buying up undervalued stocks as early as tommorow. Probably have record gains several days next week and that will aleveate a lot of the economic fears. There is going to be a turnaround and it will be big.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 02:02 AM
In the last 3 days the Gallup has narrowed from 11 to 7 points difference

Zogby for tomorrow is 48-44

And Rasmussen is predicted at 50-45.

Only time will tell.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 02:39 AM
In the latest Gallup tracking poll, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 50 percent to 43 percent among registered voters. Mr. McCain’s deficit in that survey has remained seven percentage points or more for most of the last two weeks.

Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

-------

The polls dont lie, and Obama holding significant leads in every tracking poll and in almost every battleground state is a clear sign about where this is going.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 02:42 AM
Funny you should say that


davidswanson (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-13-08 01:37 AM
Original message
Lies, Damn Lies, and Polls (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7431678) Updated at 1:37 AM

David W. Moore, who worked for Gallup for 13 years as managing editor and senior editor of the Gallup Poll, has a new book out denouncing most polls by Gallup or anyone else as useless, and explaining that this became obvious to him when he first began work at Gallup, raising the obvious question of why he stuck around for 13 years. The explanation seems to be that he was trying to fix the problem, and one of the motivations for the book seems to be that he believes he still can fix it.

Of all the endless multilayered criticisms I have of polls, Moore focuses obsessively on only one. In a 160-page book on such a huge topic, you'd expect more than one idea endlessly repeated, but you won't find any more than that in "The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth Behind the Polls." Moore's concern is a significant one. He objects to the fact that polls are conducted and reported as if ignorance and apathy do not exist. Moore shows that when pollsters ask people whether they know about a topic, or whether they care if Congress acts in accordance with their wishes, the results turn out very differently from the ordinary poll that simply asks for a policy position. With the method that acknowledges indecision, you end up with a huge percentage of Americans having no opinion or not really caring. If you poll in this way you discover, for example, that a majority of Americans did not want the invasion of Iraq, a majority of Americans simply tolerated it.

Moore thinks polling is done quickly and shoddily to suit the interests of media outlets. I think it is also done in many ways to suit the policy agendas of media corporations. Moore recounts the story of pollster Louis Harris, whose company is now called Harris Interactive, who openly announced that he would conduct and report on polls favorable to Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter. But Moore takes no notice of the equally obvious agendas of most pollsters today. And Moore makes no mention of the single biggest problem with pollsters, namely that they do not poll at all on topics that are not approved by media corporations. Here's <a href=" http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling ">a history</a> of polling on the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Harris was among the companies that poll for money but refused to poll on this topic even if paid. While the few pollsters that did polls found high support, others declared that they would not poll on something that was not in the news.

That was just posted at DU

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 02:47 AM
Reading that snippet I can gather with some certainty that this guy is writing more about opinion polls on issues than election polls. Approval ratings, stances on issues... that kind of stuff where people dont have a choice A or choice B decision to make.

It's funny LibraryLady, you used to look at polls pretty intently and now that they've swayed towards Obama almost all at once you've disowned them. Tool.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 02:50 AM
I have said repeatedly that I consider them a snapshot and the only poll that matters occurs on election day.

I do watch them and unlike you, have learned to read the internals. They are very revealing.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 02:52 AM
I have said repeatedly that I consider them a snapshot and the only poll that matters occurs on election day.

I do watch them and unlike you, have learned to read the internals. They are very revealing.

You never post anything about them, just alluding to them like there's something big there and when pressed to elaborate you scurry away.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 02:57 AM
What do you want to know? I'll gladly teach you. (not tonight, it's late)

Gallup's drop from 11 to seven (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111064/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Gap-Narrows.aspx)


These results, based on Oct. 9-11 polling, represent a narrowing of Obama's lead over McCain. Obama led by double-digits for three consecutive days last week, but now his advantage is down to seven percentage points. Obama has led in each of the last three individual days' polling, but by less than double-digits each day, suggesting that the race is, in fact, tightening.
This shows a significant drop for Obama.

I am a premium member of one polling company, actually am telephone polled for another and get emails fro the third. I admit i enjoy them but have learned form 40 years in politics that they can be terribly inaccurate.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 03:01 AM
Again, you posted no internals.

The polls fluctuate, but you fail to realize a 7 point lead is still very substantial (as I pointed out earlier and you clearly ignored). Whats to say tomorrow it wont be back to +9 for Obama after a bad weekend for McCain?

The states haven't tighetened up either, FL is getting bluer and bluer and now a PPP poll of Colorado (1300+ LV's) has Obama up by 10. IA + NM + CO + Kerry States = President Obama.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 03:07 AM
For Heaven's sake, it's all at the link. You are the laziest student I have ever known.

Most of it cannot be cut and pasted anyway.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 03:18 AM
For Heaven's sake, it's all at the link. You are the laziest student I have ever known.

Most of it cannot be cut and pasted anyway.

That chart (which can be posted if you aren't retarded) doesn't say anything one way or the other. It just reiterates what the poll already said.

Likely voter models lol, I can really sense the desperation now.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 03:21 AM
OK, here's the likelys and then I am out of here:


Obama's current advantage is slightly less when estimating the preferences of likely voters, which Gallup will begin reporting on a regular basis between now and the election. Gallup is providing two likely voter estimates to take into account different turnout scenarios.

The first likely voter model is based on Gallup's traditional likely voter assumptions, which determine respondents' likelihood to vote based on how they answer questions about their current voting intention and past voting behavior. According to this model, Obama's advantage over McCain is 50% to 46% in Oct. 9-11 tracking data.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 03:25 AM
You of course provide none of the credentials for being a likely voter under that model.

GrumpyOldLady
10-13-2008, 08:07 AM
Obama's going to win.

It's going to be a very sad day for America.

The idiots who supported him will rejoice.

But then reality will zoom in and they will have buyers remorse.

IF THERE IS STILL A COUNTRY LEFT - The republicans should sweep the nation in 2012.

Speedy
10-13-2008, 11:00 AM
You of course provide none of the credentials for being a likely voter under that model.

It is right there, Blinky.


The first likely voter model is based on Gallup's traditional likely voter assumptions, which determine respondents' likelihood to vote based on how they answer questions about their current voting intention and past voting behavior.

Now do you get it? Registered voters are just that. Registered voters who have never voted included. No questions on how they voted in the past or anything else asked other than party affiliation and a couple of other questions. Does this make a difference? It does.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 01:20 PM
What are the "traditional likely voter assumptions"? What kind of questions must they answer?

It doesn't say.

PoliCon
10-13-2008, 03:18 PM
In the latest Gallup tracking poll, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 50 percent to 43 percent among registered voters. Mr. McCain’s deficit in that survey has remained seven percentage points or more for most of the last two weeks.

Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

-------

The polls dont lie, and Obama holding significant leads in every tracking poll and in almost every battleground state is a clear sign about where this is going.HEY DUMBASS!! Just because people register does not mean that they automatically vote. What's the score amongst LIKELY voters? You know - people who actually vote.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 04:04 PM
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qi5jkihsdkygozlcmtl09w.gif

I knew this was coming from Gallup, the race isn't tightening at all. Rasmussen stayed exactly the same btw.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 04:10 PM
Looks like Fitzgerald will file RICO charges in Ohio against ACORN. hmmmmmmm

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 04:12 PM
Looks like Fitzgerald will file RICO charges in Ohio against ACORN. hmmmmmmm

It doesn't matter, it would take something absolutely huge for McCain to win and the fringe-right's ACORN conspiracy theories are just not enough.

LibraryLady
10-13-2008, 04:16 PM
Can we ban blinky for sheer stupidity?

JB
10-13-2008, 04:21 PM
It doesn't matter, it would take something absolutely huge for McCain to win and the fringe-right's ACORN conspiracy theories are just not enough.Conspiracy theories? Interesting.

I'll have to call you what you are: A messageboard troll. You have to be because no one can be this stupid.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 05:08 PM
Its like Diebold but the other way around.

JB
10-13-2008, 05:14 PM
Its like Diebold but the other way around.Diebold? What are you talking about?

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 05:24 PM
Loony voter fraud conspiracy theories that only real whackjobs believe in.

wilbur
10-13-2008, 06:11 PM
Obama's going to win.

It's going to be a very sad day for America.

The idiots who supported him will rejoice.

But then reality will zoom in and they will have buyers remorse.

IF THERE IS STILL A COUNTRY LEFT - The republicans should sweep the nation in 2012.

I got news for you... Its gonna be a sad day for America no matter who wins. People are so caught up in making sure the other guy doesn't win, they pretend the others shit smells like roses. Palin/McCain will be as disastrous as Obama. One thing is clear... continually voting for the lesser of two evils ensures that with each election, the two evils grow progressively more evil.

wilbur
10-13-2008, 06:12 PM
Loony voter fraud conspiracy theories that only real whackjobs believe in.

I love how there were some real serious voter fraud issues with Bush's second election, yet none here give two shits about it. It's only wrong if the other team does it.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 06:14 PM
Both sides do it wilbur, and it cancels itself out.

JB
10-13-2008, 06:16 PM
I love how there were some real serious voter fraud issues with Bush's second electionSuch as?

....

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 06:17 PM
Just ignore it wilbur, you cant beat the hive head-on like this. They have power in their numbers.

JB
10-13-2008, 06:20 PM
Loony voter fraud conspiracy theories that only real whackjobs believe in.Don't dodge. What was the Diebold issue? I don't remember that. Tell me what happened. Where any charges ever brought? Anything substantiated? Was there ever any proof offered?

The evidence of ACORN voter fraud is overwhelming but just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

JB
10-13-2008, 06:25 PM
Just ignore it wilburTypical lib reaction.

In case you haven't noticed, you have to back up what you say around here. This hit and run bullshit you're accustomed to isn't going to fly much longer.

Eyelids
10-13-2008, 06:29 PM
Don't dodge. What was the Diebold issue? I don't remember that. Tell me what happened. Where any charges ever brought? Anything substantiated? Was there ever any proof offered?

The evidence of ACORN voter fraud is overwhelming but just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And where is your proof? A few blog posts? Sean Hannity?

The reason Diebold was never brought to court is because it was bullshit. The same goes for your crazy ACORN conspiracies. All you idiots are exactly the same in both parties, you'll latch onto anything you can as long as it implicates the other side.

It's destroying this country.

JB
10-13-2008, 06:35 PM
And where is your proof? A few blog posts? Sean Hannity?

The reason Diebold was never brought to court is because it was bullshit. The same goes for your crazy ACORN conspiracies. All you idiots are exactly the same in both parties, you'll latch onto anything you can as long as it implicates the other side.

It's destroying this country.My proof? You fucknut. Nevada law enforcement raiding the Las Vegas headquarters of ACORN because ACORN registered the Dallas Cowboys and you're calling that blog posts? That's called evidence son. Learn the difference.

And thank you for acknowledging that there was none (evidence) regarding Diebold.

PoliCon
10-13-2008, 07:33 PM
Loony voter fraud conspiracy theories that only real whackjobs believe in.diebold is a loony theory. ACORN is a documented fact.

PoliCon
10-13-2008, 07:34 PM
I love how there were some real serious voter fraud issues with Bush's second election, yet none here give two shits about it. It's only wrong if the other team does it.can you show evidence of any verified and proven cases of voter fraud by republicans in the last election? I'd like to see them if you can. MIND - VERIFIED AND PROVEN not just accusations by looney leftists.

PoliCon
10-13-2008, 07:35 PM
Both sides do it wilbur, and it cancels itself out. show evidence that both sides do it. not accusations - EVIDENCE.

PoliCon
10-13-2008, 07:37 PM
And where is your proof? A few blog posts? Sean Hannity?

The reason Diebold was never brought to court is because it was bullshit. The same goes for your crazy ACORN conspiracies. All you idiots are exactly the same in both parties, you'll latch onto anything you can as long as it implicates the other side.

It's destroying this country.you forgot to switch over to your wilbur sock. :rolleyes:

JB
10-13-2008, 07:42 PM
Forget it PoliCon. They took a shit in the thread and left. At least I got ArcadeFire to admit that the Diebold nonsense was bullshit.

Throw the hard evidence regarding ACORN on top of it and they've had enough with this thread.

PoliCon
10-13-2008, 07:54 PM
what do you mean THEY? Two accounts - but I'm betting only ONE person.