How in the hell is McCain tied w/ Obama?

[tical]

And what will Obama and Bill eat for lunch on Thursday? I'm guessing a pastrami on rye from Katz'.

[stickyfingerz]

Actually he is ahead by most of todays polls by a fair margin.

[tical]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Actually he is ahead by most of todays polls by a fair margin.

I just saw that... I wonder how it will all end up.

[Mutt]

mmmmmmmmm ......... pastrami on rye from Katz's

[tical]

Originally Posted by Mutt

mmmmmmmmm ......... pastrami on rye from Katz's

Those are the bomb... everytime im in NY i eat there... weird to pay around $30+ for 2 sandwiches hehe

[pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE]

temporary bounce from palin that will end the momnt she sits down with the media


followed by the debates..... i predict a 20 point obama biden lead after the debates

[RP Fade]

The Republican propaganda, marketing and mobilizing machine at it's finest. Dems should learn from the Reps, they keep bringing knives to gunfights..

[baddog]

Originally Posted by tical

Those are the bomb... everytime im in NY i eat there... weird to pay around $30+ for 2 sandwiches hehe

That sounds like a deal. Last time I bought breakfast in NYC it cost close to $40 for two orders of eggs and bacon.

[A-n-D-r-E-S]

Originally Posted by tical

And what will Obama and Bill eat for lunch on Thursday? I'm guessing a pastrami on rye from Katz'.

I think he'll eat fries...

[seeandsee]

they are cocks, both

[TheDoc]

I really don't trust the polls. First, I don't know anyone that has ever been called and polled for the elections. With that, they always ask the question in stupid ways.

Instead of just asking, who would you vote for now. It's always bs like, did you think McCain made a good choice with Palin after the speech? Enough people say yes, the ratings for McCain go up.

I really think the Media is trying to down play Obama so they don't seem like they are hugging only him. They know he has this wrapped up but the Republican party would go to hell and back to make sure the People see it a different way.

[BradM]

Originally Posted by RP Fade

The Republican propaganda, marketing and mobilizing machine at it's finest. Dems should learn from the Reps, they keep bringing knives to gunfights..

Yep.

If Dems just kept saying "Well Republicans aren't very patriotic, and they are linked to terrorism. McCain is an Irish name we linked to the IRA which are terrorists" they might have a fighting chance.

[BradM]

Also the average American is a sheeple, who can not think for himself. FORCE them to think how you want them to through fear, panic and chaos... and you will win elections.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I really don't trust the polls. First, I don't know anyone that has ever been called and polled for the elections. With that, they always ask the question in stupid ways.

Instead of just asking, who would you vote for now. It's always bs like, did you think McCain made a good choice with Palin after the speech? Enough people say yes, the ratings for McCain go up.

How do you know what questions are asked or what format if you have never been called or know anyone that has been?

[BradM]

Originally Posted by baddog

How do you know what questions are asked or what format if you have never been called or know anyone that has been?

THEDOC AND BADDOG SOAP PILLOW FIGHTTTT!!!!

[kane]

Originally Posted by pussyserver

temporary bounce from palin that will end the momnt she sits down with the media


followed by the debates..... i predict a 20 point obama biden lead after the debates

I don't know if he will be up by 20 points, but I think it is a temporary bounce. Check out the graph here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

You can see a huge spike of about 4 points for Obama during the democrat convention, the the next week McCain gets a big spike. Obama has returned to around normal and McCain will too.

[Tom_PM]

Because it's not a blind poll, and none of them ever are.

Go poll 1000 executives making 300,000k+ per year, now go poll 1000 minimum wage people.

Would you have faith that the results would show anything valuable?

The only value would be if it was a hardcopy and you made a hell of a basket with the wadded up results from across the room.

[Dollarmansteve]

Love 'em or hate 'em, the republican party is an election machine. What other political party on earth could get GWB elected twice? They are masters of actually getting people out to the polls to vote and of building and maintaining a central fortress of support.

As we get closer to election time, the republicans will be better at solidifying their core support and ensuring they vote, and will spend less time trying to woo the independent and fringe voters.

The dems simply have a smaller and more volatile voting core and need those independent and fringe votes to win. Didn't anyone else dabble in poli-sci in university?? :P

[Tom_PM]

Thats the advantage of catering to the religious. They use their churches as rallying points to discuss "values" and other code words.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by baddog

How do you know what questions are asked or what format if you have never been called or know anyone that has been?

What is this big giant web spider net thing I'm typing into?

[pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by kane

I don't know if he will be up by 20 points, but I think it is a temporary bounce. Check out the graph here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

You can see a huge spike of about 4 points for Obama during the democrat convention, the the next week McCain gets a big spike. Obama has returned to around normal and McCain will too.

yeah it looks like whatever happened on 08/02/ was a major factor

going to look it up now

[pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE]

ok i found the problem as it relates to the data displayed in the above graph

2 things

the rat

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by baddog

How do you know what questions are asked or what format if you have never been called or know anyone that has been?

Let's take a look at some of those questions, they 'build' the ratings on. In short, if one question / idea comes out a little off or if one thing happens, to move the understanding of one idea, the entire thing changes.

Again, they do not ask the most basic question, over and over: Now, who are you planing on voting for? Which is the only poll question that makes a difference.

Let's see:
?Obama eliminated McCain's advantage as "a strong and decisive leader." By 46%-44%, those surveyed says that characteristic applies more to Obama than McCain. Before the convention, McCain held an 8-point advantage. Obama has a 13-point advantage as someone who "shares your values," almost double the edge he held before. He has an 8-point advantage as someone who is "honest and trustworthy"; pre-convention, they were equal.

Wow, ratings based on "honest and trustworthy" and "shares your values" - Election is over!


And more:
? Obama has eased concerns about experience, but they remain a significant factor. Fifty percent of those surveyed say they are very or somewhat concerned about his experience. Before the convention, 57% were.

? McCain's favorable-unfavorable rating was 54%-38%, a healthy mark but his highest unfavorable this year. Obama's rating was 61%-32%.

In the poll, Democrats continue to benefit from an "enthusiasm gap." By 57%-28%, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they are more enthusiastic than usual this year. By 47%-39%, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they are less enthusiastic than usual.

The poll of 2,035 adults has a margin of error of +/?2 percentage points. The sample of 1,835 registered voters has an error margin of +/?3 points.



Make sure you read through that to see all the odd and stupid questions they ask to build the polls with.

Just the idea that these stats are allowed with 2035 votes, from prob Colorado, it's just trash data to feed you people trash information.

Obama is killing McCain, straight up he has already left the gate and won the race.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by baddog

That sounds like a deal. Last time I bought breakfast in NYC it cost close to $40 for two orders of eggs and bacon.

3 people full lunch with a soda for my son yesterday evening. 31$ ( Not in NY )

[2012]

"The poll was based on 1,022 telephone interviews. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...rap/index.html


If you missed the call it might be because you were working

[Malicious Biz]

my sig and avatar really pushed him over the top

[qxm]

everyone is mesmerized with Sarah Palin's bikini picture and McCain seized the opportunity and positioned himself ahead in the polls.... sneaky old guy ....

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by fartfly

"The poll was based on 1,022 telephone interviews. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...rap/index.html

If you missed the call it might be because you were working

They almost got me too, I bet I was #1023, ugg.. Actually, I don't even have a home phone and when I did it wasn't like I answered it

I love it too, 1022 people "actually" moves the polls, really - amazing and mind blowing to me all the same time. 300 million and the opinion of 1022 swings things.


The Media should be banned from Politics.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by pussyserver

temporary bounce from palin that will end the momnt she sits down with the media


followed by the debates..... i predict a 20 point obama biden lead after the debates

I don't know about 20 point leads. I think it's going to be close all the way.

Anyway, they're pouncing on Palin's first gaffe already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124792.html

[Drake]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

They almost got me too, I bet I was #1023, ugg.. Actually, I don't even have a home phone and when I did it wasn't like I answered it

I love it too, 1022 people "actually" moves the polls, really - amazing and mind blowing to me all the same time. 300 million and the opinion of 1022 swings things.


The Media should be banned from Politics.

If it's a completely random sample of 1000 respondents, it will accurately reflect the rest of the nation.

[Tom_PM]

1022.. statistically insignificant as usual. But "worth it" for the newsdogs.

Hey, lets not forget, these are the same assholes who figured it was "fair" to pose the hypothetical question "should hillary quit" on march 15th.

[Tom_PM]

It's not completely random and it never is. Not "blind" as I said up farther. It's ALWAYS what they refer to with phrases like "likely voters" (dozens of qualifications to be one of those) or "registered voters" (could be any number of qualifications and you could label them "registered").

Each poll is so skewed out of the box by it's prequalifications/prejudices, that it is entirely non-representative and literally almost the furthest thing possible from "completely random" as you can get.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Mike33

I don't know about 20 point leads. I think it's going to be close all the way.

Anyway, they're pouncing on Palin's first gaffe already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124792.html

The more she opens her mouth, the more she will end it for them both. She will never do anything but an assigned Q&A, I bet she never goes on free mic time with any real talk show host.

Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

And to think, some people want this grade A moron running for VP and even having a possible chance at president.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

1022.. statistically insignificant as usual.

Let me guess... you don't actually know all that much about statistics, do you?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

1022.. statistically insignificant as usual. But "worth it" for the newsdogs.

Hey, lets not forget, these are the same assholes who figured it was "fair" to pose the hypothetical question "should hillary quit" on march 15th.

If the 1022 is a random sample, then it has validity. If not, then it really doesn't say much.

"The method pollsters use to pick interviewees relies on the bedrock of mathematical reality: when the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population. This is called a random sample or a probability sample. This is the reason that interviews with 1,000 American adults can accurately reflect the opinions of more than 210 million American adults." - http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4

It's a counter-intuitive statistical reality that a random sample of 1000 people will accurately reflect millions. I didn't know this either until I took a stats course, and I never would have guessed it on my own.

[kane]

Originally Posted by pussyserver

ok i found the problem as it relates to the data displayed in the above graph

2 things

the rat

Yep, both spikes came right after that candidate's convention. It just goes to show how short of memory people have. They were in love with Obama a few weeks ago, then they were in love with Palin and now it is McCain. It seems like whatever happened most recently is what people take into consideration. That is why the October surprises always seem to work. In the last election there was that sudden Bin Laden tape that happened to show up a few weeks before the election which somehow gave Bush a little bump and helped him. I won't be surprised at all if suddenly we catch a major terrorist or convict a major terrorist or something big regarding Iraq is announced about 2-3 weeks before the election.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Mike33

If the 1022 is a random sample, then it has validity. If not, then it really doesn't say much.

"The method pollsters use to pick interviewees relies on the bedrock of mathematical reality: when the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population. This is called a random sample or a probability sample. This is the reason that interviews with 1,000 American adults can accurately reflect the opinions of more than 210 million American adults." - http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4

It's a counter-intuitive statistical reality that a random sample of 1000 people will accurately reflect millions. I didn't know this either until I took a stats course, and I never would have guessed it on my own.

Over the last 20 years or so polls have become very accurate. Some are not, depending on the company that does them and how they do them, but most have a pretty good science of it and they tend to be pretty accurate.

[Tom_PM]

Yes, I see what you are talking about. I could also refer to a sample as "random" if I know I'm only calling registered republicans.

"4. How were those people chosen?
The key reason that some polls reflect public opinion accurately and other polls are unscientific junk is how people were chosen to be interviewed. In scientific polls, the pollster uses a specific statistical method for picking respondents. In unscientific polls, the person picks himself to participate.

The method pollsters use to pick interviewees relies on the bedrock of mathematical reality: when the chance of selecting each person in the target population is known, then and only then do the results of the sample survey reflect the entire population. This is called a random sample or a probability sample. This is the reason that interviews with 1,000 American adults can accurately reflect the opinions of more than 210 million American adults.

Most scientific samples use special techniques to be economically feasible.
For example, some sampling methods for telephone interviewing do not just pick randomly generated telephone numbers. Only telephone exchanges that are known to contain working residential numbers are selected, reducing the number of wasted calls. This still produces a random sample. But samples of only listed telephone numbers do not produce a random sample of all working telephone numbers.

But even a random sample cannot be purely random in practice as some people don't have phones, refuse to answer, or aren't home.

Surveys conducted in countries other than the United States may use different but still valid scientific sampling techniques, for example, because relatively few residents have telephones. In surveys in other countries, the same questions about sampling should be asked before reporting a survey."

[brassmonkey]

Republicans would vote for the devil before they would vote for a minority first ones who say that blacks are violent and will rob u blind add it up who spending the billions and trillions

[RP Fade]

My views are as follows..

Republicans are willing to get into a dirty street fight if need be to get elected, Democrats would rather get their asses kicked hoping 'the truth will come out' and that they'll have 'their day in court'..meanwhile, they still got their asses kicked and time is not on their side.

The bottom line is, anyone who thinks elections are mostly about issues (and I speak in a non-partisan manner like even Bill Clinton's election as well), they live in fantasy world.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by kane

Over the last 20 years or so polls have become very accurate. Some are not, depending on the company that does them and how they do them, but most have a pretty good science of it and they tend to be pretty accurate.

Where do you get your information from?

First, Polls are not science, at all - that is why the are not accurate. For years people have joked how far off polls were to the ending results. Hell, they can't even get exit polls correct.

They have no science, they select from a random list of pre-select numbers that is sold from one group to another, and drop call them.

[Drake]

The major reasons why Democrats suck at elections is simple.

1) They don't use religious lingo that appeals to Christian sensibilities. Ditto for sybmolism - flag waving, showasing of army vets, etc. These appeals to emotion, nationalism, and belief system go a long way.

2) They are never perceived as militaristic, so people feel insecure and unprotected (even though past Democratic Presidents have proven this perception wrong). Right or wrong, citizens want that feeling like if there is the slightest threat or terrorist action, you won't flinch at carpet bombing entire nations in retaliation. McCain gives this impression, hence he will always lead when it comes to voters views on national security.

3) Democrats are anti-gun. They can't figure out that with hundreds of millions of legally owned guns, to leave the 'gun control' idiocy out of any further politics. If people want guns, let them have it. They already have millions of them for goodness sake.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Let me guess... you don't actually know all that much about statistics, do you?

Do you? Why don't you work out the math on what a sampling of 1000 is across this country.

If you feel that is a fair sample, then why don't you build your company or sites, off asking a persons toe nail what they think you should do for your business. Or take your yearly total traffic, pick 1 random person, and ask them what you should do with your business.

You have no idea who the person is, what they do or don't know, what they think, watch or are told.. but hey, a 0.000333333333% sample should be all you need.

[2012]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Do you? Why don't you work out the math on what a sampling of 1000 is across this country.

If you feel that is a fair sample, then why don't you build your company or sites, off asking a persons toe nail what they think you should do for your business. Or take your yearly total traffic, pick 1 random person, and ask them what you should do with your business.

You have no idea who the person is, what they do or don't know, what they think, watch or are told.. but hey, a 0.000333333333% sample should be all you need.

I agree, it's like someone that isn't currently working on the google algorithm giving you "FACT" up to the minute advice on SEO. Lots of room there to fuck around in my .

So if it's not accurate and basically pointless, you have to ask yourself why they do it? Is it something as sweet and innocent as getting high ratings and page views ... probably.

[kane]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Where do you get your information from?

First, Polls are not science, at all - that is why the are not accurate. For years people have joked how far off polls were to the ending results. Hell, they can't even get exit polls correct.

They have no science, they select from a random list of pre-select numbers that is sold from one group to another, and drop call them.

When I say science I mean the methodology that many polling companies use. There are some that have a formula of how they pick the people the poll, what questions they ask and how they ask them that allow them to be pretty accurate. Others simply dial 1000 random numbers and are not as accurate.

Polls are, historically speaking, pretty accurate. If you look back over the past presidential elections and you look at the state by state polls they were pretty damn close to how that state ended up voting. The same can be said for most of the national polls. Of course they are not exact, something that is subject to people's changing minds is never going to be exact, but many of them can be pretty accurate.

Exit polling, until the last presidential election, has been extremely reliable and even then it was pretty spot on with the exception of a few places. The UN actually uses polling, especially exit polling, to determine if elections held in third world countries are corrupt or not and in many cases they use the same the companies that provide the presidential polls. Here is an article on how exit polls are often used to make sure the vote count is accurate http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/we...ew/17plis.html

Here is a good site that shows the recent presidential elections and how the different polling companies did as far as their accuracy.
http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com/20...-national.html

With the vast majority of the companies listed they were within their margin of error on accuracy.

Here is gallup's numbers on the past presidential elections. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/Elec...Elections.aspx again, they are almost always within their margin of error.

Polling is not an exact science, but it is a science in that it has a system that it uses and a formula that it follows.

[kane]

Here is a great example of why national polls often don't tell the story. in 1996 Gallup had Clinton winning 52% of the vote with Dole getting 41% and Perot getting 7%. The final numbers were pretty close with Clinton getting 50.1%, Dole 41.4% and Perot with 8.5%. Clinton got around 9 million more votes than Dole but when it came to the electoral count Clinton on 379 to 159, it wasn't very close at all.

In 1968 Gallup had Nixon and Humphrey within 1% of each other. The final vote finished within .6% of each other (gallup was all but perfect here) yet Nixon won 301 electoral votes to Humphrey's 191. It wasn't a close election at all.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by kane

Polling is not an exact science, but it is a science in that it has a system that it uses and a formula that it follows.

I do agree with the exit poll stuff, and yes the last elections really screwed that up.

With the polls, they just use trends to calculate the data, they have tons of trend data to use. From local to previous fed elections. I'm sure the poll data comes into play. Other than the last couple of elections, you have to go way back to Kennedy to see a close race that probably couldn't just be guessed.

But look at the numbers, the ranges they are all 45 to 50, the "guess" isn't all that hard to make when you have years and 1000's of election trends to follow.

And it's funny to see 2000, when we know Gore really won but all but a few say Bush. Think about it, Gore won the popular, the polls-poll the people, they say Bush won. Nothing else needs to be said.

[pocketkangaroo]

All that matters are state polls. Obama is still winning in the right states. The move looks to have helped McCain in the midwest, but put states like Florida into play now.

[Scootermuze]

It's not about McCain.. It's all about Palin for now..

She's achieved rock star status.. the same thing that McCain bashed Obama with..

So far she's just read, and repeated a speech written by Bush's people that she practiced for a couple days prior to the convention.. But her delivery seems to impress people..

As was said.. Once she's faced with actually answering questions and not reading a teleprompter, then the story will be told...
She may do great.. won't know til it happens.. But the debate will be interesting, to say the least..

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

All that matters are state polls. Obama is still winning in the right states. The move looks to have helped McCain in the midwest, but put states like Florida into play now.

He is losing Ohio from what I saw.


May I mention that Polls are loved (on both sides) when in people's favor, and regarded as bs when going against.