|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Polls - 10/18/2008 3:02:22 PM
|
|
|
Acts29
Posts: 369
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline
|
Do you think the polls are accurately reflecting the american voter? Do the polls reflect the people in your community? Do you believe there are some groups they are not including in the polls ?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 3:14:59 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1885
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Which polls are you referring to?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 3:18:39 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
It's easy to look at polls and get excited when you're guy is ahead, or nervous if he's trailing, but I keep going back to the last election when the polls were all so wrong on election day.
Given the conditions this year, Barack should be running away with this thing....he's not. Anything can still happen, and quite possibly will.....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 3:26:47 PM
|
|
|
-J-
Posts: 63
Joined: 10/6/2006
Status: offline
|
THIS SITE factors in all the major polls, and also has individual links to them. Interesting site. You can click on each state to give you an idea as to the trend.
Cheers,
-J-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 5:55:48 PM
|
|
|
Acts29
Posts: 369
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline
|
Thanks J
A good interesting site.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 6:33:30 PM
|
|
|
stephanos
Posts: 1040
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: online
|
Just remember that in 2000 "polls" a month ahead of the election had VP Gore winning over then Gov Bush in a landslide.
Just remember that in 2004 "polls" a month ahead of the election had Sen Kerry winning over President Bush in a landsl
Even during the elections of President Reagen, polls said he would loose 1980 and "barely" win in 1984.
Facts are these "polls" almost always favor the democrat candidate. And it is interesting that most of these polls that keep showing the Dem leading, rarely show what questions they ask and the methodology of their numbers. Also remember that MOST of these polling groups still only call home phone numbers, and not cell phone numbers. And they also call during a time when many are having family time during the evenings. I know both my father and mother each refuse to answer the phone during the dinner hours. They both happen to be fairly concervitive. But because they dont answer during the hours when most pollers call, their voice is not heard in the poll, and I will be that this is reflected else where. Furthermore, most pollers call only people in fairly large cities. You dont get to hear the rural voice either. Again, this is spelt out in the methodology and the statistics that are behind the polls, that MOST polling groups dont release and/or no one brings up that the recent poll only asked certian people groups.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 6:46:53 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: online
|
I live in a rural area. All I hear from the media is how Obama is running away with it. Yet, when I look at the campaign signs in the large geographical area I drive through, most are for McCain/Palin. There are very few Obama signs. In talking with people here where we cling to our guns and religion, very few people openly express that they are going to vote for Obama.
I figure all the polls must be conducted in urban metropolis's where there is a larger collection of ignorance.
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 10:28:46 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2244
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
Ann Coulter (yes I know she is way to the right ... but it makes her comment no less interesting giving the historical data ...) had an interesting theory when it comes to the polls. She writes, "In addition to the social pressure to constantly prove you're not a racist, apparently there is massive social pressure to prove you're not a Republican. No one is lying about voting for McCain just to sound cool."
She then looks back in history and makes an interesting observation. Looking back at the polls as reported by the NYT and Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election starting from 1976 and they were all wrong in a "friendly way" towards Republicans. When they were wrong they overestimated support for the Democratic candidate by a margin somewhere between 6 and 10 percentage points.
She writes ...
quote:
In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
quote:
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
quote:
In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
She goes on to talk about 88 when HW Bush won 53.4% to Dukakis 45.6%, yet on Oct 5 of 88 the polls said Bush only had an insignificant 2 point lead, 45% to 43%.
92 Clinton won 43% to Bush 37% (Ross 18.9%) two weeks before the election the polls had Clinton at 47% to Bush's 35%. The polls had Clinton ahead by 12 to 15 points depending on the poll you looked at, but he only won by 5.3%.
96, the polls predicted a 22 point lead for Clinton, 55% to Bob Doles 33%, yet he won by 9% ... 49% to 40 %.
The last two elections were more accurate, yet still underestimated the Republican vote.
So her theory, based on the lower poll numbers for Republicans than the actual race, is that people who vote Republican are embarrassed to say so publicly. It will be interesting to see how the numbers pan out this year.
< Message edited by Psalms274 -- 10/18/2008 10:44:51 PM >
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
Linus, my dog, little Kaleigh and Sally!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/18/2008 11:55:24 PM
|
|
|
Acts29
Posts: 369
Joined: 1/14/2007
Status: offline
|
I have also heard that some people feel that the race card is being played regarding the polls.
Do you think people feel that if they say they are voting for McCain then they will be perceived as being racist? So they say Obama rather than McCain but when they vote it will be McCain.
(I hope this made sense)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:14:21 AM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2244
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Acts29
I have also heard that some people feel that the race card is being played regarding the polls.
Do you think people feel that if they say they are voting for McCain then they will be perceived as being racist? So they say Obama rather than McCain but when they vote it will be McCain.
(I hope this made sense)
What you are describing is what they call the Bradley effect, which is ....
quote:
The political phenomenon -- named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black Democrat who lost a close California governor's race in 1982, even though he was well ahead in the polls -- has demonstrated that black candidates perform better in opinion polls than they do in actual elections, because white voters are hesitant to tell pollsters they won't vote for the black candidate.
I was listening to Chuck Todd yesterday and he said he thought there would be a "reverse" Bradley effect for this election. He said the Bradley effect occurred when people who answered polls did not wish to be perceived as racist, meaning they were afraid the pollster would assume they were a racist for not stating support for the minority candidate. But he felt the reverse effect may be a bigger influence when determining the outcome.
Anthony Greenwald did a study and had the following to say about the reverse Bradley effect ...
quote:
Reinforcing the notion of a "reverse Bradley Effect" is a Gallup poll this month that found that 6 percent of voters say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of his race, but 9 percent say they are more likely to vote for him, making Obama's race slightly advantageous for him.
Greenwald said he expects to see the reverse effect in the general election, but mostly among older voters who say they're supporting John McCain. He expects many will pull the lever for Obama based, on multiple reasons, including the financial crisis. This trend could determine the outcome of the election, Greenwald said, if Obama's lead shrinks in some state polls.
Greenwald said he saw the 2008 election as a perfect opportunity to study whether the Bradley Effect is still a factor in American politics.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
Linus, my dog, little Kaleigh and Sally!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:35:25 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3462
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, I live in the " Bible Belt", and I have never heard one person say they were voting Obama. I did see a bumper sticker. I did a poll for an OKC nes station. I know that many more are for McCain in my area. The democrats mt parents, and others will not vote Obama, they just will not vote. Right or wrong it is just the way things are here.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 2:31:01 AM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Just remember that in 2004 "polls" a month ahead of the election had Sen Kerry winning over President Bush in a landsl
That's funny, I don't remember Kerry being ahead of Bush by a landslide. In fact I remembered that he was behind by four points ever since the conventions.
But here is something to brighten your day. Intrade does have a market prediction of the election results. You won't find any undecideds on their map.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 3:21:03 AM
|
|
|
stephanos
Posts: 1040
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in KC MO
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
Just remember that in 2004 "polls" a month ahead of the election had Sen Kerry winning over President Bush in a landsl
That's funny, I don't remember Kerry being ahead of Bush by a landslide. In fact I remembered that he was behind by four points ever since the conventions.
But here is something to brighten your day. Intrade does have a market prediction of the election results. You won't find any undecideds on their map.
FreddieD
That website is really quite funny. You see, Missouri has only had a popular vote of over 60% on THREE occasions since 1900. And that was FDR, Nixon, and Reagan (when Pres Reagan won all but ONE of the states, Missouri STILL only gave him about 65% of the popular vote). Missouri has ALWAYS been a swing state. In fact since 1900 we have not voted for the winning candidate ONCE. This site you gave has the "prediction" of Sen Obama winning with 69% of the vote. That, as a citizen of Missouri, is absolutely comical! If, and I stress IF Sen Obama wins (and it is not likely as only the areas of StL and KC vote Dem in any significant numbers, the rest of the state is almost entirely Republican), it will be in the range of 48% to 46%. The idea that almost 70% will go for Sen Obama, is completely absurd! And my state alone, destroys ANY credibility that that website has for "predicting" the election.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 3:38:29 AM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
That website is really quite funny. You see, Missouri has only had a popular vote of over 60% on THREE occasions since 1900. And that was FDR, Nixon, and Reagan (when Pres Reagan won all but ONE of the states, Missouri STILL only gave him about 65% of the popular vote). Missouri has ALWAYS been a swing state. In fact since 1900 we have not voted for the winning candidate ONCE. This site you gave has the "prediction" of Sen Obama winning with 69% of the vote. That, as a citizen of Missouri, is absolutely comical! If, and I stress IF Sen Obama wins (and it is not likely as only the areas of StL and KC vote Dem in any significant numbers, the rest of the state is almost entirely Republican), it will be in the range of 48% to 46%. The idea that almost 70% will go for Sen Obama, is completely absurd! And my state alone, destroys ANY credibility that that website has for "predicting" the election.
You are misreading the site. Those are the market values. It means that the market is 69% sure that the Democratic nominee will win the state.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 7:48:46 AM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephanos
That website is really quite funny. You see, Missouri has only had a popular vote of over 60% on THREE occasions since 1900. And that was FDR, Nixon, and Reagan (when Pres Reagan won all but ONE of the states, Missouri STILL only gave him about 65% of the popular vote). Missouri has ALWAYS been a swing state. In fact since 1900 we have not voted for the winning candidate ONCE. This site you gave has the "prediction" of Sen Obama winning with 69% of the vote. That, as a citizen of Missouri, is absolutely comical! If, and I stress IF Sen Obama wins (and it is not likely as only the areas of StL and KC vote Dem in any significant numbers, the rest of the state is almost entirely Republican), it will be in the range of 48% to 46%. The idea that almost 70% will go for Sen Obama, is completely absurd! And my state alone, destroys ANY credibility that that website has for "predicting" the election.
You are misreading the site. Those are the market values. It means that the market is 69% sure that the Democratic nominee will win the state.
FreddieD
Which helps explain why the market has been in such turmoil. It's afraid of an Obama presidency. All those greedy capitalists taking their money out before Lord Obama takes it to redistribute it.
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 11:54:56 AM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 680
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do you think people feel that if they say they are voting for McCain then they will be perceived as being racist? So they say Obama rather than McCain but when they vote it will be McCain.
(I hope this made sense)
It does make sense and i do agree. I have been told because I am not voting for Obama I am not in touch with my people. What is that supposed to mean? I think many will tell people what they wanna hear, but vote differently. The same thing may be true in the bible belt too though. Light was saying no one will vote Obama. However we won't know who votes for who as it really is a private matter.
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:15:12 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Which helps explain why the market has been in such turmoil. It's afraid of an Obama presidency. All those greedy capitalists taking their money out before Lord Obama takes it to redistribute it.
That's a new one. They were taking money out of the market before they knew of an Obama presidency?
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:23:27 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2244
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Which helps explain why the market has been in such turmoil. It's afraid of an Obama presidency. All those greedy capitalists taking their money out before Lord Obama takes it to redistribute it.
That's a new one. They were taking money out of the market before they knew of an Obama presidency?
FreddieD
That's not new at all ... traders typically react to what they believe will happen in the future and the market will go up and down based on who they believe will win. Historically, the market prefers the conservative candidate over the more liberal candidate.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
Linus, my dog, little Kaleigh and Sally!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:26:45 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psalms274
That's not new at all ... traders typically react to what they believe will happen in the future and the market will go up and down based on who they believe will win. Historically, the market prefers the conservative candidate over the more liberal candidate.
Well, how would they have known that Obama would win before the crisis?
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:36:26 PM
|
|
|
Psalms274
Posts: 2244
Joined: 8/13/2005
From: Georgia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psalms274
That's not new at all ... traders typically react to what they believe will happen in the future and the market will go up and down based on who they believe will win. Historically, the market prefers the conservative candidate over the more liberal candidate.
Well, how would they have known that Obama would win before the crisis?
FreddieD
Who they perceive will win an election is just one factor of many that effect the market. Other things that make the traders skiddish are:
Bad numbers within a sector
Quarterly numbers that were not as high as expected
Foreign markets
Credit
and the list goes on ...
when the crisis first occurred it was based primarily on the credit crisis ... but other things also play into the mix. Sometimes just one will cause the market to swing, most times it is a combination of factors. The policies Obama is proposing are a factor, but they are not the only factor ... still they do contribute to the downturn.
_____________________________
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.
Linus, my dog, little Kaleigh and Sally!
http://piswa.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:42:52 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Which helps explain why the market has been in such turmoil. It's afraid of an Obama presidency. All those greedy capitalists taking their money out before Lord Obama takes it to redistribute it.
That's a new one. They were taking money out of the market before they knew of an Obama presidency?
FreddieD
Sure. They fear their money will be taken and redistributed.
quote:
Well, how would they have known that Obama would win before the crisis?
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.....
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 12:46:33 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.....
None of them knew Obama would win before the crisis.
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 1:19:07 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1755
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreddieD
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.....
None of them knew Obama would win before the crisis.
FreddieD
Freddie, no one knows anything. But, listen to them talk about the polls, Obama is gonna have a landslide victory.
_____________________________
The two hardest things to handle: failure and success.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Polls - 10/19/2008 6:26:38 PM
|
|
|
FreddieD
Posts: 299
Joined: 7/23/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zamdad
Obama is gonna have a landslide victory.
YEAH!
FreddieD
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
