Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I should clarify: In the sentence, "I heard an interview with him on WNYC's On The Media today." Him refers to the owner of the web site linked above.
Originally Posted By mawnck Thanks for the heads-up, Mrs ElderP. The show can be heard online aqui: <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/" target="_blank">http://www.onthemedia.org/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I just watched McCain on Meet the Press, and he said ALL the things I've been wishing one of the candidates would say for this whole election.<< Yep. He's got Palin to fling the dripping red meat to the far right, so they're happy. Now, he returns to the more moderate, non-nasty McCain that is actually popular with moderates of both parties. Hell, he even distanced himself from the remarks I personally found most offensive at the convention -- Giuliani and Palin's sneering remarks about community service. I don't know if he meant it, but it was nice to hear him say it. This thing is going to come down to the debates. If I were Team Obama, I would start really, really laying it on thick about what a brilliant debater Palin is to anyone who will listen. Get the expectations as high as possible for her (and you can't go too far in this either) and then hope she shows up poised to be as snarky and nasty as she has been at her speeches far. Because I'm telling you, while the far right loves that junk, it will not play with moderates, and they are the make or break of this election.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Hey, look! It's tied! Who knew? <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll" target="_blank">http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ing_poll</a>
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP moderates are *usually* the make and break. When neither side is trying to court the middle we are in trouble boy! But, yes, first the conventions, then the debates, these all add pieces to my opinion.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP Oh, did anyone notice that the Zagby poll quoted in the OP is "interactive", i.e. self-selecting, and not very scientific.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Oh, did anyone notice that the Zagby poll quoted in the OP is "interactive", i.e. self-selecting, and not very scientific." I.E. lacking integrity? I'm so shocked, shocked I say.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Okay, Okay, I'll talk about polls. But this isn't really a good time, as the post convention bounciness is still skewing them. First of all, for the first time since last December, Obama is not leading in ANY of the national polls. Source: <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart" target="_blank">http://www.realclearpolitics.c...ml#chart</a> Here they are (McCain's numbers are first): CNN 09/05 - 09/07 48 48 Tie USA Today/Gallup 09/05 - 09/07 54 44 McCain +10 Hotline/FD Tracking 09/05 - 09/07 44 44 Tie Rasmussen Tracking 09/05 - 09/07 48 47 McCain +1 Gallup Tracking 09/04 - 09/06 2765 48 45 McCain +3 CBS News 09/01 - 09/03 42 42 Tie As far as the convention bounce goes, Obama's has gone. It's all gone. The average peaked at just under 50% on September 2, and now it's back to 45%. Interestingly, it took Obama 12 days to go up 4.5 points before the slide started. McCain has risen 4.5 points in six days, and may still be rising. As I said at the start of this post, we're still in post-convention. Gotta wait a week or so for the dust to settle. And, of course, the only poll that really counts is the one taken on election day. But I did want to keep a hand in here, without having to discuss the latest breathless blog report that Sarah Palin's youngest daughter puts boogers in her hair.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>without having to discuss the latest breathless blog report that Sarah Palin's youngest daughter puts boogers in her hair<< Got a link!?? I missed that one!!!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And, of course, the only poll that really counts is the one taken on election day.<< True. It is interesting that polls require a landline -- something that would definitely skew results a bit to the older side of the spectrum. If the results wind up way off this election, I imagine that's something that will be reexamined by pollsters. Also, I wonder what affect, if any, polls have on the results in a close race. Do they startle the underdogs voters into action and make the leaders complacent? Do voters make their final selection on wanting to "pick a winner"?* *The term "pick a winner" is in no way related to Doug's booger reference.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>It is interesting that polls require a landline -- something that would definitely skew results a bit to the older side of the spectrum.<< Perhaps not, or at least, not yet. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_polls_skewed_because_many_people_only.html" target="_blank">http://www.factcheck.org/askfa...nly.html</a> EXCERPT: >>A study published in January by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press concluded that results of a poll including cell-only respondents were "virtually identical" to those based only on calls made to landlines.<< The item goes on to explain how the PRC study was done, and FactCheck's reservations about the results. It should be noted that (statistically speaking) younger people do tend to favor cell phones, but older people tend to actually vote. >>If the results wind up way off this election, I imagine that's something that will be reexamined by pollsters.<< Since cell phones passed landlines in 2007, many thought the razor sharp poll numbers in the 2008 race would not be reflected in the actual results. That did not turn out to be the case. But it will be interesting to see how pollsters get around to addressing this legitimate issue.
Originally Posted By DlandDug As far as the effect polls have on elections, this is also a legitimate concern. I think polls do tend to sway a very small segment of the voters one way or another. I doubt they make any real campaign complacent. Campaigns these days employ their own pollsters, many of whom are far more focused and sophisticated. These numbers are never shared, but are rather used to decide campaign issues, messages, and maneuvers. Karl Rove was supposed to be a master of reading poll data, which is the reason he was always so self assured. He used private polls to craft the daily message du jour on a state by state (if not precinct by precinct) basis.
Originally Posted By gadzuux 'Polls' are also being used to sway voters. The call comes in and sounds like an opinion poll, but the questions grow increasingly sharp - "would you vote for so-n-so if you knew they opposed the military"? "How about if they cheated on their spouse"? Three guesses as to which side of the aisle employs this tactic. Of course, that's because it only works on the dumbest among us.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Three guesses as to which side of the aisle employs this tactic. Of course, that's because it only works on the dumbest among us.> I've probably read a statement about conservatives or republicans being "dumb" about twenty times on these boards. I think the word "elitist" can be applied yet again.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I've probably read a statement about conservatives or republicans being "dumb" about twenty times on these boards." I'm curious. How would you describe someone who endorses her barbaric stance on abortion?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I'm curious. How would you describe someone who endorses her barbaric stance on abortion?> First of all, "the stupid, ignorant" type statments were here before the subject of abortion even came up. So I really shouldn't need to respond to you question, since it's misdirecting my observation to one specific issue. But I will anyway: Who do you know that endorses her supposed specific stance? I don't. I haven't seen anyone else on this board say that abortions should be 100% banned. But I and others support McCain party this year, not because of this one issue, but for many, many different issues and reasons.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Karl Rove was supposed to be a master of reading poll data, which is the reason he was always so self assured. He used private polls to craft the daily message du jour on a state by state (if not precinct by precinct) basis.> Yeah - and he was predicting right up to election day in 2006 that Republicans would hold their majority in Congress. One thing besides the cell phone thing that might skew the numbers this year is that most of these polls show "likely voters." In at least some of the polls, anyone 18-21 can not count, because they count a "likely voter" as someone who voted in the last presidential election (which someone currently 18-21 can not have done, by definition). That age range is breaking big for Obama. Of course, this age range also tends to vote in relatively small numbers. Will they come out to vote in larger numbers than historically? They did in the primaries. Anyway, some polls don't count them at all, because they didn't vote in 2004. Some polls also weight African-American voters lighter than white voters because, historically, whites vote in larger percentages. That may not be the case this year.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I think the word "elitist" can be applied yet again. << Only if your definition of 'elitist' is intelligent and informed and discerning. If not, you're applying a double-standard, which happens all the time. What if it were the democratic candidate - a BLACK democratic candidate at that - who had a pregnant teenage daughter. Can you just imagine the outrage, the finger-pointing, the snide condescension, and the moralistic crap that would be coming from the right? I can.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <What if it were the democratic candidate - a BLACK democratic candidate at that - who had a pregnant teenage daughter. Can you just imagine the outrage, the finger-pointing, the snide condescension, and the moralistic crap that would be coming from the right? I can.> Me too. It's sad, isn't it that it comes from both sides.
