Posted on 11/03/2008 4:41:29 PM PST by WestFlorida
I was watching. Looked like she admitted defeat to me. Turned the channel. CNN still thinks there is an election tomorrow.
I was watching. Looked like she admitted defeat to me. Turned the channel. CNN still thinks there is an election tomorrow.
Hiccup. Excuse me.
This is psychological warfare. They’re telling the Dems we’re beat. Stay home. Republicans vote whether they’re winning big or losing.
“Now we know Gallup’s “likely voter” model: 39%D, 31%I, 29%R. Kinda explains a lot”
Well, the 8-10% derived from voter fraud has to come from somewhere. Gallop either knows what is going on (Obama can’t win an honest election IMO) or he will be a laughing stock Wednesday morning.
Most pollsters don’t think we check the internals of a poll.
Nice try Gallup
Garbage...prove them wrong
FWIW, the EXIT POLLS for 2004 showed turnout for Dems and Republicans even at 38%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
VOTE BY PARTY ID TOTAL Democrat Republican
Democrat.....................(38%)..........90%...........9%
Republican...................(38%)..........7%...........93%
Independent.................(25%).........49%..........46%
So let’s get this straight. With that type of party id McCain was at one point behind by only 2 (last week). HA! I wonder what the real number would have looked like with a reasonable party id
On Oreilly, I am sure it will be posted by another. I just lost respect for Laura
If she actually said that, she's delusional.
The MSM and the polling companies are in the tank for each other.
Far be it from me to trust any of the MSM, but has anyone thought that all of the Obama bias might be because they know McCain is going to win and need something to talk about between tomorrow and the end of the year? I mean they get payed for their copy (vs news) right? So what would make better copy than days of pouring over how McCain managed such an unprecidented upset?
Just a thought.
I just got a Laura Ingraham Eblast where she was echoing the same thing she said on Fox.
I not only unsubscribed but emailed her and told her off about writing post mortems of elections before they occur. Considering what is at stake and how it could effect us, for these stupid, idiotic, irresponsible talking head / drive by garbage to demoralize the electorate before election day is treasonist. I am through with her. She is a fifth column traitor.
She was admitting defeat and O’Reilly is gleefully going along because he’s all po’ed that McCain shunned his show after he’d developed an obvious infatuation with obama.
Total bias!
hehe...Gallup obviously never listened to Rush!!!...
Operation Chaos GETS THE LAST LAUGH!
When I was polled, the women’s rights issue question was long and convoluted, and translated to “if you don’t go whole heartedly for abortion, you’re in a burqa, you don’t want that, right?”
So the answer is, “Of course,” which is taken as a “Yeah, Democrats!”
Looking at their definitions of the two models;
Gallup's "expanded" likely voter model determines likely voters based only on current voting intentions. This estimate would take into account higher turnout among groups of voters traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and minorities.
Gallup's "traditional" likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections.
How on earth can the two different models show the same result? It's like saying, "apples = oranges".
It's as if they got a phone call from the Obama camp saying how dare you have a poll that assumes that Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.
It's bad enough they morphed their RV poll into a LV (Expanded) poll. Now they morph LV (Expanded) into LV (Tradidtional).
It's as if in order to be politically correct, Gallup now uses the following formula for its three polls....
Its interesting to see how these “heads” fold when times get tough. When McCain wins, I won't be able to listen to her because her credibility will be gone. If you aren't with us in the bad times, we aren't listening to your cr*p in the good times.
Final Poll: Obama 55%, McCain 44%, Other 1%
Gallup: Party Weights 39% Dem, 31% Independent, 29% Republican
Obama pary share: 91% dem, 9% rep, 48% indep
McCain party share: 91% rep, 9% dem, 43% indep
Undecided party share: 9% indep
Obama Support: 91% Democrat(91% x 39% party weight =35.49%), 48% Independent (48% x 31% Independent weight= 14.88%), 9% Republican (9% x 29% party weight=2.61%
35.49% + 14.88% + 2.61% = 52.98%...2.02% short of the 55% Gallup gave Obama. Where did they get the other 2.02%? Must have come from the 9% left of independents.
McCain Support: 91% Republican (91% x 29% party weight =26.39%, 43% Independent (43% x 31% party weight=13.33%, 9% Democrat (9% x 39% party weight=3.51%)
26.39% + 13.33% + 3.51% = 43.23%...0.77% short of the 44% given to McCain in the final poll.
So now let’s allocate the 9% undecideds (according to Gallup) to get to the final result. As we said, Obama needs 2.02% more accounted for while McCain needs 1.16% accounted for. 2.02%/31% (indep party weight)= 6.52% indep.
McCain: 1.16%/31% (indep party weight)= 3.75%
6.52% + 3.75% adds up to 10.27%, more than the 9% we said was unallocated. Gallup must have rounded the final results. We’ll just say Gallup gave Obama 6% to McCain’s 3% of the remaining independents. So they basically gave Obama a 2-1 break of the remaining undecided independents while he only got 48% of the decided vote. It’s much more likely that the undecideds break 2-1 for MCCAIN. That’s outrageous point number 1 we’ll make in this post.
Ok, bear with me now. Final Gallup breakdown is Obama: 91% dem, 9% rep, 54% indep (48+6 undecided allocation)
McCain broke down as follows: 91% rep, 9% dem, 46% indep. (43+3 undecided allocation)
There is a statistical noise of 1% for Barr and Nader, etc. Let’s just assume, for the sake of easy calculations that you can subtract 1% from any final result Obama gets in my model.
Now, let’s reweight to 38% dem, 34% rep, 28% indep just for the sake of argument. You can run your own allocations that you like better. Let’s also give McCain undecideds 2-1, resulting in 51%-49% independent advantage for Obama.
Obama: 91% dem (91% x 38% party weight)= 34.58%, 9% rep (9% x 34% party weight) = 3.06%, 51% ind (51% x 28% party weight) = 14.28%
34.58% + 3.06% +14.28% = 51.92%
McCain: 91% rep (91% x 34% party weight)= 30.94%, 9% dem (9% x 38% party weight) = 3.42%, 49% indep (49% x 28% party weight) = 13.72%
30.94% + 3.42% + 13.72% = 48.08%
So under this model we have Obama 51.92%-48.08%. We have just explained away a 4% increase for McCain and 3% decline for Obama by re-weighting the party IDs and reallocating undecided independents from 2-1 for Obama to 2-1 for McCain (which seems much more likely).
If undecided independents break for McCain 3-1 you get this result: Obama 51.71%-48.29%.
What I would be extremely interested to know is how Gallup allocated ALL undecideds. I was able to extract by calculation the approximate break down of undecided independents, and it shows a 2-1 break for Obama. I find that extremely unlikely. What I cannot calculate from the available information is how ALL undecideds broke. If Gallup gave Obama a 2-1 break of ALL undecideds then that further skews the poll. If that’s the case then you could easily turn that around to a 2-1 break for McCain and then this is at worse a dead heat if not a McCain lead using a more realistic party ID breakdown.
Conclusion and what we already knew anyway, Gallup skewed this poll hugely in Obama’s favor and it has just been debunked as unscientific.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.