Palin - 99%
Posted on 09/25/2008 10:06:04 AM PDT by Chet 99
Some this could be a result of Biden’s gaffes.
Particularly the coal subject.
Heh heh...Pollercoaster.
Well, it’s a tight race, no two ways about it.
Half of America is gonna be unhappy come the day after election.
I’m getting whiplash from these damn polls. They’re still not as frustrating as the ones for college football.
Sometimes facts can sneak past the MSM’s filter.
who are these idiots who change their mind day to day???
“Good grief. These polls! @!$^$#%&^%^&$%#%#$%”
Right. I see polls like this now and I shrug. It’ll swing another 3 points the opposite way in a few days, and everyone will be pissed. Just enjoy the ride, I guess...
“Good grief. These polls! @!$^$#%&^%^&$%#%#$%”
Right. I see polls like this now and I shrug. It’ll swing another 3 points the opposite way in a few days, and everyone will be pissed. Just enjoy the ride, I guess...
“I am a little concerned though that the deal being reached already means he will look like a fool for suspending his campaign”
Apparently, Reid asked McCain to come to DC to help get support for the bailout bill (an invitation that Reid backtracked on on Wednesday). Also, Paulson (sp?) apparently made a call to McCain asking for similar help. It looks like nothing will get passed without McCain’s OK. That’s either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the reaction to the final bill that passes.
There have been some goofy-ass polls lately.
McCain surging here, Obama surging in the state polls on Rass...very weird.
What do you mean by "poll defeatist?" If you mean someone who doesn't trust the polls... well I'm one of those. I suggest none of us trust them for anything. There is no science to back up calling 800 people and find an accurate pulse of this nation of hundreds of millions.
So here we go: In 1996 the polls were used as propaganda to destroy any credible chance a very honorable man Sen. Bob Dole ever had to win the election. Some polls had him losing by as much as 28%. As the election got really close, the polls dropped down to a tight race (wonder why... hmmm?) but the damage had been done. The perception that Dole was going to get his clock cleaned by Clinton had been out there a very long time. The poll numbers hung like a dark cloud over his campaign, and muted enthusiasm. Quoting this vastly slanted polls, Bernie Shaw, then an anchorman for CNN pronouced around June that (paraphrased)"No sitting president(Bill Clinton) this far ahead in the polls at this time of year has ever lost an election." Comments like that helped drill the point home: Dole was going to lose, and lose BIG.
In the end, he lost by around 8%, if I recall. A UK journalist remarked that "if the American media had not been so biased, perhaps Sen. Dole might have had a chance." This was in 1996!
Dan Rather calling Georgia for Clinton... very early was pretty much the icing on the cake. How many people just stayed home or went straight home for work and gave up on voting we will never know. It took HOURS for them to finally correct the incorrect call on Georgia, obviously a must-win state for a conservative. This SHOULD have been a strong warning for what was to follow in 2000 (Florida).
After that election (1996) legislation was passed to make polls more responsible, but as Rush pointed out about the recent ABC poll just a few days ago, they are still a crooked bunch of peons that will put out good numbers for a price. The ABC poll was weighted 38% Democrats, 28% Republicans (I think he said), and around a third of the voters were African-American (and we know how that vote is going to go). So the poll was heavily slanted towards Obama. Thus, they published a 9% lead.
The great peril here is that polls can and have already been used as voter suppression many times. They can do this again. On election night they may try to call states in error again to psyche out the nations voters. In 2000 they called Florida before the Florida panhandle had finished voting (different time zone), and thats where a lot of the conservative vote is found.
Hows that for "poll defeatist?" I'll keep posting reminders through election night that we MUST go vote and encourage everyone to vote no matter what the liberal media and their liberal polls are telling us.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some of them are (well, most of them are, and virtually every media poll is), but not Gallup. This is the only one that I trust even to be in the ballpark of accuracy, although I also like to follow Rasmussen as a reality check of sorts.
Past elections prove otherwise. Republican candidates always outperform the polls. In 1996, only 2 polls out of more than a dozen polls were even within their margins of error on election day. What good is a margin of error when it can be exceeded?
In 1996, Battleground and John Zogby were closest to being right, but besides all their math and methodology I count it as luck. At least they were not reporting exaggerated numbers like the other polls.
Trying to poll people after they have voted, for the purpose of "calling a state" by the media has also proved to be demonstrably false (for example: 2000). Huge disappointment as the agency fielding the pollsters was paid millions by all the major media outlets (including FOX) but a lot of their predictions were so WAY OFF as to be embarrassing.
Polls are fun to talk about, but so is getting your handwriting analyzed by a computer at the county fair. Interesting for five minutes, but only accurate by chance.
Palin - 99%
Not always. In Gallup, the Republican candidate outperformed Gallup's final poll in 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2004. The Democratic candidate outprformed Gallup's final poll in 1988 and 2000. Gallup nailed the election (after rounding) in 1984.
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.
