WWTBAM Bored

This post comes from an anti-Obama blog and quite frankly I find it a bit hard to believe myself. I'm wondering if anyone has heard anything like this in regard to polling, either in Colorado or any other state.

http://tinyurl.com/4sktd7

Now I do know that the positioning of questions on a poll does influence responses, so if you ask questions such as "Is the country on the right track?" or "Are you very concerned about the economy?" or about Bush's popularity rating before asking about presidential support, then it could well skew the responses in Obama's favor.

But this seems to go well beyond that.

The biggest problem with presidential polling and this happens in every election is in weighting responses by party affiliation, age, race, sex, etc. Most but not all pollsters do some weighting of their responses based on either historic trends, nationally or in a state, or on their projections for what the turnout will be. If they are wrong, then the results can be off, but the problem is that pollsters can't really spot what is happening until after the election is over.

I do think there are a couple of factors which could contribute to a pro-Obama bias in the polls, and one of these is party affiliation. The conventional wisdom is that Obama has attracted a lot of new registrants to the Democratic party based on primary results. However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

silverscreenselect wrote:This post comes from an anti-Obama blog and quite frankly I find it a bit hard to believe myself. I'm wondering if anyone has heard anything like this in regard to polling, either in Colorado or any other state.

http://tinyurl.com/4sktd7

Now I do know that the positioning of questions on a poll does influence responses, so if you ask questions such as "Is the country on the right track?" or "Are you very concerned about the economy?" or about Bush's popularity rating before asking about presidential support, then it could well skew the responses in Obama's favor.

But this seems to go well beyond that.

The biggest problem with presidential polling and this happens in every election is in weighting responses by party affiliation, age, race, sex, etc. Most but not all pollsters do some weighting of their responses based on either historic trends, nationally or in a state, or on their projections for what the turnout will be. If they are wrong, then the results can be off, but the problem is that pollsters can't really spot what is happening until after the election is over.

I do think there are a couple of factors which could contribute to a pro-Obama bias in the polls, and one of these is party affiliation. The conventional wisdom is that Obama has attracted a lot of new registrants to the Democratic party based on primary results. However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

I haven't heard anything like this, but frankly, it doesn't surprise me. Unlike a lot of people, I don't think the race is over quite yet. A lot can happen in four weeks, especially with the amount of dirt that Obama seems to have in his past. But the polls now would just lead people to believe that there is no way that McCain can win...

It's called grasping for straws. Somebody is always looking for some way to discredit state polls that show a lead for a candidate that they don't like. Not once have I discredited a state poll on this Bored--not even the ones that have had McCain ahead. I just post the polls as they are released and let the people decide for themselves. The only polls I have ever discredited are the national presidential polls.

Suppose the election results on November 4 either line up with the current polls or turn out to show Obama with bigger margins of victory than the current polls. I'm curious as to how this particular blogger will spin his way out of that paper bag.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:It's called grasping for straws. Somebody is always looking for some way to discredit state polls that show a lead for a candidate that they don't like. Not once have I discredited a state poll on this Bored--not even the ones that have had McCain ahead. I just post the polls as they are released and let the people decide for themselves. The only polls I have ever discredited are the national presidential polls.

Suppose the election results on November 4 either line up with the current polls or turn out to show Obama with bigger margins of victory than the current polls. I'm curious as to how this particular blogger will spin his way out of that paper bag.

I said flat out that I found this particular claim hard to believe, but I"m not in Colorado, so I don't know if it is going on there or not and was curious if anyone else had heard anything like that.

Although it may not sound like it at times, most pollsters don't make their livings off political polls. They do a lot of polling for private business which affects product marketing decisions. Pollsters who are consistently wrong find themselves ex-pollsters, so they want their methods to be as accurate as possible.

While statistics is an exact science (if you understand what concepts like margin of error really mean), political polling methodology is not, and pollsters are always trying to fine tune their models to make them as accurate as possible. Having said that, pollsters do know what other polslters are doing and sometimes will reweight their samples simply because their results seem to differ from the "consensus" and they don't want to appear wrong.

Sure sounds phony to me. I'm sure ColoradoMom is real, but I'm also certain it wasn't any polling organization where the results would show up in any reputable poll.

However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

SportsFan68 wrote:Sure sounds phony to me. I'm sure ColoradoMom is real, but I'm also certain it wasn't any polling organization where the results would show up in any reputable poll.

However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

I don't know about Colorado, but you know one now, right here.

SportsFan68 wrote:Sure sounds phony to me. I'm sure ColoradoMom is real, but I'm also certain it wasn't any polling organization where the results would show up in any reputable poll.

However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

For anyone who was a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain is insane.

The stock market has made me insane, sorry.

Bob Juch wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote: As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

I wasn't aware that Benedict Arnold was a Democrat.

Are you saying that anyone who votes for McCain is a traitor to his country (or maybe just a good old garden variety racist) or that loyalty to the current nominee of one's political party shoud be tantamount to loyalty to the country?

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote: As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

I wasn't aware that Benedict Arnold was a Democrat.

Are you saying that anyone who votes for McCain is a traitor to his country (or maybe just a good old garden variety racist) or that loyalty to the current nominee of one's political party shoud be tantamount to loyalty to the country?

No, just a traitor to their party.

Bob Juch wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:Sure sounds phony to me. I'm sure ColoradoMom is real, but I'm also certain it wasn't any polling organization where the results would show up in any reputable poll.

However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

For anyone who was a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain is insane.

Why is not blindly following the Democratic Party line insane? The Democrats have nominated an amoral, inexperienced, unprinicipled person to the highest office in the country. Why should Democrats with half a brain vote for this person? And even if a Democrat can't vote Republican, there are third party candidates on the ballot. Sure, there are those who say that a person who votes for a third party candidate is throwing his or her vote away. I don't believe that, especially since it keeps a person from truly voting his conscience. Part of what is wrong with this country stems from the current two party system. I am a strong conservative, but I'm not just blindly following the Republican Party line. If anything, I think the Republican Party is too liberal, but that's just me.

I'm only saying this because I'm wavering in my own vote. I've never been that crazy about McCain, and there is a third party candidate running who stands for all the things that I believe in government. But I also believe that Obama would do such drastic harm to this country. So do I vote AGAINST what I view as unthinkable, an Obama presidency, or do I vote FOR what I really believe even though I know that the candidate has no chance of winning?

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

I wasn't aware that Benedict Arnold was a Democrat.

Are you saying that anyone who votes for McCain is a traitor to his country (or maybe just a good old garden variety racist) or that loyalty to the current nominee of one's political party shoud be tantamount to loyalty to the country?

No, just a traitor to their party.

You can't be serious about this. You're saying party loyalty is more important than national loyalty? I have no respect for anyone who votes for a candidate strictly on party lines.

Rexer25 wrote: You can't be serious about this. You're saying party loyalty is more important than national loyalty? I have no respect for anyone who votes for a candidate strictly on party lines.

This goes beyond that. This says that loyalty to the current leader of the party is more important than national loyalty. I lost respect for many Republicans when they went along with every bit of idiocy from Bush because he was the head of the Republican Party. I won't do the same thing for Obama.

Bob Juch wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:Sure sounds phony to me. I'm sure ColoradoMom is real, but I'm also certain it wasn't any polling organization where the results would show up in any reputable poll.

However, I think that a substantial number of Hillary supporters now no longer consider themselves Democrats, and, if polled, would consider themselves as independents. Those figures don't show up in the weighting.

As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No Clinton supporter that I know has switched her/his vote to McCain.

You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

For anyone who was a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain is insane.

I misspoke. Er, misstyped. Let me try again:

As unhappy as many Clinton supporters were (and some still are), the locals still consider themselves Democrats, not Unaffiliateds. No local Clinton supporter that I know personally has switched her/his vote to McCain.

What they are describing seems to be a push poll rather than a legit poll.

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.[1] The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants[2], and is illegal in New Hampshire.[3]

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

I wasn't aware that Benedict Arnold was a Democrat.

Are you saying that anyone who votes for McCain is a traitor to his country (or maybe just a good old garden variety racist) or that loyalty to the current nominee of one's political party shoud be tantamount to loyalty to the country?

No, just a traitor to their party.

No, no, no... I'll have to agree with Dan, Rexer, and Comedian SSS on this one. Only one person in this country can qualify as a "traitor to their party", and that's Joe "I wish I could quit you, John" Lieberman. Besides, several hundred thousand of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton during the primaries and caucuses are not Democrats at all. They're Republicans who just switched their affiliations to Democratic just so they could vote for her in the primaries and caucuses and had no intention of voting for her or Obama in the general election.

There is no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on any of the issues... so any true-blue-Democratic Hillary Clinton supporter who votes for McCain is a traitor to Hillary Clinton and everything that she has stood for during her 35-year career in politics.

Chicken Little wrote:What they are describing seems to be a push poll rather than a legit poll.

The way this woman described the poll is not a push poll. A push poll asks leading, damaging questions under the guise of conducting a poll. For example, "Does Candidate X's conviction of child molestation make you more likely or less likely to vote for him?" Even if the facts mentioned happen to be true or arguable, the reason for mentioning them is to inflame the opinion of those being "polled." From the description here, the woman had to press in order to find out who she supposedly supported.

It sounds like a very poorly constructed poll but not a push poll per se.

Bob Juch wrote:You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

Party loyalty is so important to you that you'll call someone who votes cross-party a "Benedict Arnold"?

That says more about YOU than it does SSS.

Bob Juch wrote:For anyone who was a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain is insane.

As does this.

Jeemie wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

Party loyalty is so important to you that you'll call someone who votes cross-party a "Benedict Arnold"?

That says more about YOU than it does SSS.

Bob Juch wrote:For anyone who was a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain is insane.

As does this.

It all has to do with your values. I don't understand how someone can betray their Democratic ideals.

Bob Juch wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:You forgot about Benedict Arnold, AKA SSS.

Party loyalty is so important to you that you'll call someone who votes cross-party a "Benedict Arnold"?

That says more about YOU than it does SSS.

Bob Juch wrote:For anyone who was a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain is insane.

As does this.

It all has to do with your values. I don't understand how someone can betray their Democratic ideals.

What I can't understand is how someone can blindly follow an amoral, deceitful candidate who hangs out with terrorists, hate-mongering "preachers," vote fraud organizations, and slumlords. Aren't you worried about the future of the Democratic Party? If Obama is elected and his presidency is only one quarter as bad as I think it will be, it will ensure that no Democrat gets elected to the Presidency for the next 20 years (although I personally think that would be a good thing). Using that reasoning, SSS is a much stronger Democrat than any of these people just automatically defending all of Obama's skeletons. You know, if solid evidence was released showing Obama to have molested and murdered a child, I'm sure most of his supporters would just be coming up with some other asinine defense for his actions.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Rexer25 wrote: You can't be serious about this. You're saying party loyalty is more important than national loyalty? I have no respect for anyone who votes for a candidate strictly on party lines.

This goes beyond that. This says that loyalty to the current leader of the party is more important than national loyalty. I lost respect for many Republicans when they went along with every bit of idiocy from Bush because he was the head of the Republican Party. I won't do the same thing for Obama.

Once again, while I don't agree with you in this instance, I certainly agree 100% with the principle you just enunciated. The guy who called you a traitor is clearly just as screwy as some of the right-wingers he has been arguing with.

The concept that the leader is the party is a tenet of totalitarian states. Adolf Hitler was the Nazi Party. Stalin, Mao, and Castro were the Communist parties in their countries during their lifetimes.

We've had eight years in which Republicans have made loyalty to Bush on all issues a matter of paramount importance, and it has cost them dearly. Even a Republican like McCain who has a record of going against Bush and others in his party time and time again is being effectively villainized by Obama this cycle. McCain is not Bush 3, but the Republican party has tied itself to Bush so completely that many voters believe it.

Now Democrats are going to repeat this mistake. I feel an Obama administration will be a disaster, but the way in which Democrats are pushing out those who disagree with Obama and wrapping themselves around him so completely, whatever idiocy he unleashes will come back to haunt other Democratic candidates for years to come at all levels of government.

silverscreenselect wrote:The concept that the leader is the party is a tenet of totalitarian states. Adolf Hitler was the Nazi Party. Stalin, Mao, and Castro were the Communist parties in their countries during their lifetimes.

We've had eight years in which Republicans have made loyalty to Bush on all issues a matter of paramount importance, and it has cost them dearly. Even a Republican like McCain who has a record of going against Bush and others in his party time and time again is being effectively villainized by Obama this cycle. McCain is not Bush 3, but the Republican party has tied itself to Bush so completely that many voters believe it.

Now Democrats are going to repeat this mistake. I feel an Obama administration will be a disaster, but the way in which Democrats are pushing out those who disagree with Obama and wrapping themselves around him so completely, whatever idiocy he unleashes will come back to haunt other Democratic candidates for years to come at all levels of government.

You don't get it. I've been saying the leader is not all that important. It's the party that matters, thanks to our Congress.

danielh41 wrote: What I can't understand is how someone can blindly follow an amoral, deceitful candidate who hangs out with terrorists, hate-mongering "preachers," vote fraud organizations, and slumlords. Aren't you worried about the future of the Democratic Party? If Obama is elected and his presidency is only one quarter as bad as I think it will be, it will ensure that no Democrat gets elected to the Presidency for the next 20 years (although I personally think that would be a good thing). Using that reasoning, SSS is a much stronger Democrat than any of these people just automatically defending all of Obama's skeletons. You know, if solid evidence was released showing Obama to have molested and murdered a child, I'm sure most of his supporters would just be coming up with some other asinine defense for his actions.

No, I'm not worried about the future of the Democratic party. If Obama really had molested and murdered a child, he'd have been thrown under the bus long ago, just as happened to Wright when he fell in love with the national spotlight.

A Republican Presidency for the past eight years has been so bad and harmed so many people, and some of my friends have been deeply harmed with regard to their retirement savings, which is nothing compared to families which have lost sons and daughters chasing after a lie, that I hope no Republian gets elected to the Presidency for the next 20 years.

I believe that John McCain is closer to "amoral" than Barack Obama:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 30,00.html
Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

Nothing new here -- Rove did the same thing. And voters bought it. And we have been harmed.

silverscreenselect wrote:The concept that the leader is the party is a tenet of totalitarian states. Adolf Hitler was the Nazi Party. Stalin, Mao, and Castro were the Communist parties in their countries during their lifetimes.

We've had eight years in which Republicans have made loyalty to Bush on all issues a matter of paramount importance, and it has cost them dearly. Even a Republican like McCain who has a record of going against Bush and others in his party time and time again is being effectively villainized by Obama this cycle. McCain is not Bush 3, but the Republican party has tied itself to Bush so completely that many voters believe it.

Now Democrats are going to repeat this mistake. I feel an Obama administration will be a disaster, but the way in which Democrats are pushing out those who disagree with Obama and wrapping themselves around him so completely, whatever idiocy he unleashes will come back to haunt other Democratic candidates for years to come at all levels of government.

I disagree with that last paragraph. I do not believe that an Obama administration will be a disaster, and I do not believe that he will unleash idiocy.

And I have not been pushed out for disagreeing with Obama on his health care plan.

Save your breath, SSS. I realize that you don't recognize me as worthy of being pushed out in the context you referred to here. You meant nationally-recognized Democratic leaders, not county level worker bees.