Posted on 10/09/2008 9:15:34 AM PDT by OPS4
McCain backers in Wis. say they don't trust polls WAUKESHA, Wis. (AP) - Supporters waiting in line to see John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin in Waukesha say they don't believe recent polls that show Democrat Barack Obama leading by 10 points in Wisconsin.
Alicia Thorson of Waukesha says she thinks the polls are fixed. The mother of 4 says she doesn't trust what she called the "liberal media."
Thorson's 3-year-old and 7-year-old daughters were dressed like Palin outside the sports complex where McCain was to hold a noon town hall meeting.
Kristi Czaplewski (CHAP-lew-skee) says she doesn't believe the polls because "you can't believe anything you see on TV."
And 73-year-old Dave Zalar of Jefferson says he believes the press is biased against McCain so he doesn't believe the polls either.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbay.com ...
Neither do I.
We have to encourage all conservatives to VOTE!
Damn the polls!
Turn Out!
Do not allow the left to suppress the vote!
The lying pollsters (and I agree with that assesment) may actually be doing McCain-Palin a favor. Why? Obama gets moer complacent thinking he is getting the win, and McCain-palin works harder to make sure they get the vote out for the Repubs..its a win-win I think for our side. It becomes a game changer if McCain_Palin work harder to attack Obama.
If you believe some of these polls, Zero is possibly set to do better than any Democrat in postwar history. Highly doubtful.
I didn’t believe the polls in 2006, and I was horribly wrong.
There is some reason to question the polls this year:
a. The cell phone effect
b. The anti-pollster effect
c. The Bradley effect
d. Shifting party identification effect
Operation Chaos effect...
I am still not happy with Rush for sticking us with Obama.
Yes. Operation Chaos would have an impact on party identification. No doubt.
I am personally surprised that Wisconsin is even in play.
I realilze that it is a swing state, but Obama won it outright over Hillary in the primaries (albeit before the Rev. Wright flap).
I figured that McCain’s best chances were in Hillary states like PA, OH, NH, etc.
The 10% is coming from U of Wisconsin students who vote in their home states and vote multiple times at school.
e. The Robert Byrd effect
In a nutshell, there is a significant percentage (polling indicates as much as a third) of the Demonrat party that won't vote for a black guy.
In early October 2004 some polls showed Bush ahead in WI by several points. I really thought he would take the state that was stolen from him in ‘00 but I was wrong. And so were the polls then.
So either the polls are wrong or their own internals are lies.
Carter was the last democrat to break 50% in the popular vote. Obama could break fifty if the conservative base stays home. But if we show up he will at best do what Kerry and Clinton, Gore did 48-49% of the vote. I think as the Palin offensive continues on Ayers and all this Acorn crap breaking, obama’s numbers are going to plunge big time. especially amognst hillary voters, and older democrat voters.
You'd rather be stuck with Hillary?
in terms of who I can live with...yeah, absolutely Hillary over Obama...but if Hillary was the nominee, she’d be up 15+ point right now...
Vs. Obama? I hate to admit it, but yes.
I don’t mind the polls showing obama or any demoRAT in the lead. I feel that it gives them the feeling of “we’re in the lead and I am too busy to get to the polls” where-as the right may see that as a real need to get to the polls. Just a hunch.
I'm uncomfortable with this as well. If we were to suffer a democrat president, I'd have preferred Hillary. At the very least, she could triangulate to the right (as her husband did) and probably not screw things up too bad.
Obama will be an unmitigated disaster for this country.
No one should.
VOTE!
So are you saying that the polls were actually correct in 2006? Explain further.
Were you? The polls in 2006 told us it would be an absolute massacre of the GOP, incredible Dem turnout, etc.
The final result was a +3 Dem advantage, which ended in the Democrats winning a host of very close races. Still a good night for the 'Rats, but not exactly what the polls led us to believe over the summer, was it?
The only way Obama wins next month is if he and the media convince enough willing dupes to stay home, thereby creating turnout resembling 2006. If turnout resembles 2004 (and I'm fairly sure it will after the Palin selection), Obama loses.
Another point: whether one thinks McCain is a RINO or whatever. The man is not stupid, nor are his campaign advisors. They absolutely would not be expending time and resources in a state that they do not need to win if they were trailing by ten points.
I always wondered if Rush’s tactics would come back to haunt us. Maybe it will, and if so, what will happen to him then? Me thinks there will be plenty of people who will turn on Rush.
As a loser? I doubt it. How much damage did Dukakis, Mondale and friends do?
I think they are off at this point in time, however if all the polls show Obama up on the eve of the election then I think we need to believe them a little.
It’s going to be close, and I won’t be surprised if zerO wins. I won’t be surprised if McCain wins either.
Well, turnout will be the key. So I hope the base is ready to rock.
We need to let these Obama operatives know that their stupid tactics won't work on us.
I’d go even further: Why is Zero spending money on radio ads here in the greater Chicago area if he is so far ahead everywhere else?
Like I told my very lib MIL -
if it was between 0bama and Hillary, I’d choose Hillary hands down.
She’d do slightly less damage to our country, mostly because she wouldn’t give EVERYTHING away to those who would destroy us.
Absolutely. Four years ago it was decided by a point (11,400 votes out of almost three million cast). Eight years ago, with a lot of shenanigans, it was 48-48 (Gore won by 5,400 votes out of 2.5 million cast).
Obama is not leading here by five points, much less ten points.
Well, I’d guess the Chicago media market bleeds over into WI and IN, both states he’s making strong plays for.
I don’t think we can compare this to 2004 or 2006. It is probably more like a hybrid of 1980 and 2000.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101014/posts?page=8#8
This year is the biggest push I have ever seen for the Democrats to steal an election and I saw the one in which JFK cheated his way into the white house. The polls are wrong, they are using fraudulent voter registrations for their internals for one thing.
I’m not following you. My numbers in that post were from 2000 and 2004. Both Presidential years. You can throw 2006 - an off-year - out the window. Turnout is not going to resemble 2006.
Not only is WI in play, but I nominate WI as the second most likely blue state that McCain can pick up (NH is first, but just barely). In 2004, it was the most closely contested state by percentage of margin of victory (0.38%) in the entire election.
The only reason this election is even competitive is because the Democrats nominated Obama over Hillary. Any good generic candidate would be up by 10 points even before the usual oversampling of Democrats in these polls.
I posted that while reading a different comment in the thread. I just didn’t think to quote it.
Yep, we agree. NH, WI, and then PA.
Okay, understood.
from Hillbuzz:
NOTE: We received the below from a mother in Colorado who was recently polled. She describes how the poll was conducted, what questions were asked, and how her poll was differentiated (how the pollster recorded her vote). We’ve never heard from anyone who’s been polled directly before, but if this is how the polls are actually conducted and recorded, we now understand why SoetorObama did 15% worse in some states during the primaries than what he was polled as.
Dear HillBuzz,
OK, well I got polled and now I am pissed.
We just moved back to CO and I registered as an Independent. I think that is the reason I got the call.
Here is how it went - they called when my 10 month old was upset so I told them not right now. She said she just wanted a few questions and didn’t mind my son being upset. I said fine.
She NEVER asked me WHO I supported. She asked this question first -
1. Do you support lower taxes to help the economy recover. - of course, I said yes.
2. Did I support our initial ‘invasion’ of Iraq. She emphasized that this wasn’t about the surge or supporting the troops now, just did I believe we should have been there in the first place. I said No, I didn’t really think now was the time to have gone in.
At that point I asked her why she didn’t just ask me who I supported. She said that the polling company didn’t want partisanship they believed that a person’s opinion on the issues reveals who they will vote for.
So I asked her who my answers revealed I would vote for.
She said I was put in the supporting Obama category…………..
What the hell. I told her NO, I am supporting McCain. She then said that because I wanted lower taxes I fit with Obama’s economic plan…LMAO and because I didn’t really thing we should have gone into Irag that I supported Obama’s foreign policy plan……..LMAO again (I am short on A$$ right now :)
I told her the premise of the questions were false and misleading due to the fact that I did not believe Obama would lower taxes. She also didn’t ask my income bracket to verify where in his plan I fall to determine my answer. Even if you use Obama’s so called plan, if I was rich, then I would lean McCain by wanting lower taxes. I told her that Obama’s plan does not include taxes lower than McCain’s in any category.
I literally laughed at the foreign policy question. I said, first your premise is based on hindsight which is 20/20. Two respectable democrats viewed the same flawed intelligence to make their decision. Hillary and others voted to support and start the Iraq War. I think the issue isn’t Bush, the Repubs or Democrats it is the faulty intelligence that came in and the climate of fear in America at the time. However, just because I believe that Iraq was not a good idea does not lend support to Obama because you can’t change history. He wasn’t given an opportunity to vote on Iraq because he was still in the state senate. He might have voted present or yes to the war we really don’t know. He was not privy to the intelligence. He stance and record since the war began and Obama’s view has appauling. I told her to mark me down for McCain and she said she would have to discuss it with her superviser due to my answers to the questions………..
WTF….
If this is how polling is going then of course Obama is ahead. I am still pissed. I have zero faith in polling or the MSM these days.
I made 100’s calls to undecideds in WIS - I would guess they are still about 10% undecided.
Yeah, I think Hillary and Bill haven’t forgotten that they are Americans. This new guy, though, seems to need to be reminded.
I think McCain would win even with 2006 turnout numbers. Consider this: in 2000, the turnout numbers were even better for Democrats than they were in 2006. In 2000, it was D39, R35, I26. With this combination, Gore ended up defeating Bush in the national vote by only 0.5%, with Independents essentially splitting their vote between Gore and Bush.
If the turnout is like 2006, the national vote will be razor close and come down to the Independent voters (where McCain may still have an edge based on Gallup polling). If it is more like 2004, as I suspect, McCain will win by about 3-4 points.
As you know, the one thing I'm not buying are all these polls that assume that Obama is going to have a massive advantage in turnout that we haven't seen in any election cycle in over 20 years. Especially when this massive new turnout is going to come from yoots and newly-registered voters -- the two demographics least likely to vote based on decades of actual past election data.
Thank you for getting involved!
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.