Posted on 10/17/2008 7:42:07 AM PDT by icwhatudo
AP/YAHOO Poll of 873 Democrats; 650 Republicans shows OBAMA 44%, MCCAIN 42%...
New scientific poll?
IBD: Obama up 3
GALLUP: Obama up 2
Interesting. Especially after you consider the Bradley effect.
Ignore the polls
Interview dates: October 3, 2008 – October 13, 2008
Interviews: 1,769 adults; 1,528 registered voters
873 Democrats; 650 Republicans
Sampling margin of error for a 50% statistic with 95%
confidence is: ±2.3 for all adults; ±2.5 for registered voters
±3.3 for Democrats; ±3.8 for Republicans
They over sample democrats 57% to 43% and Obama is only up by 2??!!
This is hugh!
And the PUMA effect.
Wonder what it would be if they polled 50/50 Dems and Reps?
Remember the polls are for the left to change people’s minds and they are also there to show it close so there is more attention to the race to watch their shows and read their newspapers and for candidates to buy ad time.
Follow the money trail.
The polls -- commissioned, after all, by media outlets -- are designed to extract the most advertising dollars from both campaigns. Presidential elections are the political Super Bowl for the MSM, and political advertising differs from the run-of-the-mill since it has to be paid for in advance. It's cold, hard cash for a media sorely in need of it.
So you bet they'll make it look close until the bitter end, on occasion showing one candidate or the other building a lead so the other candidate increases his advertising buys.
These polls are all about money for the Drive-Bys.
I'd add that as the election grows closer, and the MSM and their hired pollsters decide they've wrung every last dollar out of this thing, the polls will begin to more clearly reflect reality, in order to maintain the polling firms' reputations.
I want his ideas and principles to be rejected by the American people. I don't want him to lose because he's Black.
I want him to lose because he's wrong and dangerous.
Notice the HUGE oversample of Dims. I wonder what the results would be if they just sampled 100 likely voters?
57% - 43% D to R split, and Snob-ama’s only up by TWO??
I'll say it again. In 2004 turnout was dead even between Dems and Pubbies. So if we added another 223 Republicans to this poll, does anyone think McCain might have a wee bit of a lead? :-)
The Obamessiah is in serious danger of getting blown out in 2 1/2 weeks. No wonder he's getting snippy with blue-collar plumber peasants.
57 43 is this true?
Regarding the Bradley effect: why would voters be afraid to say who they are voting for over the phone? I’m just curious.
My math shows that if you pro-rate the results to 50/50 you get Obama 39, McCain 48.
You seem unfamiliar with what the Bradley effect actually is. It is a real phenomenon, which results in people lying to pollsters, who they are afraid will think they are racist for failing to support the black candidate, even though they are not.
This poll would seem to indicate that Obama is in trouble. Obama should be up 49-37 with that sample breakou.
If this particular poll is accurate, then Dems and indies could break significantly for Obama and it still likely wouldn't be enough to defeat McCain.
So, to clarify...the black candidate doesn’t lose because he’s black...he overpolls for that reason.
You misunderstand the Bradley Effect. The Bradley Effect is about people being too uncomfortable to tell pollsters the truth about their voting plans.
shows OBAMA 40%, MCCAIN 46%...
That’s a HUGE oversampling of Dems...
I wonder how they justify that?
Everyone remember, for every operative in Operation Chaos, there is one more Dem and one less Rep counted in the weighting. A difference of 2 for ever 1 switchover.
They’re not afraid...it’s more “I don’t want that person to think I’m racist” sort of thing.
This doesn’t sound good for Obama. I think the AP/Yahoo is very liberal leaning.
48 M, 39 O? Happy camper here!!
I just want him to lose.
I’m sorry I don’t care how Obama loses, whether it’s the Bradley Effect, Michelle Obama’s tirades, or Bill Ayres. All that matters is that as Rush says, that we drag McCain across the finish line in victory. Obama must be defeated, period.
Think about who might still be undecided at this point. My guess is most of the undecided voters are Democrats who can't commit to Barry, and I'd wager that they will break 2:1 for McCain in the end.
One statistic that Karl Rove has mentioned from recent polling is telling: the number of undecided voters is twice what it was at this point in recent elections. Barry, despite following a President with the lowest approval rating since Hoover and in the midst of a sharp economic downturn, can't finish the deal.
I haven’t looked at the raw numbers, but I expect that even if you give a four-point advantage to Democrats, you probably end up with a tie or slight lead for McCain.
People just want to be liked, and they think that if they tell even a stranger that they don't want to vote for Obama (the reasons don't matter), they worry that the stranger will assign them with a racist label, even though it's not the case.
So they take the easy route and just say they are voting for the black guy. That way they don't have to answer any more questions and don't have to defend their non-vote with a stranger.
Here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, I keep my traditional, conversative politics to myself because:
(a) I do not want to argue with very emotional, angry people.
(b) I fear retribution for yard signs, or even damage to my house if I keep signs in my windows.
(c) I want my young children - 6 and 3 - NOT to see any of this ugliness, keeping them hopeful for the return of the "shining city on the hill."
What does this make me: paranoid, racist, naive, all, some, or neither?
“Wonder what it would be if they polled 50/50 Dems and Reps?”
McCain would LEAD by 12, not including the BRADLEY EFFECT. I’m thinking these pollsters are going to regret that they folded to the pressure the KOS MOONBATS gave them on sampling ratios...
And the same is said re. the Wilder effect.
So to correct your post, "is about people being too uncomfortable to tell pollsters the truth about their voting plans, ie that they won't vote for the Black guy". And I am uncomfortable with that.
There are many reasons to vote against Obama, each one better than the one before. But not voting for him because he's Black, shouldn't be one of them.
Exactly. Some are claiming that the Bradley effect is probably non-existent at this point, but I rather doubt that, especially in the current bandwagon climate.
That’s not what the Bradley effect is. There may be some that won’t vote for the guy because he’s black, but mainly, it is that people don’t want to be perceived as racist for failing to support the black guy, period, regardless of why.
Fix the sampling Poll of 873 Democrats; 873 Republicans
shows OBAMA 40%, MCCAIN 46%
37D, 37R, and 26I was indeed the 2004 distribution. Here is a chart that contains this information for every election since 1972.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/data-party-identification.html
Note that two years ago, in what was a very bad year for the GOP, the breakdown was 37D, 34R, and 29I. Note that the Democrats have never done better than 39% since 1986, have never had more than a 3 point advantage in any election since 2000 (and that happened only once, in 2006), haven’t done better than 38% since 2000, and have had 4 point advantages in only two election cycles (Presidential and mid-year) since 1988
Okay, I'll go with that.
Some people don't want to appear "racist", or want to appear "more enlightened".
Also, given some of the "Get in your face" threads that I've seen here on FR, I'm not entirely sure that I'd want to tell an Obama supporter (who has my phone #, name, and where I live) that I don't support his/her candidate. There's plenty of them that are seriously unbalanced.
I'll do my talking in the voting booth.
“Regarding the Bradley effect: why would voters be afraid to say who they are voting for over the phone?”
SIMPLE——
Because Grandma doesn’t want to sound like she is a racist to that nice young man on the phone....
Obama will lose because he is Red, not black.
None of the above. It makes you smart.
Especially by keeping your kids out of it. There's no place for children in politics (even politics that I agree with). It's far more important for kids to be kids - there's plenty of time for them to be adults, later.
Keep in mind, also, that Deukmeijian was a mainstream conservative candidate, in “Reagan country,” as California was in the early 1980s, with Prop. 15 on the ballot (registration of handguns), which helped conservative turnout.
The problem was in the polls. Also, when you’re talking about California, you have the Field Poll problem...a poll that is consistently wrong, in the liberal direction, year after year after year...but is still taken seriously by the media.
Actually, if you adjust the breakdown fro 57% Dammocrap - 43% Republican to 52% Dammocrap - 48% Republican (your 4% differential), and assume that Snob-ama is getting only 5% of the Republican vote and Sen. McCain is getting only 5% of the Dammocrap vote, then the results are Sen. McCain - 45.8% - Snob-ama 40.36%.
Or thereabouts.
Of course, that means that about 22% of folks identified by this poll as Dammocraps are undecided.
Bloody ugly for the minions of Satan.
sitetest
Exactly, it is people being scared they will be called racist for not voting for a Black man. To what extent these people exist, I don’t know, but I have a couple relatives that fall into this category. Guess where they live? PA.
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.