Posted on 10/31/2004 8:04:35 AM PST by BuckeyeGOP
I've had it with these ridiculous polls and pundits claiming everything is a virtual tie. Even all the battleground states are a tie according to them! I have a suspicious feeling that a great majority of pollsters, pundits, and newservices are going to be scraping egg off their faces by 11pm Tuesday evening.
What happened in 2000 was historic because it only happened 1 or 2 times in our history. 2000 was an anomole folks, pure and simple. The chances that this election will be another tie or deadheat are almost like lightening striking the same place twice. Think about it. National polls have a dead heat AND COINCIDENTALLY ALL the states christianed 'battleground' states by the msm a year ago are all 50/50 too? Does this seem strange to anyone else?
I don't like to play conspiracy theorist, so I do not want to claim it is an intentional skewing by pollsters, frankly I'm not sure what to make of it. Maybe it's simply a huge error in polling processes. Maybe pollsters are intimidated by other polls as well as general myths about huge new democrat registration numbers and turnout predictions, and thus skew accordingly so as not to appear as the outsider and risk being the only flawed poll come Wednesday.
I believe whole heartedly that Bush will win in a MASSIVE electoral landslide. He will take OH, FL, MI,and run the uppermidwest and south. Kerry will have his usual states plus he will squeak by with PA.
Tie my Ass. That's my call and I'm stick'n with it!
It's a conspiracy by all the news/media outlets. Think about it, if they tell us its a tie, what do we do? We watch them hour after hour to see if something new comes out, so it's ALL ABOUT RATINGS!
My point has been this: If conservatives across this nation don't trust Old Media, why--oh why--do we trust their polls?
There is a huge disconnect here.
Since when do the media polls have any credibility?
Mason-Dixon is where you want to keep your attention.
Go to their website.
They're the best and most accurate.
Ditch the Alphabets/newspapers/AP.
They're so over.
problem with that is many pollsters are independent of news services. To them it's all about accuracy and credibility. Gallup gains nothing by skewing a poll in one way or other or to keep it a tie.
That's what's confounding me, because I truly do not see 50% of Americans ready to change leaders in a time of war and even worse... to an ultra-liberal elitist from Boston...America has NEVER voted that way.
The press is expecting the Dems to pull off enough fraud to uphold these polls. I look for them to conspire on Dem cheating.
another bit of anecdotal evidence that backs my assertion:
Internals don't match externals:
-Women Support WAY up for Bush compared to 2000.
-Black Support, doubled for Bush compared to 2000.
-Jewish support up
-Catholic support up
YET IT'S A VIRTUAL TIE, (JUST LIKE 2000??????) HUH?
'Anamoly' and yeah I agree, Bush will sweep.
I'm stuned by this anamole!
I'm stuned by this anamoly too.
Exactamundo.
Doh when I correct someone's spelling I should get it right! "Anomaly"
As you said, the 2000 election was a rarity in our history. Yet the pollsters are largely using it to predict this year's outcome. However, no two elections are ever exactly alike. I believe the outcome will be a clear margin of victory for one of the candidates (and hope the winner is GWB).
To explain the clear margin when most polls predicted another virtual tie, all pundits and pollsters will say the election "broke" late in that direction. They'll pick some event (probably the Osama tape) as the cause. The truth will be that the polls were flawed all along, throughout the entire election season, but there is no way to objectively demonstrate that fact.
A perfect example of this is what happened with Howard Dean. Around this time last year, the media and its pollsters annointed Dean the frontrunner. He raised tons of money, thanks primarily to his having frontrunner status. When real votes started coming in, Dean's candidacy collapsed like a cheap suit. But, of course, the media and its pollsters could not say their predictions were wrong. Instead, they found some external reason to pin the blame on (Dean's scream).
I think Cheney's prediction may hit it right about on the mark.
If they don't jack up the polls in their favor going in, how will they be able to explain it? If they run honest polls showing Bush ahead by 10% nationally and winning 300 EVs, they will have a lot of 'splainin to day on Wednesday. They can pin some of it on the "registration drives" (from prisons, insane asylums, rock concerts, and under bridges... etc) and high turn out, but that would be a tough sell.
I've heard this before. Can you expand? Sources etc. I heard exactly this regarding Ohio. How can it be close when Bush is up in every Demographic?
Anamole? Should we set our beebers to stune or hit the showers? I'm series!
Polling is a business. Somebody pays the polling firms for their services.
Gallup gains nothing...
(1) Gallup has a long-standing business relationship with big media. (2) When polls prove inaccurate when compared to actual election results, few people seem to notice and/or care. There is always some excuse; some reason peddled as the cause. You'll see those excuses parrotted on TV and on forums such as this without so much as a heartbeat's pause to reflect on the obvious:
There is no objective way to evaluate the accuracy of all polls except those taken immediately prior to an election. The election results provide actuals against which poll estimates can be compared.
Far more often than not, poll estimates do not compare favorably to actual results. When the miss is signficant enough, some excuse is always found to explain why the election "broke" one way or the other at the last minute. Did it really "break" or were the polls just wrong throughout the election season? (I vote for the latter.)
You make a good point about early polls being unverifiable. There's nothing to check them against.
However, there are polls that the candidates trust and plot strategy by- their internals. The best way to check which way the wind is blowing is to examine where the candidates and their money are going.
Example- Cheney in Hawaii.
Your right as rain...the polls are all skewed. The rat liars are doing just that lying their asses off. Its not close a wee wee bit....the liars think if they ly enough it'll become truth...sorry charlie it just ain't goin' to happen. BUSH WILL WIN...will not even look like the 2000 election!!!
I was so interested in the voting trends in past years, I researched it!
It appears that heavy voter turn out HELPS Republicans. It's when republicans *don't* vote that turn out is low and the democrat candidate wins.
Since 1984, the democratic candidate has only gotten about 2-4 million more votes than received the previous election year. Even "wonderful" Clinton couldn't get more.
When people come out in droves and vote, they vote REPUBLICAN. Unfortunately in 1992 and '96, they voted for Perot.
Bush WILL WIN because our base is fired up and we LOVE BUSH and the democrats can't muster enough support or fraud to make it happen for Kerry.
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.