Posted on 10/30/2008 10:26:09 AM PDT by LS
I think it’s ludicrous to extrapolate assumptions for millions based on the actions of thousands (or hundreds). The variables in this election are so vast with as many as a third of Hillary voters choosing McCain, with so many pollsters found to be over-sampling Democrats in the double digits and then focusing their calls to predominantly Obama favorable demographics (blacks, students).
Think about it for just a minute...With the advent of caller ID, the national no-call list, call-blocker etc. just who are the pollsters actually getting through to? I put all my numbers on the national do not call list (including cell numbers), so I’m assuming that pollsters can’t call me or anyone else who’s on the do not call list. So that means the pollsters are calling a specific demographic of people who we know the following about:
1. They have a land line and a home phone;
2. They don’t know anything about the Do not call list (uninformed);
3. They don’t have caller ID and take every call when the phone rings;
4. They have caller ID and answer anyway even though it probably says “PEW Research” or some other such ID;
5. They are at home and actually answer the phone instead of letting it go to voice mail.
Now, at my house, we do not answer calls if the ID is an unknown caller. We do not answer the phone a lot of times anyway, just because we know people who really need to talk to us will either call our cells (which are in our pockets) or text message us. Usually the home phone just rings to the voice mail. If someone calls my cell phone and it’s not a known number or one I recognize having called myself, I won’t answer it.
I screen my calls in other words. I think I’m more typical than those I outlined above who answer every phone call. So, if the pollsters are calling voters who are already atypical in their telephone answering habits, why should we extrapolate their voting preferences to represent that of the rest of the typical voting population? I don’t think it’s logical to assume that, given that much disparity in personal behavior, all others not polled will vote in the same way as those reachable by phone.
Any thoughts?
I absolutely agree that in some ways PA is the key. Sure, McCain can win without it---but my fear is that without PA, the networks are going to do is "call" VA early---it will be wrong, but the talk will immediately be that McCain can't win. This will be a deliberate effort to depress the vote in OH (not likely) or CO or NV. But if PA comes in, they can't "call" both of these early---THAT would be too obvious.
“If These Numbers Are Right...”
That’s the problem. What trust has been earned by any poll? And it may go beyond pathetic statistical analysis (extrapolating 1000 answers to 200 million people, as you pointed out). What conclusions were made after the 2004 exit polling fiasco? Is there intentional skewing of data? If so, I want very public light shed on that...
There may be something going on in this election. I may be wrong but there seems to be a strong undercurrent for McCain.
I think in 1997, after a HORRIBLE round of polling in which every single major poll had Dole losing by much more than he actually lost, the Republicans in Congress tried to investigate this and were basically stone-walled with “we used established polling methods,” blah, blah. HOWEVER, for the next four years (three election) they straightened up, and were actually pretty accurate in 1998, 2000, and 2002.
“So why is McCain so dramatically overperforming among early voters who are disproportionately Democrats?”
Some would say because because there are two Democrats in the race. But I do not care why myself, I will take any kind of McCain victory I can get. If the popular vote is 50% Obama, 48% McCain, 2% other, and McCain squeaks in with 270 electoral votes, I’m a happy fellow.
He said early on he and the other canvassers were told not to try to change the anti Obama democrats minds. He was to urge them to vote for all the down ticket races and if they could not vote for Obama to leave the presidential vote blank.
He said a lot of canvased Democrats were telling him they were going to vote for McCain. He said he was instructed to ask them to vote for all the other Democrats on the ticket.
I got the feeling that even the county Democrat party folks were not all that hot on Obama.
The "Try to save the rest of the ticket" strategy does not seem like a winning strategy to me.
The problem with the polls is they poll to get the Democratic turn out percent. They get the total number of democrat votes by that turn out percent of Registered Democrats. When ACORN has registered hundreds of thousands of fake names the democrat turn out will be much lower than Registration numbers predict.
I think the hundreds of thousands of fake Democrat registrations were intended to make Obama look like a sure winner in the polls. And they firmly believe that the more like a winner Obama looks, the better his chances of winning.
I think it may have the inverse effect. If those white working class Democrats thought McCain was going to win they would not vote for a Republican. But if they think Obama is a winner more and more of them will go to the polls, hold their nose, and cast their ballot for McCain.
Plus history shows that late breaking voters always tend to go for the underdog. That is the candidate the media is not pushing. It stands to reason. If the best efforts of the media have not convinced a voter to go for Obama, then the last minute choice will be McCain.
If McCain does pull off Ohio, PA and a few others. The media will claim it was all due to late breaking voters.. not their unwillingness to give McCain fair coverage.
In Seven of the last 10 presidential races the media supported candidate has lost. And in 10 of the last 15, the media supported candidate has lost.
That says if the media supports a candidates opponent, a candidate has 2 out of 3 chances of wining.
So what the heck happened with the 2004 exit polling? I remember watching Bill Kristol go into depression live on tv, and here on FR the mood was pretty dour. I have never heard an explanation for what might have been a very serious attempt at electioneering.
Just heard that Hussein is coming back to Nevada for another rally so maybe we are not the only ones privy to Nevada exit polling.
I want to believe that there will be a huge rat crossover here because of the way that the Obama thugs railroaded the primary caucus meetings. Some of you may remember Bill Clinton going ballistic out here the day after caucus.
-
-
Ayers' book "Prairie Fire" was dedicated to the assassin Sirhan Sirhan - killer of Robert Kennedy.
In 2006, I didn't have this data, but hearsay told me our base was "turning out," so I thought we'd be safe. Well, Republicans came out, but didn't vote for people like Mike DeWine and Ken Blackwell. In fact, there was a gap between the "big names" and the local people in terms of GOP support, with the bottom of the ticket actually doing better.
SO: How many GOP voters this time do you think will vote for Obama? My answer is, not many.
See Common Tator’s comments, below yours.
KEY ISSUE:
McCain is behind in this early voting sample.
Forget the registration numbers. At this point what matters is a question:
How did the early voting break in 2004? Was Bush behind in early voting then? Do election day voters break Dem or GOP?
Outperforming polls is not enough. If McCain is polled down 9% and finishes down 1%, that’s not good enough.
So we need to know if Bush polled down 2% early voting in 2004.
The last thing any of these candidates want to do in the next 5 days is waste 4 hours on an airplane. The fact that Obama is going to Nevada shows he has a problem there. Any close state where the Dems have to rely heavily on union members for their support is probably iffy for Obama. Old blue collar white guys just don’t like him. They’ve played the union game long enough to shut up about it but when it comes to casting the vote...
So in 2004 they tried to do it right only to find that a significant number of voters who voted for Bush told the exit pollsters they had voted for Kerry.
The media waited until actual votes came in for many of the exit polled precincts and found that the actual votes and exit polls did not agree.
There are two explanations. Not everyone will fill out an exit poll questionnaire. And perhaps those that refused to be exit polled were mostly Bush voters.
In any event that in 2000 and after the exit polls have tended to be a very poor indicator of the out come.
“The Obama camp dragged in these paid “EMOS” like losers who scare the hell out of the locals. They have harassed the hell out of the locals.”
Just like the Obama people you see in front of most Starbuck’s in NYC. When you walk past the stores one of them always jumps in front of you and asks if you’re “voting for Barack?” My standard reply is “no I’m not, I’m voting for McCain,” they’re retort is “why,” to which I say that “Obama does not have the experience to be President of the United States.” If I have the time I like to ask them why they are supporting Obama, and I usually get the same reply, “change,” to which I say “what change,” and at that point they give up and walk up to others.
You know, I never would have believed this myself, but I don't think Obambi will get significantly more of the black vote then usual. A bit more, maybe, and increased black turnout, maybe. I went to see Sarah Palin in Asheville on Sunday and there were two young black men in the plaza selling McCain-Palin merchandise. At first, I just assumed they'd been hired to do this and were just doing it to earn money. But upon talking to them I learned they were devout Christians who couldn't in good conscience support Obama. I also talked to a young black man in line, a college student, who is supporting McCain because he believes in free enterprise and a strong military.
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.