Posted on 11/05/2008 8:03:53 AM PST by MAD-AS-HELL
The presidential election was a sharp setback both for the GOP and for the major national pollsters who saw their gloom-and-doom predictions of a double-digit drubbing blow up in their faces.
The pollsters will have some explaining to do in the election aftermath, after several predicted the McCain-Palin ticket would lose by almost twice the actual margin.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
They will just claim the Bradley effect. It fits their worldview.
No disrespect, but what else is new? Two years from now it will happen again, and then four years from now it will happen again, and then...
no disrespect taken...only posting this because it condenses all the info for people to look at.
We cannot focus on this other than finding the weak spots. We as a group must put all differences aside and work toward taking back the Congress in 2010. It is time to organize and get in touch with Conservative leadership.
We know the Media is against us,thus, we have to do this through networking in the areas we can win in 2010.
Yep, most polls were indeed wrong and clearly gave Obama more support then he actually had.
I think all the things we suspected like Bradley effect, PUMA and people that do not participate in polls voting McCain were indeed true to varying degrees. But it wasn’t as much as we hoped it was.
Makes you wonder how much role falsely more positive for Obama polls had in getting votes for Obama.
FOLKS>>>>>>
WE NEED TO GAME THE POLLS TOO NEXT TIME!
Sadly they are propaganda tools that win some votes.
Two years from now it will happen again, and then four years from now it will happen again, and then...
:::::::
Of course it will — it is how pollsters earn their money. They are fiction writers. Polls can be designed to yeild any result those that are paying for the poll, want to see and hear.
That is why polls should always be ignored and only mildly considered when within about two or three days of actual elections — never even think about poll results from known dupes and accomplices like CNN, etc.
I watched Morning Joe on the morning of the election. The state polls were really tight-they had closed. Everyone agreed that no one knew who would win the election.
Pollsters always have some explaining to do, it is a wonder anyone pays any attention to them...they are biased for the most part - there may be one or two that are reasonably reliable but always 4 to 5 points off, give or take.
I’ll just bet the tingle up Chrissy Mathew’s leg was real enough...
So we were closer than thought? Didn’t realize we were playing horseshoes or hand grenades.
“We cannot focus on this other than finding the weak spots. We as a group must put all differences aside and work toward taking back the Congress in 2010. It is time to organize and get in touch with Conservative leadership.
We know the Media is against us,thus, we have to do this through networking in the areas we can win in 2010.”
I am so proud of Freepers like you.
I am with you on that!
Ready to start today right now.
No sobbing in my beer, no Obama derangement syndrome either, I will attack liberalism as always of course, but time to get to work.
I have full trust in conservatism to win the day when people are properly understanding of it. We do not need to convince everyone, a few states, a few percent is often all it takes.
The silver lining to all this is now we can clean house and fix our problems, without carrying the water for RINOs.
In the mean time people will get a good dose of reality from Obama, he has raised expectations beyond all reality, nearly supernatural expectations.
easy there..just posting a story about the polling and not claiming any type of conspiracy.
We’re already behind...this is posted at Daily kos
Top Ten Targets in 2010 Appear to Be (in alphabetical order by Senator):
Kit Bond (R-MO): Possible retirement, low approvals, McAskill (D) edged out incumbent Talent (R) in 2006
Jim Bunning (R-KY): Probable retirement, low approvals, almost lost in 2004 against token opposition due to mental health concerns - however, he is so likely to retire that the KY-GOP would probably have stronger opposition for a likely open seat
Richard Burr (R-NC): Freshman senator, low approvals, small margin of victory in 2004 - race against Elizabeth Dole in 2008 will be bellwether for Burr in 2010
Tom Coburn (R-OK): Much like Burr in NC - freshman senator, low approvals, tighter race in 2004 than election results indicate - race against James Inhofe in 2008 will be bellwether for Coburn in 2010
Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Possible-to-probable retirement despite high approvals, hates being in the minority party (accounts had him in tears when Jim Jeffords left the GOP and temporarily gave majority status to the Democrats), Iowa has trended blue very recently
Judd Gregg (R-NH): Low approvals, NH has trended very blue over the last couple election cycles - race against John Sununu in 2008 will be bellwether for Gregg in 2010
Mel Martinez (R-FL): Freshman senator despite being in his 60s, very low approvals, hands full with managing the RNC
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): Freshman senator, low approvals, father was bounced from the Governorship in a GOP primary in 2006
Arlen Specter (R-PA): Possible-to-probable retirement, low approvals, oldest Republican up for re-election in 2010, difficult battles in 2004 in both primary and general elections, Bob Casey (D) solidly knocked out Rick Santorum (R), PA has gotten bluer over the last several years
George Voinovich (R-OH): Much like Specter in PA, possible retirement, low approvals, Ohio has developed an anti-GOP sentiment due to corruption scandals, Sherrod Brown (D) solidly knocked out Mike DeWine (R) in 2006
People always seem to forget the statistical margin of error when looking at polling. No matter how you do a poll with random sampling there will always be a margin of error. Plus/minus 3 percentage points is a reasonable margin of error for Presidential election polls and by that standard, a majority of the major national polls were indeed within that margin of error for the actual election result of what turned out to be a 6 point Obama win.
Yes, there were some major polls that were outliers, but any poll that had the result from +9 to + 3 Obama was statistically “accurate”.
As Dick Morris pointed out, Rasmussen’s poll and Pew Research’s poll got the election exactly right at 52-46.
Anyone who says that polls should be ignored forgets that EVERY national politician hires their own polling organizations. There is no other way to know the state of a race without public opinion polling.
Just shows you, if your data sample is so bad it has to be manipulated to match some assumed voter population, you can take all the stated MOE and wipe your butt with them.
It won’t happen when we have our own mainstream media outlets that will spew our propaganda with same abandon as CNN, MSNBC, and alas, Fox News spews theirs....
If I owned a cable TV operation it would have had accurate polls, no exit polls, and would have assured its viewers that McCain was measuring the drapes for the Oval Office up to the moment he conceded.
Please, someone, buy me one.
“We’re already behind...this is posted at Daily kos”
We need our list too.
But I say make it much longer then theirs.
We need to stop sitting around complaining and do something about these Senate races.
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.