New ABC Poll shows A.S. way ahead

Dave Dryer on Hewitt radio Pror.

[Stars N Stripes]

David Dryer is talking about a poll that was done by ABC over the weekend that shows:

AS - 45%

Busta - 29

Mclnt - 11%

on the Hugh Hewitt show now.

[Wolfstar]

Please see my post #220 to Old Hoosier. Remember who the real enemey is...

[cajungirl]

I'm with you and I am not from California. Busty is scary. Either Arnold or McClintock will work better and the one trailing toward the next two weeks or so ought to drop out if you ask me. why run a losing race and spoil it and allow Busty to win. Reminds me of that lunatic Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. But Nader at least hurts dems not us.

[Cultural Jihad]

Well said.

[cajungirl]

The problem I keep noting is that the "hard line" conservatives who consider themselves the "real repubs" see the political world as black or white and can never allow for the conservatives who don't share every single conservative value they espouse. Like prochoice repubs or repubs who believe in some of the welfare state and repubs who don't want the Ten Commandments in courthouse lobbys. They castigate any of them. And the two earner republican family exists and wants s ome help with day care expenses whether anyone likes it or not and they will get it and the party that helps provide it will get votes. The hard liners would rather lose than modify their stances. And they are very tough on what they call RINOs.

[Wolfstar]

Re your post #156:

Unlike some others on FR, I most definitely do not claim to be an expert on polling. However, I've read several books and articles on the subject, including the one I referenced. So, as simply as possible, please let me try to clarify why polls should always be taken, AT BEST, as a broad indicator, not a true predictor of an outcome.

First think of all the many things in life that require true accuracy: things like finances, building, surgery, banking, payroll, sports, and so on. In all of those things, and more, measurements must be exact.

Now contrast true accuracy to how polling results are reported: they give a percentage of a sample, then give a range within which that number can be wrong either high or low by several percentage points.

Then factor in the distance in time between when the poll is conducted and the actual event it is trying to predict. Also factor in variables such as who took the poll, who financed it, what questions were asked, how and in what order, what time of day/week, etc., all of which have a very significant effect on results obtained.

So to answer your question about polls that come close to election results appearing to show some scientific basis: you gave yourself the key by saying "appearing to show." It's an illusion — like sleight-of-hand tricks, we see what the magician (pollster) wants us to see. The closer in time the poll is to the election, the more people have made up their mind as to what they plan to do in the voting booth. More people self-identify as "likely voters," for example. So the polling samples become somewhat more accurate. In addition, the questions tend to become simpler and more straightforward — from "if the election were held today would you vote for A, B, C, or D," to "who do you plan to vote for tomorrow," for example.

However, even with overnight polling just before an election, it is the rare poll that gets the result EXACTLY right: say, 53, 40, 7 to minor party candidates. Rather, the pollsters say, "Here's my prediction, but don't say I was wrong if the actual result is plus or minus a factor of X." It's pretty easy to call yourself a winner when you've given yourself a swing of, say 6 points high or low to play with.

Now focus on polls that are far away in time from the event being predicted and factor in the desire by various parties to try to manipulate the public and get a bandwagon effect going. That's what goes on in all major elections these days. Anyone who thinks, for example, that the various polls about the Dem presidential candidates mean anything right now is dreaming. Same for these early recall polls. Their only purpose is to manipulate, not to inform.

[Wolfstar]

If Bustamante becomes the governor of one of the largest and most powerful states in this country, his opportunity to mainstream reconquista policies will be damaging to the entire country. So I'm glad when folks like you take an interest in what's happening.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you. I know reason is lost on some folks, but there are plenty of people who "lurk" on these threads and never post. Got to keep them in mind.

[Wolfstar]

Re your post #224, that one of the (if not THE) most significant reasons why Republicans have been losing in this state. To put it quite bluntly, we are constantly at war with one another rather than with the real enemy.

[jam137]

I agree with you that there are significant differences between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante, and that on the issues Schwarzenegger is much better than Bustamante. I also think that too much of the discussion between Schwarzenegger and McClintock supporters has descended into name-calling and flame wars.

However, now is not yet the time to coalesce behind either Schwarzenegger or McClintock. More campaigning, more issue-oriented debate, etc., needs to happen first. Trying to force people at this point into either Schwarzenegger's or McClintock's camp will simply wrongly deepen the divisions between the two. It also may ultimately discourage people from actually going to the polls and voting "yes on recall."

[NormsRevenge]

I agree.. Let us have a public discourse among the candidates and allow the voters to better understand their platforms, positions and to weigh their motivations for wanting to wade neck-deep in manure when elected.

Then, we as a state will have done the right thing for all. ;-)


>>>>>>


Just listened to Arnie with Sean, Sean ran him thru a list of issues and made him take some positions on issues.
Not the greatest TV or radio, but.. at least someone asked Arnold for some answers on some important issues.

[jam137]

Thanks for your comments. I agree with much of what you say, but at the same time I cannot agree with what seems to be your bias against all pollsters (I am not a pollster, by the way!). I don't say this based upon some high view of human nature, though. I say this based upon the fact that there still is a market for independent polling, and because high profile pollsters are informally policed by that market. Even the candidates themselves (except for some megalomaniacs, perhaps), when they use internal polling, are looking for "real" results.

Now, are there people out there releasing "push polls"? Of course. Are these latest recall polls somewhat problematic since the election is far away? Sure. But, I think that we can get some idea from them of what the current mood in CA is, especially given a multiplicity of polls and people picking them apart.

[Wolfstar]

Regarding your posts 229 and 231, I agree with what you said in 229. As for polling, it isn't so much that I am biased against pollsters. I have no doubt whatsoever that, as in all fields of human endeavor, some are honest and some are not. But, even at its best, polling is an art, not a science. In the political realm, even polls conducted with stringent statistical processes by honest people are often manipulated by media who report on their results. Political polls, especially those far out from election day, are intended more to manipulate and form public opinion rather than merely report it.

[jam137]

But, even at its best, polling is an art, not a science. In the political realm, even polls conducted with stringent statistical processes by honest people are often manipulated by media who report on their results.

I agree.

[Amerigomag]

Amen