Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

You have got to see this poll (McCain vs Obama)
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-puzzled-by-iraq-remarks-frenzy/20080705212809990001?icid=100214839x1205120115x1200244341 ^

Posted on 07/06/2008 8:46:45 AM PDT by mamelukesabre

straw poll to predict the president(AOL news) Scroll way down past the "predict the president" map to get to the strawpoll vote.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008polls; election; mccain; obama; poll
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: scotthsmd
Or, it could be that many people lie to pollsters about who they’re going to vote for

Bingo! Especially in this election, with the "you are a racist if you do not vote for Obama" angle. Election day is going to be a big shocker.

21 posted on 07/06/2008 9:06:10 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Barack's mesmerizing speeches are little more than oratory Three Card Monte)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Maybe only living people are only voting ONE time?
Jack


22 posted on 07/06/2008 9:08:52 AM PDT by btcusn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye
My experience has been that AOL is about as far left leaning as you can get without putting out a sign that says “liberals only, conservatives not allowed”.

This is the first I've seen of the straw polls on AOL. I have to say I am really really shocked. By the MSM coverage, one would think McCain is all washed up.

I'm trying to remember the last time we had 3 full terms in a row served by republican presidents(besides reagan-reagan-bush). I think it must've been before WWII.

I don't count reagan-reagan-bush because I consider that a fluke. Bush should’ve never been elected, imo. I think the only reason he got in was because the public really wanted a reagan third term, but had to settle for reagan’s veep. On his own two feet, i don't think bush41 is/was presidential material.

23 posted on 07/06/2008 9:09:05 AM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher; scotthsmd

So you guys think many who get calls from pollsters are hesitant to admit they’ll be voting for McCain because of a fear the pollster will view them as racist?


24 posted on 07/06/2008 9:09:59 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

“AOL is notoriously left leaning in viewership.”

The same poll in 2004 predicted Bush would carry 48 states.


25 posted on 07/06/2008 9:11:40 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

The poll to wait for is the Weekly Reader poll.

The elementary school children have never yet picked a loser.


26 posted on 07/06/2008 9:14:22 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Both sides are predicting landslides. I don’t. I think there will be a low turnout.

Somebody is going to be surprised come election day!


27 posted on 07/06/2008 9:16:19 AM PDT by dforest (I had almost forgotten that McCain is the nominee. Too bad I was reminded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

I have had AOL for years just to follow their audacity at putting up ‘iffy’ news. Their polls are troll polls - they often couch a question which leads to a certain position - no matter what people believe. It is so typical of the left - and if this kind of behavior is ok for a large company - I wonder why they are so adamantly in favor of getting the democrats in?

Nah - maybe just another Soros influence at work.

I doubt AOL does anything for free.

Their polls are hacked consistently - one way or the other and it would seem there is a right-leaning hacking working on this particular poll.

Perhaps the esteemed Voice of Reason who thinks AOL is his personal free bandwidth for blogging has upped the blood pressure of some of the readers.

Could be they are trying to get a higher hit count on the poll than people would normally take part in - everyone is so sick of the usual lurking left.

I wouldn’t trust an AOL poll any farther than I could throw my living room couch.

It was nice to see McCain dousing Obama for a change even if it was another AOL fantasy moment.


28 posted on 07/06/2008 9:17:07 AM PDT by imintrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: devere

“The same poll in 2004 predicted Bush would carry 48 states.”

Thanks for the reality check.


29 posted on 07/06/2008 9:17:07 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
So you guys think many who get calls from pollsters are hesitant to admit they’ll be voting for McCain because of a fear the pollster will view them as racist?

Yes, absolutely. Its the same sort of psychology that allows telemarketers to call during dinnertime and hold people on the phone while their dinner gets cold....fear of being rude prevents them from telling the telemarketer to eff off. In this case, it is not fear of being thought rude by the caller, its fear of being though racist by the caller. Many people cannot stand the thought of some one thinking ill of them and boy does that psychology sell a LOT of products.

30 posted on 07/06/2008 9:17:41 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Barack's mesmerizing speeches are little more than oratory Three Card Monte)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
I find this utterly amazing considering the poll is on an AOL site. AOL is notoriously left leaning in viewership.

I've noticed that when a poll site puts an "anti-spam bot" check it usually deters the 'idiot vote'.

-Traveler

31 posted on 07/06/2008 9:26:00 AM PDT by Traveler59 (Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Perhaps aol sees the handwriting on the wall and knows it will be Hillary VS McCain after the DEM convention. So thei feel preparing the DEMS for Obama going down is the way to go.


32 posted on 07/06/2008 9:26:06 AM PDT by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere

I did not know that.


33 posted on 07/06/2008 9:26:59 AM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: mamelukesabre

I’d take this with a bucket of salt, as I take any self-selecting Internet poll.

BTW, very few people under the age of 50 use AOL. I’d bet their demographic skew older. I used AOL when I first got on the internet... but that was back in 1993!


35 posted on 07/06/2008 9:33:40 AM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Re the age demographic — I am barely older than BO.

I am simply not prepared to vote for someone for president who is younger than me.


36 posted on 07/06/2008 9:35:31 AM PDT by Tazlo (I need to get a tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59

There’s an interesting theory.

A kind of “IQ test” that doesn’t exist on a real ballot. If you can’t type, can’t read funny letters, and can’t accurately replicate those funny letters via a keyboard, your vote don’t count.

In the real world, even a pregnant chad counts as a vote.

So the spambot blocker skews the poll? That’s kinda scary.


37 posted on 07/06/2008 9:35:43 AM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tazlo
I am simply not prepared to vote for someone for president who is younger than me.

Just FYI, sooner or later you'll have to, as will we all. :-P

38 posted on 07/06/2008 9:36:31 AM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: scotthsmd
Maybe it’s because the polls we’ve been seeing are fixed, many by oversampling Democrats and under sampling Republicans

ya think?

Remember what the MainSlime Media and the pollsters - pre Internet - were predicting in the 1980 election?

Reagan was going to loose big according to all polls.

Just before election, there was a phone in vote. No one could skew it. And it wasn't a 'sampling."

Millions called in. It went 2 to 1 for a Reagan landslide.

The media and dimRats screamed and said things like "Republicans are richer and could afford more phone calls!"

But Reagan won = 2 to 1.

These polls are much more accurate. And this one makes my heart sing...If this is the results on a heavily leaning liberal site - WAHOO!

39 posted on 07/06/2008 9:37:43 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (No trees were killed in sending this message but a large number of electrons were terrible agitated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

“My Lefty friends are all convinced that Obama will win in a landslide.”

This is where I think Obama’s handlers and the candidate himself are making a big mistake. Every day they boast to their friends in the MSM about the messiah’s incredible wave of support from young voters, which I believe he does have. The downside for the messiah is that the more his soft supporters hears this, I believe it’s less likely a significant number of them will bother to vote because they think he’s got it in the bag. Also, young voters are the most unreliable block there is. One more quick point, remember all that spin in 2004 from Kerry and the MSM about the “millions of newly registered dem voters in OH, etc...,” that turned out to be just that, spin.


40 posted on 07/06/2008 9:41:14 AM PDT by moose2004 (Go Ahead, Make My Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson