Poll. 2008 Presidential Elections

[SloFuze]

"The democratic party is full of ugly women and hot women who still believe shit they learned in grade school. The Republican party is the party for men. Guns are manly, war is manly, money is manly, and abortions are going to happen whether they’re illegal or not, so who the fuck cares?
100% of abortions could have been solved by a blowjob. Think about it, ladies."

Quote from
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/mccain-and-the-vpilf/#more-1134

Shit, that's funny.

[vixen]

08ama

I don't know, I think I just might vote republican this year...
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/mccain-and-the-vpilf/#more-1134

like our votes matter anyways. I mean really..

[Tachyon]

RON PAUL!!!11

[Hebbie Hauler]

Pretty good poll site...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[linear]

Yup, as was stated would happen, McCain's jump was short lived and has already declined, now only ahead by less than most polls' margin of error amount. A few more days and Obama will be back on top in the polls.

Snapshots of the polls are meaningless. Overall consistency of the polls is what counts.

[linear]

did anyone see the hilarious Palin interview two(?) days ago? she had no idea how to answer anything and stuck to vague republican talking points that were marginally related to what she was being asked.

At one point she was asked the same question three times and answered in the exact same way each time but the answer didn't address the question at all.

man, she is going to be fucking hilarious in the debates. it's similar to when that South Carolina beauty pagent contestant was asked a question about education and made a complete fool of herself.

[Hebbie Hauler]

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html

[linear]

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html

haha, the spin is embarassing

"Yes, Palin didnt' know what she was talking about... Shame on ABC!"

I love the desperation the right obviously feels.

[Hebbie Hauler]

Yup, as was stated would happen, McCain's jump was short lived and has already declined, now only ahead by less than most polls' margin of error amount.

What you're also saying concerning the margin of error is that McCain could actually being leading by double what the polls are currently showing? Meaning the margin of error is in effect in both directions?

[linear]

Yup, as was stated would happen, McCain's jump was short lived and has already declined, now only ahead by less than most polls' margin of error amount.

What you're also saying concerning the margin of error is that McCain could actually being leading by double what the polls are currently showing? Meaning the margin of error is in effect in both directions?

Yes, that's how a margin of error works. Generally +/- 2 (depending on the poll/sample/way it was conducted)

Anyway, again, even if he were ahead, the overall consistency of the polls in favor of obama and how very short-lived the tiny jump for McCain was are more telling then a week of McCain with a barely measurable lead.

[Hebbie Hauler]

Yup, as was stated would happen, McCain's jump was short lived and has already declined, now only ahead by less than most polls' margin of error amount.

What you're also saying concerning the margin of error is that McCain could actually being leading by double what the polls are currently showing? Meaning the margin of error is in effect in both directions?

Yes, that's how a margin of error works. Generally +/- 2 (depending on the poll/sample/way it was conducted)

Anyway, again, even if he were ahead, the overall consistency of the polls in favor of obama and how very short-lived the tiny jump for McCain was are more telling then a week of McCain with a barely measurable lead.

Before Labor Day you have the die-hards paying attention to the candidates and thus being the ones participating in polls. Now that it's post Labor Day you have a large majority of mainstream voters (like me) paying attention and now getting polled. I see post Labor Day polls as much more accurate, however I think they will progressively get more accurate as the big day approaches.

I also notice people tend to agree with polls all the more when THEIR candidate is leading, an easy observation to make here, yea I know.

[Magus]

RON PAUL!!!11

[Zazen]

haha, the spin is embarassing

"Yes, Palin didnt' know what she was talking about... Shame on ABC!"

I love the desperation the right obviously feels.

Honestly, they're right about this. Gibson tried but didn't get a "gotcha". He came off as condescending and she handled it well. While you and I find that talking-point nonsense to be crap, there are plenty of people who are OK with any answer at all that has key phrases that they like, regardless of relevance to the question. She acted like her answers were relevant, which is good enough for all of the dimwits who didn't really understand the question. I think that interview was a boon for her.

[linear]

I also notice people tend to agree with polls all the more when THEIR candidate is leading, an easy observation to make here, yea I know.

that's kind of my point... obama has been in the lead almost this entire campaign, and now that mccain has inched ahead for a couple days you're posting a billion sources about why he's ahead in the polls... but you've ignored all the signs about how this is shortlived bump, how he's declined rapidly, and how overall it doesn't look good for McCain.

Before Labor Day you have the die-hards paying attention to the candidates and thus being the ones participating in polls. Now that it's post Labor Day you have a large majority of mainstream voters (like me) paying attention and now getting polled. I see post Labor Day polls as much more accurate, however I think they will progressively get more accurate as the big day approaches.

That doesn't make much sense at all. I'm sorry, that's not how polls work. Poll takers don't go "HEY! WE'RE HAVING A POLL! WHY DON'T YOU CALL US AND PARTICIPATE?!?" because that'd be horribly skewed and innacurate with no respectable sampling. That's why no one takes website polls seriously (like the one on the top of this page)...

Poll takers gather the sample, they don't ask for the sample to come to them. They make the effort to contact gather people. They don't ask if their die-hard followers first.

(of course i'm not speaking of website polls like on the top of this thread or on AOL.com or Fox News, no one takes those polls seriously because, for example, obviously on a website like AOL/Fox which has a very conservative audience of course they'll always pick McCain, it's not a fair sample. And on a website with a bunch of younger people and people interested in keeping their technology rights, it's going to go to Obama.)

[Magus]

Just a side note: Even if you win by popular vote it doesn't guarantee you'll become president. Electoral votes are what really count. George W. Bush didn't win by popular vote and neither did Abraham Lincon; which is actually a good comparison because it shows that the electoral college can fuck up and also do a good job. So McCain and Obama both have a good shot at winning. Also, on another side note, even if an "elector" has pledged to vote for a particular candidate, they're under no obligation to fulfill that pledge; they can technically vote for whoever they want to.

Welcome to the indirect and overly complicated voting system that is America.