The average American is a moron.

So these polls make perfect sense.

6/24/2008 6:42:43 PM

^ Probably true, but we ignored those morons in 2000 and got Bush.

6/24/2008 6:45:48 PM

Quote :

"This public financing thing is such a big deal, that McCain has hit his lowest point this year in polling, while Obama is at his highest:"

moron

Bullshit--concerning the latter.

Quote :

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday [June 24, 2008] shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. When 'leaners' are included, Obama leads 49% to 44%. Three percent (3%) say they will vote for a third-party option while 4% remain undecided (see recent daily results)."

Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This is Obama's to lose--a bad year for Republicans. Yet, McCain's only one to two points off the margin of error. Why isn't Obama running away with the election?

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 8:14:53 PM

All because some hacker, stole my identity

Now I'm in here every evening selling chowder and ice tea



Really, your evidence is a +/- 4 poll? Are you fucking kidding me? That's as unreliable as it gets and is one of the reasons why rasmussen is completely dropping in credibility. that and their ability to get the results wrong and contradict everyone.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 8:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 8:22:40 PM

^ You do realize that Ramussen Reports was determined to be one of the most accurate polls in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

But I'm sure you can back up your assertion that ramussen is losing credibility with some evidence. Maybe a comparison of how ramussen did against other polls this election cycle?

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ``]

6/24/2008 9:13:27 PM

There is a lot out there. During this past election cycle they ranked as one of the least accurate.

As of June 7, they were one of the most innacurate polling organizations out there

6/24/2008 9:34:40 PM

they look middle of the road in that graph, man

6/24/2008 10:40:33 PM

i've never liked rasmussen honestly...i always thought it was somewhat swayed or something...i think it was in the way they worded some questions i heard once

6/24/2008 10:42:13 PM

^^of firms that did 10 or more polls, they're 7th of 9. not too great.

6/25/2008 1:30:16 AM

Quote :

" moron Bullshit--concerning the latter. "

You obviously didn't click the link, or can't read very well. That link is a consistent average from all the polling firms, which reduces the variability or bias of a single poll, like you have in your ignorant post.

Poll		Date		Sample	Obama (D)	McCain (R)	Spread

LA Times/Bloomberg	06/19 - 06/23	1115 RV		49	37	Obama +12.0
Gallup Tracking		06/21 - 06/23	2587 RV		46	43	Obama +3.0
Rasmussen Tracking	06/21 - 06/23	3000 LV		49	44	Obama +5.0
Newsweek		06/18 - 06/19	896 RV		51	36	Obama +15.0
FOX News		06/17 - 06/18	900 RV		45	41	Obama +4.0
USA Today/Gallup	06/15 - 06/19	1310 LV		50	44	Obama +6.0
RCP Average	06/15 - 06/23		--		48.3	40.8	Obama +7.5

6/25/2008 1:43:41 AM

^^ But not horrible. The highest ranking pollster that polled 10 or more contests was SurveyUSA and their mean error was 4.52. Rasmussen was 7.25. Not a very big difference considering that other big names like Zogby came in 6.92. If Rasmussen is going under, so is Zogby. And that's news to me.

I would say that this evidence does not support nuts' original claim that they are quickly losing credibility.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 1:44:10 AM

The fact is, no matter how the haters like hooksaw are trying to spin it, Obama is still doing very well in the eyes of the public.

6/25/2008 1:51:54 AM

^ reminds me of back in '02 and '03 when all the Repubs couldn't help but brag about how well Bush was doing in the polls despite the rabble rabble among "liberals" on TWW.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 2:14:32 AM

^ It's very similar to that, yes. Except Bush was riding 9/11 still, where as Obama is riding his OWN wave.

But I guess you and McCain's aide are in agreement, an act of terror would help him out. You know you're a REAL politician when your success depends on the deaths and misery of others.

6/25/2008 2:23:24 AM

^Thats a pretty stupid statement to make.

Obama's success thus far can be attributed in large part to the death and misery in Iraq.

6/25/2008 2:30:57 AM

That doesn't 'splain him beating hillary.

6/25/2008 2:34:42 AM

Oh, look--the dreaded Rasmussen was included in the list you provided (GASP!), moron. And they're only slightly off the average of Obama +7.5.

Quote :

"Rasmussen Tracking 06/21 - 06/23 3000 LV 49 44 Obama +5.0"

Newsweek is an obvious outlier--it usually is--and skewed the average. But why isn't your guy running away with the election, moron?

6/25/2008 5:59:31 AM

moron,

I would have hoped the lesson you learned from the Bush years was that popularity is no indication of quality.

6/25/2008 7:34:11 AM

Quote :

"But why isn't your guy running away with the election, moron?"

If you look at the estimated electoral vote as of today, he is. Obama 317 McCain 194 Ties 27

electoral-vote.com

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 8:16 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 8:16:31 AM

Quote :

"The highest ranking pollster that polled 10 or more contests was SurveyUSA and their mean error was 4.52. Rasmussen was 7.25. Not a very big difference considering that other big names like Zogby came in 6.92. If Rasmussen is going under, so is Zogby. And that's news to me. "

I don't think you realize how off that is when it comes to polls. As for Zogby, they are losing their ground too.

If you crawled out of your cave you'd learn a lot of shit that people already know.

Quote :

"Oh, look--the dreaded Rasmussen was included in the list you provided (GASP!), moron."

RCP even included PPP, I don't want to hear shit from you. Also, you haven't addressed the 4% margin of error critique either.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:05:02 AM

Zogby was consistently horrible throughout the primaries

6/25/2008 9:07:38 AM

nuts,

Excellent retort! Your chart also shows other major polling companies, like Gallup, performing WORSE than Rasmussen. In fact, of the polls that moron just posted, the most accurate (according to your ranking) was Fox News. And guess what? They also show Obama with only a 4 point lead.

My guess is that this chart shows exactly what the talking heads have been saying for months--that primaries this season have been incredibly hard to poll due to a variety of reasons including changes in voter turn among out other things. As a result, ALL major pollsters have suffered. Whether these same problems will continue to be a problem in the general election is hard to say.

PS* Is anyone else surprised that SurveyUSA released a ranking that shows them as being the one of the best pollsters in the nation? I guess they would know.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:28 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 9:21:22 AM

this may come to a shock to you, but those polling places tout their own reliability, but when checked by unbiased sources are shit. There is a reason why the local polling firms out perform the national firms when it comes to elections in the states.

I know you are just being a huge Obama detractor, but even you cannot be this blind.

And so you know, I did not say anything about the Fox News poll. I spoke directly to Rasmussen and that organizations lack of credibility.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:24:39 AM

^ lack credibility according to you to nutsmakr. I'm sure they will find it hard to sleep at night.

As I said, your chart only indicated that ALL major pollsters have done a pretty crappy job this year. Gallup and Zogby included. This is nothing new. The talking heads were pissing and moaning about this after the Iowa and New Hampshire upsets. But this primary season has been harder for pollsters because factors like voter turnout have been much different this go around.

It is unclear how big of a role these factors will play in the GE, but nothing you have posted would indicate that Rass should be ignored anymore than any other poll. Therefore your claim is bunk.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 9:32:32 AM

Quote :

"this may come to a shock to you, but those polling places tout their own reliability, but when checked by unbiased sources are shit."

-nuts

Hehehe says the man who just posted a report card issues by SurveyUSA that shows that SurveyUSA is one of the most reliable pollsters in the nation.

Didn't mean to double post, but that just really cracked me up. If info from unbiased sources makes a difference, why don't you post something from one of those?

6/25/2008 9:42:47 AM

The information that SurveyUSA is publishing is verifiable. They just happen to have the information easily on hand so I don't have to go through every single poll to show it to you.

6/25/2008 9:44:26 AM

^ Their data is easily verifiable, but we just have to assume that the methodology they used would be defensible in a peer-review setting. And I guess if you want to make that leap of faith that's fine with me since the info SurveyUSA puts out doesn't support your assertion anyways.

6/25/2008 9:48:27 AM

They use Frederick Mosteller's method. Are you now going to argue with Mosteller?

This reminds me of the time you said Kennedy sucked as a PResident because he couldn't accomplish in 2 weeks what it took Johnson 6 months to do.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 9:52:20 AM

^ um,

1) Mosteller outlined 8 different ways one could measure the accuracy of a pre-election poll. So there is no such thing as the "the" Mosteller method. Or "Mosteller's method".

2) SurveyUSA uses a new method they developed which they believe has not been well received by "traditional" pollsters. As they indicated in a recent post on their website.

Quote :

"SurveyUSA outperforms 44 other firms, including every single one of the traditional “headset operator” telephone pollsters, a number of which have worked for 16 years to mock and marginalize the innovative work done by SurveyUSA."

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/02/16/about-those-surveyusa-pollster-report-cards-part-i/

For a complete description of the methodology they use see here:
http://www.surveyusa.com/ROR/SurveyUSA%20Interval%20Measure%20of%20Election%20Poll%20Accuracy.html

3) Actual pollsters (not just dorks with google like myself) have beefs w/SurveyUSA's methodology for creating this scorecard. Here is Nick Panagakis, Chicago Tribune pollster commenting at Pollster.com

Quote :

"Chris S. The magnitude of these poll errors are shocking and may have been to others. However, my colleague Jay Leve does himself and others an enormous disservice by using a method which says if Pollster A says Smith beats Jones by 8 points, and Smith in fact beats Jones by 4 points, then Pollster A has an error of 4 (8 minus 4). A 4 would be recorded in the table at their site for that contest. The Survey USA site says there are limitations to this and other measures of pollster accuracy. You bet there are. This is because it is the poll estimate that is subject to sample error, not the margins; e.g., 48% voting for A and 52% for B would be a 4 point margin. If the election turns out to be 46%/54%, an 8-point margin, the margin error is 4 points. The error of the estimates in this case is 2 points, half the margin error. Differences between poll and election margins in statistical analysis, or error of the margin, should not be used. In summary� 1. Elections are zero-sum games. This means that two points high for one candidate MEANS two points low for the other. So estimate error is the more valid measure. Estimate errors are not additive which is the effect of using the difference between election and poll margins. 2. This is also the only error measure that can be compared with sample margin of error always included in poll reports. Whatever method is used should be comparable to stated statistical margin error. Only the error of the estimates does that. Nick Panagakis"

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/where_was_the_error_bigger_nh.php#comments

So, at most, you have presented a report card that may or may not be suspect that doesn't really provide any evidence to support your prior claim that Rass had lost credibility. So I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I gotta jet fella. TTYL

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:13 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 10:07:24 AM

everytime I read this title I think of light blue flip flops with obama's face on them.

6/25/2008 10:10:28 AM

If you took the time to actually go through the data that survey USA uses, you'll see that they use they rate all the polls based upon the techniques created by Mosteller. Also, the compilation of all 8 techniques creates the method.

Quote :

"3) Actual pollsters (not just dorks with google like myself) have beefs w/SurveyUSA's methodology for creating this scorecard. Here is Nick Panagakis, Chicago Tribune pollster commenting at Pollster.com "

That's funny. Whenever a polling service is doing better according to this method you deride they are quick to point it out. So it is only a valid method when it support their findings, but isn't valid when it doesn't?

Quit being obtuse.

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller1.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller2.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller3.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller4.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller5.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller6.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller7.pdf

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/PDF_Mosteller8.pdf



Holy shit. I just followed your link and the quote you are touting is from the comments section of the blog in which other pollsters tear your expert a new one. Here is a nice little note that followed

Quote :

"1) Mr. Panagoukis, when was the last time you saw a poll that was 52/48, i.e. with no undecided voters? If a poll in your scenario had 'predicted' a 48/40 result with 12% undecided, it would be absurd to say it was six points off; everyone will interpret that poll as showing an 8-point lead, and thus being essentially correct. People use margin because that is the only thing people are interested in. You can divide the margin error by 2 if it makes you happy."

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 10:11:40 AM

you did not read my post at all did you.

Well, no use arguing with you then. I'll take the word of an actual pollster on the validity of SurveyUSA's methodology over a history or economics major (i.e. either of us). But even if I didn't, the report card doesn't support your assertion anyways.

Nice talking with you.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 10:18:48 AM

Mark Blumenthal, and Mark Lindeman seem to accept his methodology, but you have cherry picked your pollster. how quaint. Your Barackaphobia is leading you down a mysterious path.



[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 10:25:11 AM

^ It wasn't about cherry picking. I was just illustrating that the profession is divided on the validity of your source's methods--you can find credible people that like it and people that don't.

But really that's just an added bonus. Even if there was a peer-reviewed article out there that revealed their methodology to be sound (I can't find one), it still doesn't support your conclusions.

So what are we arguing about?

PS* And since when did Obama become a polling company?

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ``]

6/25/2008 10:54:01 AM

It does prove the point that Rasmussen is dropping. You'll be hard pressed to find within Democratic circles people who actually accept Rasmussen findings. It's like getting people to accept Civitas findings.

^also, there are peer-reviewed articles out there that supports Survey USA. One was released just last year.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 11:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 11:28:23 AM

Quote :

"moron, I would have hoped the lesson you learned from the Bush years was that popularity is no indication of quality. "

Actually, Bush kind of shows the opposite lesson.

If we had gone with the more "popular" Gore candidate in 2000, we wouldn't have had to face the Bush plague (and you wouldn't have to worry about Obama gaining recognition for having foresight to see Iraq wasn't a threat). Bush got elected on a technicality, and we saw what NOT listening to the tyranny of the masses can cause.

We're just lucky though that those roaches can't vote, because I don't like the taste of wood.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ]

6/25/2008 11:50:15 AM

Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters. Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision. In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government's domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks. During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters."

Quote :

"Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal. 'I will continue to support him,' Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. 'But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html

Yet another FLIP-FLOP from a typical politician.

7/5/2008 7:38:32 PM

Quote :

"supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership."

compromises ftw

7/5/2008 7:41:54 PM

^ The only thing compromised was Obama's convictions--he'll say anything to get elected. It's just old-time politics, folks. Flip-flops FTL.

But don't believe me--just look at all the pissed off Obama supporters such as Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and many others:

Quote :

"'I don't think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,' said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama's new position. 'For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.'"

Quote :

"Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance. 'The opposition to Obama's position among his supporters is very widespread,' said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. 'His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.' One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site. 'I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm,' Mr. Arellano wrote, 'and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html

And you don't even know the difference between a "gaffe" and a "flip-flop," so bow out now.

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2008 7:54:37 PM

i was just trying to say that i like that he supports something the white house and congress compromised on

7/5/2008 7:57:05 PM

^ So what? It's a flip-flop--yes or no?

7/5/2008 7:58:45 PM

not about compromising, about flip flops

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:18 PM. Reason : compromising is in another thread]

7/5/2008 8:00:34 PM

^ Well, your opinion happens to suck. I don't know why I even bother responding to you.

In any event, just go back and look at the underlined euphemisms in the article--they all mean FLIP-FLOP. The disheartened Obama supporters just don't want to say it.

Quote :

"turn around"

Quote :

"new stance"

Quote :

"switch"

Quote :

"about-face"

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2008 8:05:32 PM

gotcha...thread is about flip flops not compromising

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:18 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2008 8:09:53 PM

^

Quote :

"In any event, just go back and look at the underlined euphemisms in the article--they all mean FLIP-FLOP. The disheartened Obama supporters just don't want to say it."

Quote :

"turn around"

Quote :

"new stance"

Quote :

"switch"

Quote :

"about-face"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html



[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2008 8:11:05 PM

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh


i understand now...my bad....i dont think you disagree with me that politicians should compromise with each other, its just that this thread is about flip flops, not politicians that compromise

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:19 PM. Reason : sorry...i edited most comments and made a thread about compromising]

7/5/2008 8:12:15 PM

^ Obama didn't compromise anything but his convictions--he flip-flopped. The howls of protest from his usually adoring supporters illustrates this fact quite clearly.

7/5/2008 8:19:03 PM

he compromised which caused him to flip flop....but theres already a thread for that

7/5/2008 8:20:11 PM

^ So, you finally admit that Obama flip-flopped. GG!

7/6/2008 12:30:57 AM

one could make the case that i flip flopped on that answer

7/6/2008 12:35:09 AM