I'll keep this brief. Basically, the polls show that Obama (as of this writing) is a shoe-in for the next US President. However, I do not feel that these numbers will reflect what will happen on Election Day since:

a) Obama's voting base typically aren't the type to go out and vote (college kids and African-Americans)
b) Many white "likely" voters don't feel comfortable voting for someone who is not white
c) Many votes seem like they will be counted as illegal for weeks after the election, with all the sketchiness with same-day registration.



And before you ad hominem my thread, you should do it properly. I am an extreme moderate except when it comes to education, which I feel should be free at all stages for everybody, although I understand that this is completely unfeasible and much worse than our current system (which I still find crappy). I lean right on pretty much everything else. However, watching the last eight years of the country under a Republican monarchy has made me want to vote Democrat out of spite.

Discuss.

10/14/2008 12:16:38 AM

no

10/14/2008 12:28:30 AM

Damn. Totally thought there would be some debate. Oh well.

Back to Chit Chat for me.

10/14/2008 12:32:02 AM

Most national polls target "likely voters" in an effort to mitigate issues like A.

Aside from that, African-Americans always tend Democratic. And college students have been associated with liberal/Democratic candidates for a long time as well. Why are they just now a special case? Do you think all Democratic poll numbers are inflated?

People who don't feel comfortable voting for a black guy will tell pollsters that they're not voting for him, though they'll leave out the reason. There isn't a huge motivation to lie.

The number of "sketchy" votes is pretty small compared to the overall, and I doubt they'll be hugely in favor of either candidate.

Lastly, the "margin of error" exists for a reason.

---

It's possible that McCain will still win somehow, but it's not likely. At this moment, though, the polls stand as decent indicators.

10/14/2008 1:11:13 AM

Intriguing. Are you referring, in part, at least, to the Bradley effect?

10/14/2008 1:13:43 AM

haha j/k

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 1:18 AM. Reason : nvm ]

10/14/2008 1:14:40 AM

I thought historically that while younger voters and African-Americans tend to vote Democratic, they also tend to skip voting day, at least compared to other demographics. I'm probably wrong.

But you're more than likely correct on the other two parts of this thread. I should probably stop gleaning information/opinions from Internet articles and college forums.

lol I WAS referring to the Bradley effect! hahahaha. I probably won't make treads in SB anymore. I'm so retarded when it comes to politics, especially at midnight

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 1:17 AM. Reason : lol]

10/14/2008 1:16:25 AM

Quote :

"I thought historically that while younger voters and African-Americans tend to vote Democratic, they also tend to skip voting day, at least compared to other demographics."

This is true. But it has also been true for a long time. It has also been true for a long time that these groups tend to lean democratic and would therefore be more likely to answer, "Barack Obama" when polled.

So the question is...why is this election different when those two factors haven't changed in the past ten or more presidential elections? The answer: it isn't. Either Democratic polling numbers have been consistently inflated for a long time -- which the evidence doesn't support, I think -- or the current numbers are pretty reliable.

10/14/2008 1:23:57 AM

^^ Well, I've said here on numerous occasions that I think Obama will win. I would prefer that he didn't, though, based on my opposition to his record and proposed policies--not his race.

If Obama loses, however, racism will be blamed--and McCain's presidency will be viewed by many as illegitimate. As much as I do not want Obama to win, it may be better that he does win for the greater good, meaning the "good" that the country's scars from racism are not ripped open creating a flood that could drown us all.

And this. . .

Quote :

"a) Obama's voting base typically aren't the type to go out and vote (college kids. . .)."

Yeah, every election cycle some representatives of "young people" and some of their mainstream media cheerleaders say that they're going to rock the vote or some shit--but they never do. Of course, this could be the cycle that younger voters prove the skeptics wrong. We'll see.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2008 1:32:54 AM

Quote :

"People who don't feel comfortable voting for a black guy will tell pollsters that they're not voting for him, though they'll leave out the reason. There isn't a huge motivation to lie. "

Studies have shown™ though that the truthiness of poll responses can vary depending on the circumstances from which the question was asked.

10/14/2008 1:52:10 AM

Four out of five dentists surveyed would recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum.

10/14/2008 2:07:00 AM

And the 5th one understands how to grow a business.

10/14/2008 2:33:20 AM

^ LOL! The fifth dentist recommends sugary gum--for his mortgage!

10/14/2008 2:36:09 AM

Quote :

"Studies have shown™ though that the truthiness of poll responses can vary depending on the circumstances from which the question was asked."

That's true. I was assuming that so far those circumstances have involved telephone surveys, which are the kind of circumstances that would be more likely to mask, say, the pollster's ethnicity, and otherwise throw up a kind of anonymity barrier that might make the person being surveyed more likely to be honest.

Exit polling is another matter, and the one more likely to demonstrate this idea that white people are lying about voting for Obama.

In this particular case, though, we're talking about a broad spectrum of polls showing Obama with a healthy lead. Even if we adjust based on other possible incidents of the so-called Bradley Effect and take away, oh, five percentage points from Obama across the board and give them to McCain, it looks like a narrower Democratic victory.

And that's only in the popular vote. Let's break it down to state level. If we give every state where Obama has less than a 5 point lead to John McCain, the Democrats win 275-263. It's a small margin and crude statistics, but that's still after handing McCain an enormous number of voters who lied in the polls.*

I used http://www.electoral-vote.com as my guide for convenience and gave every state that wasn't at least "Weak Dem" to McCain to come up with that, in case there's some flaw with that logic you'd like to point out.

10/14/2008 3:07:42 AM

I thank you for your diligence, and yield the point.

10/14/2008 3:16:32 AM

Even if all of the states that are tied or "Barely Dem" are won and McCain takes the rest, that's still a win for Obama by 70 votes (304 to 234). Everyone knows, however, that Florida is never a sure thing for the Democrats, so let's assume that it doesn't work out there. That then changes the final tally to 277 Obama, 261 McCain.

My very conservative estimate for what the final results will look like:


Here, Obama wins 281 to 257. He doesn't get several big EV states that he's currently slated to win, including Florida and Virginia. I bet the final results will look most like this than any of the other maps I'm going to show you.

However, there is always the chance Obama wins Florida, too. It seems unlikely, but he's currently polling several points ahead, and Hispanic voters have turned against McCain, which is also helping Obama in New Mexico. So, let's assume that the Hispanic and Latino voters come out in droves to vote Obama, giving him New Mexico, and that he wins Florida as well:


That would be a really sweet map to go to sleep to on November 4, wouldn't it?
That's alot of very pretty blue there, isn't it? However, it still comes nowhere close what RealClearPolitics and Electoral-Vote.com are predicting. You have to be wary of those, however, because they include very tight races that are barely leaning in their counts. Let's assume the unthinkable happens, though, and one or two more typically red states go Obama. Because I live there, let's say I can celebrate the Tarheel State's intelligence after NC goes blue for the first time since Carter ran for President, and Virginia republicans somehow all misplace their keys. Hell, let's throw in North Dakota for good measure, because Obama's polling ok there, too:

10/14/2008 9:44:10 AM

As for the bradley effect, it can't be counted out, BUT:

Quote :

"Greenwald and Albertson found that the Bradley effect only showed up in three states – California, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. However, they found a reverse Bradley effect in 12 primary states. In these states they found actual support for Obama exceeded pre-election polls by totals of 7 percent or more, well beyond the polls’ margins of error. These errors ranged up to 18 percent in Georgia. "

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/A_reverse_Bradley_Effect.html

10/14/2008 9:46:29 AM

i don't believe in the bradley effect, for reasons stated by grumpy above:

Quote :

"People who don't feel comfortable voting for a black guy will tell pollsters that they're not voting for him, though they'll leave out the reason. There isn't a huge motivation to lie."

i think it's a political bogeyman meant to inspire pessimism among democrats, or optimism among republicans. and, at this point i think obama has a nice-enough cushion in his lead (whichever poll you want to go by) that he doesn't have to worry about inflated poll numbers.

10/14/2008 9:52:32 AM

I could be wrong, but I really don't see New Mexico going to McCain.

10/14/2008 10:06:44 AM

Most polling is done by land line phones. They miss out on a large college base that have cell phones only.

10/14/2008 12:34:18 PM

they do add weight based on small samples of those voters that they typically aren't getting to, however, such as younger people with only cell phones. Whether they add enough or too much weight, however, is the question.

And NM is currently 49-43 Obama
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/new-mexico.png

10/14/2008 12:35:34 PM

^, ^^

If you look at the pollsters websites, they do contact people on cell phones too.

The pollers are well aware of the land-line phone thing, that's not some big secret. The more accurate their poll results are, the more money they make, so it's in their interests to try and have accurate polls.

10/14/2008 12:44:20 PM

It's not that they don't contact anyone with cell phones, it's that cell phones aren't listed. I'm sure they make some random calls to exchanges they know are cell phones, but they don't have the help of listings like they do in other situations. They probably check voter rolls, which may or may not have phone numbers, and call those numbers too.

10/14/2008 1:06:26 PM

DirtyGreek:


Do you really see Ohio going Obama before Virgina? And Colorado going Obama without New Mexico/ I admit Colorado is more of a toss-up because of the huge organizing effort there, but in general it would seem that Colorado would carry New Mexico with it.

And if the rural whites in Southern Ohio vote Obama then the Suburban Whites in NoVa will vote Obama, I would think.

As a note my guess is that the Bradley Effect will go the opposite way because of Southern White Men. There is a sliver that probably feel undecided or even lean McCain because they identify with him more but when they get in the voting booth and a rush of emotion over their family's economic prospects gets the better of them they will vote Obama. I might even expect Obama to outperform his exit polls in NC and Virginia.

10/14/2008 1:49:06 PM

I don't really know; they're just guesses. It's more likely though for Ohio to go than Virginia, I guess, since Ohio voted for clinton both times, and VA has been a red state in the last 4 elections, at least.

I actually got my NM/CO predictions backwards, I think. NM was blue from 1992-2000, but went for Bush in 2004, by 1 point. CO was the opposite. So really, I think you're right.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2008 2:25:13 PM

Quote :

"when they get in the voting booth and a rush of emotion over their family's economic prospects gets the better of them they will vote Obama. I might even expect Obama to outperform his exit polls in NC and Virginia."

I would like to believe this, but the thing is most refuse to listen to Obama's policies. My entire extended family is either low-middle class or high-lower class but always vote republican. My father is stuck on Obama is going to take his hunting rights away and my grandparents still think he is a muslim.

10/14/2008 2:56:49 PM

I was hardcore McCain, even convinced my father a lifelong democrat to vote for McCain.

Then Palin came combined with some shitty campaigning from McCain himself I have sinced crossed over to a side I never thought I would of joined.

10/14/2008 7:31:39 PM

Quote :

"My father is stuck on Obama is going to take his hunting rights"

Not a completely unfair assessment. Obama is far more anti-gun than Clinton. I could go into more detail, but I'm actually going to bed so I can hunt tomorrow.

Quote :

"a rush of emotion over their family's economic prospects gets the better of them they will vote Obama."

McCain is a more comfortable instinctive choice for most white males, economically or not.

10/14/2008 8:02:31 PM

Quote :

"Not a completely unfair assessment. Obama is far more anti-gun than Clinton. I could go into more detail, but I'm actually going to bed so I can hunt tomorrow."

MY GUNS

10/14/2008 8:03:08 PM

The supreme court would roundhouse kick him in the teeth (metaphorically speaking) if he tried that.

10/15/2008 12:41:28 AM

I can't see any attempt to take away hunting rights working politically.

Not in the short term, anyway.

10/15/2008 12:46:20 AM

Well, Im a gun owner voting for Obama... right now, I think whoever wins is going to have such a huge mess on their hands (economy, Iraq, healthcare) that social issues aren't going to be relevant.

Plus, the president doesn't make laws, if congress doesn't pass gun laws, then there wont be any new gun laws, simple as that.

What good are your guns if you lose your house, or die in the emergency room waiting lounge?

^ Agreed, I think the dems learned a very hard lesson (1994). Notice how the democratic controlled congress didnt pass any absurd gun control laws after Virgina Tech. Massacres like that is what got guns banned in short order in Australia and the UK

[Edited on October 15, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2008 12:51:00 AM

There are enough pro-gun democrats, where I don't see how Obama could, even if he wanted to, ban guns. It doesn't make sense to do that either. I'd think it wouldn't take much to convince Obama of this, if he didn't already realize it.

10/15/2008 12:53:03 AM

I don't think Obama's going to "take anybody's guns away," but he's not exactly pro-gun. I appears to me that his more agreeable position on that note came about fairly recently.

Still and all, there's a sizable part of the democratic party that wants to see old gun control laws put back in effect, and that alone is enough to scare off a lot of people (like myself) that cherish their right to bear arms. It doesn't immensely effect hunting, but it does effect the 2nd Amendment in a way that a lot of people (like myself) take very seriously.

10/15/2008 2:27:03 AM

According to Project Vote Smart and Ontheissues.org, Barack Obama wants to:

- Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
- Reestablish the "assault weapons ban" . . . which would be redundant if he got the former passed
- Voted for an amendment in 2005 that was to ban all "armor-piercing" handgun ammunition, which would eliminate all non-lead handgun ammunition.
- Opposes concealed carry for all but retired police officers

Those are just off the top. You combine this with a heavily Democrat senate and house (Schumer is no friend of gun owners) and just see what comes down the pipeline. First on the block will be 5.7mm and .50 BMG.

10/15/2008 4:42:03 PM

And what do you need those for, by the way?

10/15/2008 4:44:04 PM

Which of the above?

More importantly, the burden is on the Federal Government to demonstrate why rights should be curtailed instead of demanding I justify why I should exercise them.

Civil libertarians everywhere need to go ahead and own up to the fact that the 2A protects the individual right to own a gun. The supreme court has issued that decision, it is based on founders intent and contemporary interpretations of the law. It stands.

If you feel that it is an outmoded amendment in the 21st century, mount a campaign to repeal it. As for me, I take self-defense as an inalienable right.

10/15/2008 5:15:57 PM

^^
You need them for fighting tremors, duh.

10/15/2008 5:20:50 PM

Quote :

"Which of the above?"

Well, for starters, semi-automatic weapons and armor-piercing bullets?


haha, oh and also let me know why you need that .50 BMG machine gun bullet

[Edited on October 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2008 5:42:46 PM

What classifies an "armor-piercing" bullet? That is pretty open ended...

Why ban semi-automatic weapons? That encompasses almost all modern guns, depending on your definition of semi-automatic, which varies between people who know guns and people who don't.

Here is a question about the .50 BMG, how many crimes have been committed using a gun that uses that ammunition?

[Edited on October 15, 2008 at 5:47 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2008 5:46:49 PM

I think he knows what I'm talking about.

And no I don't think Obama is going to ban all "semi-automatic weapons" by the definition you just gave me. That would encompass nearly every personal firearm out there.


^Are you asking me about the BMG?

How about I answer your question with a question: How many crimes have been committed using rocket launchers? None? Oh I guess we shouldn't ban them then.



[Edited on October 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2008 5:49:20 PM

Well, considering the cost of a rocket launcher, I don't see many criminals with access to them. Never mind the knowledge needed to effectively deploy them. The .50 is used in numerous long range target rifles, why I don't think that rockets are used in that way.

Why ban something that has no correlation to making society any safer?

10/15/2008 5:54:18 PM

Because it's a giant fucking bullet that has no practical civilian use?

10/15/2008 7:53:12 PM

having a use or not is not enough justification to ban something

10/15/2008 8:00:25 PM

I believe that all Americans have the right to own certain types of arms based on their inalienable rights. However, that does not mean that the government should not legislate common-sense guidelines for attaining arms that exceed the conventional definition of self-defense. In my opinion, assault rifles should be sold, but the manner in which you attain these weapons should be heavily scrutinized.

10/15/2008 8:02:40 PM

Quote :

"having a use or not is not enough justification to ban something"

No, but when those items are not only useless to the civilian but also inherently dangerous, then they need to be banned.

Hence why I said "a giant fucking bullet" before mentioning it has no use.

[Edited on October 15, 2008 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2008 8:11:35 PM

^ and the Constitution be damned?

10/15/2008 9:08:18 PM

Quote :

"inherently dangerous"

They aren't inherently dangerous.

10/15/2008 9:09:47 PM

Blacks arent going to vote? Are you retarded like dnl?

10/15/2008 9:13:22 PM

i skimmed the first half and got bored, so please do pardon me if i reiterate someone else's point...

Quote :

"a) Obama's voting base typically aren't the type to go out and vote (college kids and African-Americans)"

this is true, but consider how many of htose are MORE likely to vote because it is "historic" if he becomes the first black president. it might only be a slight incentive for some, but enough to push them over the edge and get off their lazy asses.

10/15/2008 9:14:32 PM