Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Juan Williams has gone on record stating that if Obama isn't up by at least 6 in the final polls, he's not going to win the election.

Clarence Page has also weighed in on this issue, and his assessment is the same as Juan Williams.

"In fact, if he fails to show at least a six-point advantage in the polls by Election Day, I expect John McCain to be our next president.

Where do I get that number? I'm no math whiz, but it did not take numerical genius for me to notice that Obama fared best in caucus states, where the voting happens to be conducted in public. Where votes were cast in the privacy of voting booths, Obama tended to do worse than polls predicted. When Obama showed a lead in the polls that fell within the margin of error, it tended to mean a victory for his principal opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton."

"Obama vs.'Bubba' Vote" - by Clarence Page

[larrymcg421]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Sure there were some states where Obama underperformed the poll numbers (New Hampshire, California, West Virginia, Kentucky), but there are quite a few where he outperformed his polling numbers...

State        (RCP Avg, Final result)

Alabama        Clinton +1.2, Obama +14.1
Connecticut    Clinton +4.0, Obama +3.1
Georgia        Obama +18.0, Obama +35.3
Indiana        Clinton +5.0, Clinton +1.4
Maryland    Obama +22.3, Obama +23.5
Missouri    Clinton +5.7, Obama +1.3
North Carolina    Obama +8.0, Obama +14.7
Oregon        Obama +12.0, Obama +17.6
South Carolina  Obama +11.6, Obama +28.9
Virginia     Obama +17.7, Obama +28.2
Wisconsin     Obama +4.3, Obama +17.4

If anything, it shows that pollsters may severely be underrepresenting the African-American vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Palin's inexperience is starting to become more of an issue when compared with the seasoning and expertise of Joe Biden. Here is Biden's take on the need for action due to the recent financial crisis:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened'".

"October 29, 1929, a date which will live in infamy."

Biden was caught in yet another 'oops' moment yesterday when talking to a crowd where he gave this response in relation to a gun control question........

“Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don't buy that malarkey,” he said. “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem.”

How quickly Mr. Biden forgets the whole YouTube debate snafu in 2007 where he gave a much more different toned response in another classic 'Biden' moment........

AirCongress » Blog Archive » Michigan Man To Biden: Come See ‘My Baby’

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then why have no charges been filed by the Alaska legislature or law enforcement for Todd Palin and her staffers ignoring the subpoenas? I mean, if you said Todd Palin didn't have to heed the subpoena, I'm thinking he would still have to honor it. Yet, neither him or the staffers are required to do so - meaning the subpoenas are not valid.

So I suppose you'd say that if I murder somebody and there hasn't been a warrant issued for my arrest, I haven't broken the law?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by adubroff

So I suppose you'd say that if I murder somebody and there hasn't been a warrant issued for my arrest, I haven't broken the law?

No, but I'd call you an idiot, whether innocent or not, if you walked in and started talking to the police without representation just because they asked you to do so. The investigative process allows for a lot of checks and balances, which often include avoiding certain situations if the law allows for it. That's just the way the game is played.

[Flasch186]

well you certainly wouldnt want to cooperate with the investigation, and thats the truth.

The problem, for me, is that she is a candidate for VP so I want her to be completely upfront and honest which means cooperating fully. The second part is that prior to being selected she was all about cooperating and whether or not French was involved or the legislature was biased, or the whole world was biased or sexist, wasnt an issue and she stood up, loud and proud, and said, "hold me accountable." That was a GOOD moment. Wiggling out under the whole "Left wing conspiracy" crap shows how fast 'big time' politics can infect ya.

She should cooperate fully and when the report clears her she'll even have a bigger 'bounce'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

She should cooperate fully and when the report clears her she'll even have a bigger 'bounce'.

But that's the entire point. The liberal supporters right now are all about one thing.....extending this situation as long as they can. It doesn't matter whether the allegations are fair or not. The longer that this situation can drag on, the more mud that can be slung, and the better it is for the Obama campaign.

Similarly, the stakes are just as high in Alaska and anyone who can't see that is out of touch with the political machine. The Alaskan Congress and many political lobbyists and executives in Alaska have been severely undercut by the reform movement pushed by Palin in Alaska over her first two years in office. The people that she nailed to the wall are now using 'Troopergate' to further their own ambitions. If they can drag on this situation and drag Palin through the mud, they may be able to make a dent in her 80% approval rating and damage her politically if she were to return to office as governor. But if Palin is elected as VP, they will all be scrutinized by a federal government (rather than a governor) who has a VP that knows exactly how their tomfoolery is accomplished and how big oil plays their game. They don't want that by any stretch of the imagination.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Arles

For those who think Palin, her husband and her staff should enter French and Green's fishing expedition on their own accord, what possible "successful" scenario could come from such a move on Palin's part?

She's already provided more than enough information show cause for Monegan's removal, so it's doubtful the case will be dropped. It's doubtful she will get any credit for speaking with them as she got no credit when she released all the documents both in early August and even some internal memos in September. To me, I see no positive result from Palin speaking to these people.

With that in mind, why would Palin willingly put herself in a situation (in the middle of a very angry campaign against her) that has no positive result? It would be sheer stupidity to do so.

I could give a fuck about the subpoenas and the internal workings of Alaska politics. My issue is she's a compulsive liar even for a pol. All of this nonsense simply adds to the case against her.

If you can make a case against her being a compulsive liar I'd love to hear it.

[Kodos]

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm a bit of a neophyte when it comes to futures markets and such, but Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight has an interesting post up about odd occurrences with the InTrade pricing.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Intrade Betting is Suspicious

Anybody who assumed that InTrade trading was any form of a good prediction model is a fool.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting comments from Michelle Obama about the upcoming debate..........

Many Americans still don't know much about Barack or his plan to bring the change we need. They don't know about his timeline to bring troops home from Iraq responsibly, or his plans to rebuild our military and to achieve energy independence so that we can end our reliance on foreign oil once and for all.

Really confusing message here. On one side, the Obama ticket refutes the arguments that they haven't had many specifics, but now Michelle says that most people don't know about his plans. Not only that, but this kind of a comment raises expectations that Obama will provide a lot of specifics in a debate forum that he doesn't directly control like he would a speech. I'm not sure that you want to make these kinds of expectations for a debate.

Here's the full message for those that are interested. Big kudos for the possible first lady who uses the word 'gonna' in a formal release........

Hi everyone, this is Michelle Obama. The first presidential debate is coming up on Friday, the 26th. It's gonna focus on foreign policy. The candidates will debate their different views on how to keep America safe, strengthen our relationships with our allies, and restore our role in the world. Many Americans still don't know much about Barack or his plan to bring the change we need. They don't know about his timeline to bring troops home from Iraq responsibly, or his plans to rebuild our military and to achieve energy independence so that we can end our reliance on foreign oil once and for all. And they don't know his plan to restore the middle class, to cut taxes for 95% of American families, to provide healthcare for every American, and to improve our schools. They also don't know that John McCain shares many of George Bush's views. In fact, he's voted with George Bush more than 90% of the time, including not investigating the government response to Katrina, not supporting college benefits for returning veterans, and passing tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle class. So, this debate is a great opportunity to introduce Barack to your friends, family, and neighbors. That's why all across the country, people are coming together for debate watch parties. A debate watch party is a great opportunity to get together with other people who support Barack, and to reach out to folks who are undecided. That's what this movement's all about: people coming together to talk about the issues that matter to them. So, I hope you'll host a debate watch party in your home, or attend one in your community. Visit this website to get more information: my-dot-barackobama-dot-com-slash-debate. You know, there are just a few weeks left 'til election day, so now more than ever, we need to come together. Thank you.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm a bit of a neophyte when it comes to futures markets and such, but Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight has an interesting post up about odd occurrences with the InTrade pricing.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Intrade Betting is Suspicious

That's really interesting to say the least, but I'd imagine this is less of a political story and more of a guy-trying-to-game-intrade story.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More interesting polling methods on today's Washington Post poll. Initially, it looks like great news for Obama. +9 advantage......

Washington Post-ABC News (washingtonpost.com)

But the numbers in the poll are assigned as follows:

Democrat: 38%

Republican 28%

Independent: 29%

That doesn't even come close to mirroring what election day turnout breakdown percentages usually look like. In addition, the poll's independents are much more left-leaning than the election day independents. 54% of the independents in this poll usually lean Democrat while only 38% of the independents in this poll usually lean Republican.

Honestly, if the Democrats fall on election day, their supporters should blame these kinds of weighted polls for raising expectations that never should have been raised in the first place. This is just terribly bad polling methodology.

[JPhillips]

So Palin is meeting with Bono today. I don't understand why she's getting her foreign policy advice from celebrities.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Anybody who assumed that InTrade trading was any form of a good prediction model is a fool.

It was beyond excellent on super Tuesday. Constantly ahead of the news and wire services by about an hour. It needs to be highly liquid to work though. If the idea about a rogue trader is correct, then I'd say it's working well enough here too. Plus I like betting bad lines. More here.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting comments from Michelle Obama about the upcoming debate..........



Really confusing message here. On one side, the Obama ticket refutes the arguments that they haven't had many specifics, but now Michelle says that most people don't know about his plans. Not only that, but this kind of a comment raises expectations that Obama will provide a lot of specifics in a debate forum that he doesn't directly control like he would a speech. I'm not sure that you want to make these kinds of expectations for a debate.

Here's the full message for those that are interested. Big kudos for the possible first lady who uses the word 'gonna' in a formal release........

Do you have a link to the full message?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Do you have a link to the full message?

It's listed in the post from Michelle. It's on the Obama website.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

More interesting polling methods on today's Washington Post poll. Initially, it looks like great news for Obama. +9 advantage......

Washington Post-ABC News (washingtonpost.com)

But the numbers in the poll are assigned as follows:

Democrat: 38%

Republican 28%

Independent: 29%

That doesn't even come close to mirroring what election day turnout breakdown percentages usually look like. In addition, the poll's independents are much more left-leaning than the election day independents. 54% of the independents in this poll usually lean Democrat while only 38% of the independents in this poll usually lean Republican.

Honestly, if the Democrats fall on election day, their supporters should blame these kinds of weighted polls for raising expectations that never should have been raised in the first place. This is just terribly bad polling methodology.

The final numbers may or may not be accurate, but the trend is still clear. McCain went from 2 up to 9 back and the sample only swung 2 points towards the Democrats among registered voters.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So Palin is meeting with Bono today. I don't understand why she's getting her foreign policy advice from celebrities.

Or the meeting could have been arranged by Bono under the false pretense that he would somehow be able to convince her of every supporting any of his causes when he doesn't actually have a prayer of changing her opinion. That's a much more likely scenario.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The final numbers may or may not be accurate, but the trend is still clear. McCain went from 2 up to 9 back and the sample only swung 2 points towards the Democrats among registered voters.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's listed in the post from Michelle. It's on the Obama website.

I saw your text, but I still can't find it on the Obama website. Little help? I'm just curious, since the version I've seen doesn't have the word "gonna" in it, so one of us has a fake.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Well reasoned.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Or the meeting could have been arranged by Bono under the false pretense that he would somehow be able to convince her of every supporting any of his causes when he doesn't actually have a prayer of changing her opinion. That's a much more likely scenario.

I guess I just worry about undue celebrity influence in a McCain/Palin administration. Are they going to base their Mid-East policy on phone calls from Bono?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well reasoned.

Apologies. I'll spell it out SLOWLY.

There's no disagreement that the Democrat/Republican/Independent turnout is off by 2/3 points. With that said, the independent percentage are WAY out of line with the general election day turnout.

Put another way, if we were to use the Washington Poll percentages as a predictor given that the Democrats traditionally constitute roughly 4% more of the voters than the Republicans, a 54% leaning independent segment would virtually guarantee a Democrat in the White House each and every time. That doesn't happen. The higher number of Democrat voters is always offset by a independent electorate that usually votes slightly to the right.

Is it an interesting poll? Yes. Does it resemble anything close to reality given the weight used? Not really.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I guess I just worry about undue celebrity influence in a McCain/Palin administration. Are they going to base their Mid-East policy on phone calls from Bono?

Exhibit A: When liberal attempts at humor fall flat on their face.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Actually, I think MBBF's "formal release" is a youtube video. Unfortunately I'm at work and can't confirm it, but I got this and the matching transcript from a conservative site.

Correct. It's fair to call it a formal release as it was certainly meant to be released via the internet for distribution. Both campaigns have distributed attack ads in a similar method.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Apologies. I'll spell it out SLOWLY.

There's no disagreement that the Democrat/Republican/Independent turnout is off by 2/3 points. With that said, the independent percentage are WAY out of line with the general election day turnout.

Put another way, if we were to use the Washington Poll percentages as a predictor given that the Democrats traditionally constitute roughly 4% more of the voters than the Republicans, a 54% leaning independent segment would virtually guarantee a Democrat in the White House each and every time. That doesn't happen. The higher number of Democrat voters is always offset by a independent electorate that usually votes slightly to the right.

Is it an interesting poll? Yes. Does it resemble anything close to reality given the weight used? Not really.

I'm not arguing whether the sample will reflect the actual voting. The point is that the sample is very close to the sample used when McCain had a +2 advantage. Any individual poll isn't very useful, but a trend among a very similar sample is useful. This poll does tell us that within the WaPo sample it's likely that over the past couple of weeks McCain has lost a lot of ground.

That's what's important, not the overall numbers.

[Passacaglia]

If anyone's interested, here's the e-mail I got that accompanied the video -- still not sure where MBBF's version came from.

Aaron --

This Friday, we'll reach another milestone in this campaign -- the first debate of the general election, on September 26th at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Millions of Americans will tune in to watch Barack debate John McCain about America's foreign policy and our role in the world.

Barack will share his plan to bring the change we need -- to restore our place in the world, ensure security at home and abroad, and reestablish the United States as the world's economic leader.

This is a great opportunity for you to learn more about the issues. And it's also a great opportunity for you to share Barack's message of change with your friends, family, and neighbors by attending or hosting a Debate Watch Party.

Watch the debate with friends and supporters, and talk about how you can get involved in this movement.

I recorded a brief message about these parties. Please take a moment to watch the video and sign up to attend or host a Debate Watch Party in your community.



Many Americans are still learning about Barack and this movement for change.

They don't know about his plan to restore the middle class, cut taxes for 95 percent of American families, provide health care for every American, achieve energy independence, improve our schools, and responsibly end the war in Iraq.

Many people also don't know that John McCain has voted with George Bush more than 90 percent of the time -- including to continue Bush's failed Iraq policies, not investigating the government response to Katrina, not supporting children's health care, not supporting college benefits for returning veterans, and passing tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle class.

This debate is a chance for Americans to hear directly from Barack. And with just a few weeks left before Election Day, it's more important than ever that we bring people together and talk about the issues that matter in our communities.

I hope you'll watch my short message and sign up to attend or even host a Debate Watch Party:

Barack Obama | Change We Need | Host a Debate Watch Party

Thank you for all that you're doing,

Michelle

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Exhibit A: When liberal attempts at humor fall flat on their face.

Not meant to be humor. I'm just as concerned by this as you are by Clooney's influence on Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not meant to be humor. I'm just as concerned by this as you are by Clooney's influence on Obama.

Exhibit B: When a liberal makes a bad joke worse.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not arguing whether the sample will reflect the actual voting. The point is that the sample is very close to the sample used when McCain had a +2 advantage. Any individual poll isn't very useful, but a trend among a very similar sample is useful. This poll does tell us that within the WaPo sample it's likely that over the past couple of weeks McCain has lost a lot of ground.

That's what's important, not the overall numbers.

I'm assuming you have a link for that poll with McCain up 2 points. Could you post that just to verify that breakdown? Thanks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

If anyone's interested, here's the e-mail I got that accompanied the video -- still not sure where MBBF's version came from.

I'm not sure where that differs from what I posted. The point remains that she states that the public doesn't know where Barack stands on the issues, which is a pretty shocking frank admission given the Obama campaign has argued that they HAVE been clear on those issues.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure where that differs from what I posted. The point remains that she states that the public doesn't know where Barack stands on the issues, which is a pretty shocking frank admission given the Obama campaign has argued that they HAVE been clear on those issues.

You're the one who commented on the use of the word "gonna" -- just seemed odd, since that's not in the version I have. It's one of the two points you made about it.

[fantom1979]

I am not sure how anyone can say that either candidate has not expressed their policy proposals. I have found a couple of great websites that do a very good job of showing their proposals, and then I can break them down side by side if I care to.

Welcome to Obama for America
www.johnmccain.com

[DaddyTorgo]

and as far as her using the word gonna

how about Palin adressing a crowd as "Guys and Gals" ?? That seemed pretty...dumbed-down to me too. (clip was on ABC news a few days ago)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I am not sure how anyone can say that either candidate has not expressed their policy proposals. I have found a couple of great websites that do a very good job of showing their proposals, and then I can break them down side by side if I care to.

Welcome to Obama for America
www.johnmccain.com

Agreed. That was my whole point. I'm surprised that Michelle Obama would make that kind of comment given the options available. The campaign believes that Obama has been very specific about the issues, yet Michelle's comments contradict that message.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

She should cooperate fully and when the report clears her she'll even have a bigger 'bounce'.

Do you really think that last bit is true? That being cleared would matter in any significant way at all?

Seems far more likely to me that a report clearing her would
-- be praised as miraculous justice by supporters, along with a health does of I-told-you-so
-- be decried by detractors as being flawed in some way
-- barely a blip on the radar of anyone else

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Pass - I just wanted to make this clear, since you keep asking. The use of "gonna" was in a youtube video. From MBBFs first post, I had assumed that she used it in a written press release. The video is on the previous page if you want to view it.

Got it. Looks like I made the assumption as you. The video was in the email I posted -- I just didn't bother reading it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A couple of other interesting notes regarding the Washington Post/ABCNews poll from this morning.

-24% of the people polled are not registered to vote. So 1/4 of those polled will likely not even vote.

-Note the following in the poll information:

The survey includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans, for a total of 163 black respondents.

So the pollster actively found 163 African-Americans to include in the poll rather than a random sample of the population. That means that the poll had 15% of its respondants who were African-American, which is significantly higher than the 12% of the sample population that should be represented. Should we be shocked that the increased numbers of Democrats and AA's resulted in a poll favoring Obama by a wide margin?

I'm hoping JPhillips will post the previous sampling he mentioned where the statistical breakdown was the same when McCain was up 2 points. Would love to compare with this sampling.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm assuming you have a link for that poll with McCain up 2 points. Could you post that just to verify that breakdown? Thanks.

It's in the link to the WaPo poll you posted.

9/22 Registered voters 38/28 Dem/Rep
9/7 Registered voters 36/28 Dem/Rep

[JPhillips]

-24% of the people polled are not registered to vote. So 1/4 of those polled will likely not even vote.

Why is that shocking? According to the Census in 2005 72% of the adult population was registered to vote.

Also, the numbers break down into likely and registered voters. The poll doesn't include non-registered voters in the McCain/Obama numbers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's in the link to the WaPo poll you posted.

9/22 Registered voters 38/28 Dem/Rep
9/7 Registered voters 36/28 Dem/Rep

I actually see the breakdown on 9/7 as 36/26 in favor of democrats. In addition, we have a poll where the African-American vote is over-represented by 3% and the independent leanings have shifted 4%. Toss in a poll that has 1/4 of the people who are not registered voters and it's really hard to draw much at all from this poll. As I stated before, this is an attack on the poll methodologies more than any attack on the results. I'd be shocked if there hadn't been some movement toward Obama over the past couple of weeks, but polls like this aren't even close to telling the true story.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But that's the entire point. The liberal supporters right now are all about one thing.....extending this situation as long as they can.

Wrong. Do you consider me a liberal supporter? ill bet you do, and I dont care if the results come out tomorrow of this damned thing or in 2 years as long as everyone involved fully cooperates and the TRUTH comes out. Period!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Do you really think that last bit is true? That being cleared would matter in any significant way at all?

Seems far more likely to me that a report clearing her would
-- be praised as miraculous justice by supporters, along with a health does of I-told-you-so
-- be decried by detractors as being flawed in some way
-- barely a blip on the radar of anyone else

If the report comes out and clears her, and Im in the McCain camp I use that as a springboard into the 'liberal media conspiracy' crap. How theyre attacking her on frivolous this and that. I would absolutely turn that into a huge bounce, but instead I think theyre completely botching this in an effort to stifle the investigation until it either isnt resolved before the election or becomes so buried under rhetoric that people cant even 'see or hear' the truth when it is found out, whatever the results. Regardless, it's shameful IMO.

[larrymcg421]

Um, I'm wondering if MBBF is intentionally leaving out pertinent information, or is he just reading sentences that support his position in saying the poll is wrong.

Originally Posted by the very next sentence in the link that MBBF is getting his info from

The added interviews (commonly referred to as an "oversample") were completed to ensure there were enough African American respondents for separate analysis; the group was not over-represented in the reported results from the full sample.

Is this where we bring out the icons?

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then why have no charges been filed by the Alaska legislature or law enforcement for Todd Palin and her staffers ignoring the subpoenas? I mean, if you said Todd Palin didn't have to heed the subpoena, I'm thinking he would still have to honor it. Yet, neither him or the staffers are required to do so - meaning the subpoenas are not valid.

My understanding (admittedly based only on what I've read online) is that the Alaska legislature is out of session until January and therefore can not take action to enforce the subpoenas until then.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Wrong. Do you consider me a liberal supporter? ill bet you do, and I dont care if the results come out tomorrow of this damned thing or in 2 years as long as everyone involved fully cooperates and the TRUTH comes out. Period!

That's a convinient stance to take in this case.

"I'm not stirring the pot! I just want the TRUTH!"

Yeah, ummmmm, OK.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, I'm wondering if MBBF is intentionally leaving out pertinent information, or is he just reading sentences that support his position in saying the poll is wrong.

You're correct. I missed that point. Thanks for the correction note.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's a convinient stance to take in this case.

"I'm not stirring the pot! I just want the TRUTH!"

Yeah, ummmmm, OK.

you call it stirring, the world calls it an investigation.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I actually see the breakdown on 9/7 as 36/26 in favor of democrats. In addition, we have a poll where the African-American vote is over-represented by 3% and the independent leanings have shifted 4%. Toss in a poll that has 1/4 of the people who are not registered voters and it's really hard to draw much at all from this poll. As I stated before, this is an attack on the poll methodologies more than any attack on the results. I'd be shocked if there hadn't been some movement toward Obama over the past couple of weeks, but polls like this aren't even close to telling the true story.

You have to look at the registered voter lines as those are the numbers used to get to the final number. As I stated earlier the inclusion of non-registered voters isn't an issue either. Keep in mind that this poll is about more than voting prefeerence, so a close to accurate distribution of non-registered voters is appropriate. They aren't represented in the horserace numbers as those are clearly marked as only asked of registered voters.

There's no conspiracy about the methodology. It may or may not be accurate, but the internals look consistent with other polling operations.