Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JPhillips]

Obama is now advertising in video games.

http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirm...g-on-xbox-360/

[Phototropic]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Is it important to make a distinction between the actions and words used at different events (burning Bush, kill Bush on signs) versus the action and words used at campaign rallies? I've never seen this kind of behavior at Obama or Kerry events - though I won't be too surprised if someone comes up with examples - while this most recent trend is happening to McCain's face.

Absolutely.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What interests me about it is that I have always seen the left (or those that attend rallies for leftist candidates) to be fucking crazy. I've never really felt that way about politically active conservatives, though I guess that's changing. Is it because there's the smell of a loss in the air? Is it pent up frustration at Bush being such a target for so many years?

How about a bit of racism? I had the distinct displeasure yesterday of witnessing a bit of the right-wing anger. A man's truck parked in his driveway, vandalized with the N-word and "NObama" all over it. *sigh*

[larrymcg421]

Interesting story from The Huffington Post. Apparently McCain's transition chief did lobbying work for Saddam Hussein...

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

for whatever reason, the democratic party is afraid to admit they have liberal ideas. When right started calling the left "liberal", the left could have said "so what?" and disarmed it. Instead, they ran from it like the plague making most non-political voters think there's something wrong with the term.

The reason is simple: "liberal' is simply the wrong word with all sorts of connotations that simply don't apply to those who would call themselves "progressives". It embraces all sorts of attitudes that progressives would reject - there's even an element of libertarianism in there. There's also a suggestion of unworldly "fairies at the bottom of the garden" mentality - tree huggers and the sandals and incense crowd.

The term is simply inaccurate and misleading. The Liberal Party in Australia is the equivalent to the Republican Party, the term referring to "liberal economics" ie a small government, free market philosophy. The Liberal Party in Britain was the crackhead's party (now reworked with an element of political professionalism as the Liberal Democrats).

The term "liberal" is far too vulnerable to a broad interpretation that allows progressives to be criticised for opinions that they would reject outright.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Interesting story from The Huffington Post. Apparently McCain's transition chief did lobbying work for Saddam Hussein...

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

Oh gawd now we have two terrorists running for president

Seriously though, what is a "transition chief" exactly?

[SirFozzie]

the guy who smooths the transition between one presidency to another

[Big Fo]

But Barack Obama told me that McCain and Bush are the same person anyway, sounds like an unnecessary position.

[SirFozzie]

Dear God, the floor keeps dropping out from underneath McCain:

National Poll Differentials:

Newsweek (Obama +11)
ABC/Post (Obama +10)
Democracy Corps (Obama +10)
Research 2000 (Obama +10)
Battleground (Obama +13)
Gallup (Likely Voters II Model) (Obama +10)

And today, a new CBS/New York Times poll puts it at Obama +14 head to head (+12 with third party candidates).

I will make no bones about who I support in this election. But I kept looking at the numbers and saying they have to start "regressing to the mean" at some point. Sooner or later, Obama has to mis-step, or McCain has to come up with an effective way to plink away at Obama's support.

That's not happening. The floor keeps dropping out.. Could we legitimately see a 60/40 election win? Could it be the Democrat mandate with a filibuster proof 60 senators? (odds are apparently 3 in 10).

I can't believe it, and I won't believe it till it actually happens. At some point this race HAS to tighten, doesn't it?

[Flasch186]

and from the can they botch this any worse dept:

remember that second investigation that Palin started in AK about Troopergate?

Welp, looks like they addigned a trial lawyer who was a contributor to her opponent during the last election for her and the lawyer expects to have her testify on the issues at hand in regards to the investigation....

I'd say again:

I hope she fully cooperates.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Dear God, the floor keeps dropping out from underneath McCain:

National Poll Differentials:

Newsweek (Obama +11)
ABC/Post (Obama +10)
Democracy Corps (Obama +10)
Research 2000 (Obama +10)
Battleground (Obama +13)
Gallup (Likely Voters II Model) (Obama +10)

And today, a new CBS/New York Times poll puts it at Obama +14 head to head (+12 with third party candidates).

I will make no bones about who I support in this election. But I kept looking at the numbers and saying they have to start "regressing to the mean" at some point. Sooner or later, Obama has to mis-step, or McCain has to come up with an effective way to plink away at Obama's support.

That's not happening. The floor keeps dropping out.. Could we legitimately see a 60/40 election win? Could it be the Democrat mandate with a filibuster proof 60 senators? (odds are apparently 3 in 10).

I can't believe it, and I won't believe it till it actually happens. At some point this race HAS to tighten, doesn't it?

With the atmosphere that surrounds so many of his rallies it can't drop fast enough.

http://www.colorofchange.org/united/?id=1445-163989

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I can't believe it, and I won't believe it till it actually happens. At some point this race HAS to tighten, doesn't it?

Nah - we've gotten used to super-close elections but it isn't the norm historically.

I think Obama gains even more momentum leading up to election day and this is a blowout beyond what anyone is expecting.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

With the atmosphere that surrounds so many of his rallies it can't drop fast enough.

http://www.colorofchange.org/united/?id=1445-163989

WOW. That's fucked up.

[Spider-Man]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

But Barack Obama told me that McCain and Bush are the same person anyway, sounds like an unnecessary position.

It's a position to transition the presidency to McCain if he wins the election.

You're right, it is a completely unnecessary position.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and from the can they botch this any worse dept:

remember that second investigation that Palin started in AK about Troopergate?

Welp, looks like they addigned a trial lawyer who was a contributor to her opponent during the last election for her and the lawyer expects to have her testify on the issues at hand in regards to the investigation....

I'd say again:

I hope she fully cooperates.

But, if she doesn't want to, she can just fire the personnel board and end the investigation right there.

[flere-imsaho]

With recent polls showing places like CO and MO trending into "safe" or "likely" Obama pickups, I wonder if this validates Obama's strategy of trying to seriously campaign in as many states as possible.

Of course, it's likely he had to do this at least in part to win the Democratic nomination against Clinton, who had many of the "safe Democratic" states locked up.

However, I wonder, if Clinton had won the nomination, if her GE campaign would have focused on a tactical victory, basically going for Kerry states & MI, PA & FL. Arguably this would have made life easier for McCain, as many of the states he's contesting now (VA, NC, WI, even ND?) would have been safely in the bag.

[ISiddiqui]

Colorado or Missouri would have been on any Democratic nominees list of states to focus on. After all, they've been very close swing states in the last couple elections.

Even if your goal is the Kerry states + MI, PA, FL, you'd definitely try to steal away MO, CO, and Iowa. And Virginia would have been also contested, seeing as how Democratic the state has become (in terms of governors and senators).

[Big Fo]

The long primary campaign definitely helped the Democrats, both Obama and Clinton wound up going to places that typically don't get a lot of love from presidential candidates.

Howard Dean also helped out with his 50 states plan that was implemented before the 2006 Congressional elections.

[albionmoonlight]

Clinton would have led to a very very different race. Palin would have been off the table, which seems like it might have been a good thing for McCain. Her presence would have energized the GOP base, allowing McCain to tack to his more natural place in the middle. And it would have been easier for him to run as the agent of Change against her. It, at least, would not have come off as silly, the way it did when he tried to out-change Obama.

Don't count any chickens before November 4th, however. I'll believe that America will elect the half-black Hawaiian/Kansan with the funny name when I see it.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

Nah - we've gotten used to super-close elections but it isn't the norm historically.

I think Obama gains even more momentum leading up to election day and this is a blowout beyond what anyone is expecting.

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Winning by 315 might be a stretch, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. The R's were comprehensively beaten in the mid-terms, failing to pick up a single seat and haven't shown me any reason to think that trend won't continue this year. Today I would not make that bet but check back in September.

Thinking some more, whoever mentioned Idaho going R is almost certainly right, but the other four (VA, CO, TN and AR) will all end up D or very close to it.

Probably too early for this...

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Don't count any chickens before November 4th, however. I'll believe that America will elect the half-black Hawaiian/Kansan with the funny name when I see it.

+1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Don't count any chickens before November 4th, however. I'll believe that America will elect the half-black Hawaiian/Kansan with the funny name when I see it.

+2

While I'd give the general nod that Obama is ahead by a couple of points at this point, there's a lot of things in play that simply don't mirror reality right now.

1. Whether any of us like it or not, the race issue will swing votes to McCain on Election Day. While I feel that my generation (20-35 year olds) have come a long ways in regard to race, I can honestly say that every single one of my parents and in-laws along with all grandparents will vote for McCain SPECIFICALLY because of race. It's terribly unfortunate, but logic and sound reasoning has never been a pre-requisite to vote.

2. The polling this year is way out of line with the actual percentage of Dem/Rep/Ind voters that are likely to show up on Election Day. With the nod that the following is from a Conservative leaning blog, I do think that a lot of the issues with polling weight that DJ Drummond brings up have some level of merit.....

One Obvious Reason the Polls Are Biased (Wizbang)

One Obvious Reason the Polls Are Biased
Posted by DJ Drummond
Published: October 15, 2008 - 10:52 AM

I have said and will say again, that the opinion polls this year are simply wrong. They have fiddled with weighting and wording and various pieces of the demographics to create a false impression. You can either believe them or not, but as I have shown in the numbers for weeks now, believing the polls would be naïve at the very least.

But if the polls have been so biased, one may reasonably ask why that is so. I myself have commended groups like Gallup for a very professional job over many years, and even though I strongly disagree with the conclusions published by groups like CBS News, I applaud their open way of reporting at least some of the significant internal data. In fact, it is CBS News which reveals how this bias is operating, and how even well-intentioned pollsters can make major blunders in their assumptions.

I disagree with CBS News because of how it weights its respondent pool. And lately, what I have seen is a trend, verging on the ridiculous, of far too many Democrats in the pool to make any sense at all. This has been happening in both national polls and in state polls. For national polls, I mentioned some weeks back how Gallup managed to show Obama declining or staying steady in every political affiliation group over a week while McCain was steady or gained in every such group, yet Gallup's headline claimed Obama was gaining support overall, a mathematical impossibility without manipulating the proportionate weights.

For the states, Survey USA's polls also show a strong pro-Democrat bias, as shown in the following states (2004 and 2006 DRI splits come from actual elections, SUSA's 2008 split is arbitrary):

Ohio - 2004 DRI split was 35%/40%/25%, 2006 was 40%/37%/23%
SUSA in 2008 is using 46%/33%/20%

North Carolina - 2004 DRI split was 39%/40%/21%, 2006 was 39%/40%/21%
SUSA in 2008 is using 42%/37%/18%

Virginia - 2004 DRI split was 35%/39%/26%, 2006 was 36%/39%/26%
SUSA in 2008 is using 39%/30%/25%

Pennsylvania - 2004 DRI split was 41%/39%/20%, 2006 was 43%/38%/19%
SUSA in 2008 is using 54%/35%/10%

Florida - 2004 DRI split was 37%/41%/23%, 2006 was 36%/39%/25%
SUSA in 2008 is using 40%/42%/16%

Survey USA is using weights which have no historical validity whatsoever in their state polling. "Garbage" is not too strong a word to describe their published results.

So what's the deal? Something is happening to skew the polling groups' perception of how they think voters will turn out, and in publishing invalid conclusions as they have, they are - intentionally or not - misleading the public about the election conditions. Since the reputation of the polling group is essential in attracting future business clients, it hardly seems reasonable to consider these blunders to be deliberate. Although I have written that polls fall into the unethical habit of selling a roller coaster story which they know is not accurate, polls do try to stay close enough to be plausible. One must conclude that they have come to believe their own hype, forgetting Heisenberg's warning that observing a behavioral event not only influences the event, but also affects the observer as well.

So, in looking around for a cause, I found something all major polls have in common. Look at their headquarters locations:

Poll Headquarters
ABC News 77 W 66th St, #13, New York City, New York
CBS News 524 W 57th St, New York City, New York
FOX News 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York City, New York
Gallup 901 F St NW, Washington DC
Hotline 88 Pine St, 32nd floor, New York City, New York
IBD 12655 Beatrice St. Los Angeles, California
LA Times 202 W 1st St, Los Angeles California
Marist 3399 North Rd, Poughkeepsie, New Jersey
Mason-Dixon 1250 Connnecticut Ave #200, Washington DC
Newsweek 251 W 57th St, New York City, New York
NY Times 1 City Hall, New York City, New York
Pew 1615 L St NW, #700, Washington DC
Quinnipiac 275 Mount Carmel Ave., Hamden Connecticut
Rasmussen 625 Cookman, #2, Asbury Park, New Jersey
Reuters 3 Times Square, New York City, New York
Survey USA 15 Bloomfield Ave., Verona New Jersey
TIPP 690 Kinderkamack Rd, Oradell, New Jersey
WaPo 1150 15th St NW, Washington DC
Zogby 901 Broad St, Utica, New York

All of them deep in "blue" territory, many packed together up on the northeast corner of Obama territory. The only non-east-coast member of this group is the LA Times, located in the most liberal section of California, also solid blue in perspective. This is not a coincidence, all of the major polling organizations are based in locations where liberals are strongest and conservatives weakest, where 'democrat' and 'republican' take on meanings wildly different from the rest of the country. As a result, it is obvious that the prevailing culture in this limited part of the country has an undue influence on the focus applied by these polling groups. Democrats, especially liberal democrats, are over-represented in the poll reports because the culture of New York and Northeast America over-represents liberals. Republicans, especially conservative republicans, are suppressed in the poll reports because the culture at the polling groups' headquarters suppresses republican opinion.

I learned long ago, that when a manager displays certain personality traits, they are soon reflected by the employees at that company. A relaxed manager who is confident tends to improve the mood of his staff, while a tense micro-manager creates the same attitude in his employees. Knowing this, it's not at all hard to imagine the conversations between headquarters and the staff at these polling groups. They like Obama and expect him to win, so - what a surprise! - the polls they control reflect that same attitude.

Polls are useful for investigating trends and movement within a specific demographic, provided the polling group is ethical enough to publish its internals. But trusting them for an honest topline report amounts to trusting Obama's campaign to honestly report how the election is really going.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Probably too early for this...

That sucks. I wish we could just do this tomorrow and get it over with. I'm beyond sick of election season.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

That sucks. I wish we could just do this tomorrow and get it over with. I'm beyond sick of election season.

Me too.

Mizzou that Op-Ed you posted is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. ALL the polls are biased because they're based on the east coast. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[JPhillips]

Obama is spending roughly 3.5 million per day on advertising!

[ISiddiqui]

That's not what the Op-Ed is asserting. What it's asserting is that the polls may believe there will be a much higher turnout as a percentage of Democrats than in the past because of where they are located.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Me too.

Mizzou that Op-Ed you posted is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. ALL the polls are biased because they're based on the east coast. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Obviously, you failed to read the basis of the argument. When you have a poll that has a much higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans in it that doesn't even come close to accurately portraying what Election Day turnout has been in past elections, that's a major flaw in your poll. I noted the conservative bias in regards to the polling locations, but to ignore the majorly flawed weight percentages in these polls displays a total lack of balanced in the viewing of the information.

[JPhillips]

Your mistake is in assuming the weighting is evidence of bias. Weighting is the hardest part of a pollster's job because they are trying to gauge what will happen based on trends and current voting info. They may or may not be accurate, but being wrong isn't evidence of bias.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Your mistake is in assuming the weighting is evidence of bias. Weighting is the hardest part of a pollster's job because they are trying to gauge what will happen based on trends and current voting info. They may or may not be accurate, but being wrong isn't evidence of bias.

But I did not say that there was bias in the weighting, so you're incorrect that I even made a mistake. My only statement was that the weighting of the polls is very likely to be way off from what will happen on election day. DJ Drummond was the one that brought up bias. I agree with your point, especially regarding voting info. Many of these polling groups base a lot of their weights on groups like ACORN in regards to possible increases in voting numbers on either side. Those groups have said that registration favors the Democrats on a 3:1 ratio. However, as we know from reports regarding state registrations, a large number of these registrations are being rejected while it's becoming more apparant that many of the newly registered voters will not show up for Election Day. So you're definitely correct that it isn't necessarily based in bias, but that doesn't change the fact that this election is likely much closer than what these polls are currently showing.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Obviously, you failed to read the basis of the argument. When you have a poll that has a much higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans in it that doesn't even come close to accurately portraying what Election Day turnout has been in past elections, that's a major flaw in your poll. I noted the conservative bias in regards to the polling locations, but to ignore the majorly flawed weight percentages in these polls displays a total lack of balanced in the viewing of the information.

Their job is to predict what is going to happen in THIS election. The one next month.

HOW they do that doesn't matter. I don't give a shit if they use magic jellybeans, if they've been right in all of their polling the last ten years I'm going to pay attention to what they have to say.

The only way we have to compare polls is to see how accurate they've been in the past, and to use more than one of them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Don't count any chickens before November 4th, however. I'll believe that America will elect the half-black Hawaiian/Kansan with the funny name when I see it.

+Whatever we're up to (4?)

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

HOW they do that doesn't matter. I don't give a shit if they use magic jellybeans, if they've been right in all of their polling the last ten years I'm going to pay attention to what they have to say.

So, using the 'Magic Jellybeans Election Index', which poll do you think most accurately predicts what the current lead is and which one will most accurately predict the final election results?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

+Whatever we're up to (4?)

SI

Is there anything funnier than a beaker attempting to count on a message board?

[Fighter of Foo]

This is what I've roughly been using, but if you have any other resources that are similar please share them

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: pollster ratings

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Your mistake is in assuming the weighting is evidence of bias. Weighting is the hardest part of a pollster's job because they are trying to gauge what will happen based on trends and current voting info. They may or may not be accurate, but being wrong isn't evidence of bias.

Agreed. Weighting is difficult because turnout is the great unknowable.

I'm not sure how one can really evaluate the op-ed, since the author does not really detail the basis for the demographic weights used in current polling or for the weights the author himself would apply.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's another perfect example of the massive number of voters that continue to be disqualified in the weeks leading up to the election. 30,000 felons (which voted 2:1 in favor of Democrats in previous elections) will likely be taken off the eligible voting list.

Many convicted felons remain on voter rolls, according to Sun Sentinel investigation -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

The ACORN investigation has dramatically increased the scrutiny of the voter registration rolls across the nation. In most cases, it has resulted in a net reduction of Democrat-leaning voters.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The ACORN investigation has dramatically increased the scrutiny of the voter registration rolls across the nation. In most cases, it has resulted in a net reduction of Democrat-leaning voters.

Proof? Data?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

This is what I've roughly been using, but if you have any other resources that are similar please share them

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: pollster ratings

Which is exactly the point of the article I posted. That 538 site gives an average to strong poll weight in its overall calculations to Survey USA, which obviously is using heavily flawed weights in its polls given previous election cycles. If a website is using flawed polls to achieve a composite result, doesn't it stand to reason that the 'crap in, crap out' data model may apply in this case? Once again, I'm not even accusing anyone of bias. I'm just saying that sites like the one you mentioned are relying on highly flawed data. It should be a red flag for them.

If you seriously think that, under the best of circumstances, 52% of all voters in PA in November will be Democrats, I've got some fine oceanfront property to sell here in Missouri to you at a deeply discounted price.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Proof? Data?

You, as a liberal, shouldn't be shocked by that revelation. Democratic politicians have cried foul to no end at any reduction of voter registration (whether the reduction has merit or not). Why? Because they know that it likely will hurt their numbers on election day.

I provided the example of the felons in Florida. The ACORN investigation here in Kansas City was also heavily weighted towards Democrats. The estimate provided on the local news last night was that 70-75% of the disqualified ACORN applications were Democrat registrations.

Seriously, I don't think any liberal would dispute that these voter removals rarely go against the Republicans. Perhaps you are the first one.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Is there anything funnier than a beaker attempting to count on a message board?

I'll just chalk this comment up to bitterness because your team choked away their shot at a national title last week

(I need to get in my shots before we get shelled in Norman this week. OU is going to be particularly pissed after losing to Texas)

SI

[Butter]

Oh good, I thought this thread had been missing XBox/PS3 style "McCain isn't really losing" arguments.

Awesome.

I agree with the others who have said that the author of the posted Op-Ed piece doesn't show why the Survey USA models are flawed, because comparing them to previous year's models doesn't count. Weighting should change over time as registration and party ID change. Correlating that with some kind of ACORN conspiracy is a reach.

Also, the Op-Ed doesn't address whether or not the dozens of other polls that show Obama in the lead are fundamentally flawed, aside from "being in the tank for Obama" because they are in blue country. He needs to attack more than just Survey USA in order to actually gain any traction with his argument.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which is exactly the point of the article I posted. That 538 site gives an average to strong poll weight in its overall calculations to Survey USA, which obviously is using heavily flawed weights in its polls given previous election cycles. If a website is using flawed polls to achieve a composite result, doesn't it stand to reason that the 'crap in, crap out' data model may apply in this case? Once again, I'm not even accusing anyone of bias. I'm just saying that sites like the one you mentioned are relying on highly flawed data. It should be a red flag for them.

If you seriously think that, under the best of circumstances, 52% of all voters in PA in November will be Democrats, I've got some fine oceanfront property to sell here in Missouri to you at a deeply discounted price.

You completely ignored what I just said. The link I posted is a rating of how accurate those pollsters have been. The method they use doesn't fucking matter.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You, as a liberal, shouldn't be shocked by that revelation. Democratic politicians have cried foul to no end at any reduction of voter registration (whether the reduction has merit or not). Why? Because they know that it likely will hurt their numbers on election day.

I provided the example of the felons in Florida. The ACORN investigation here in Kansas City was also heavily weighted towards Democrats. The estimate provided on the local news last night was that 70-75% of the disqualified ACORN applications were Democrat registrations.

Seriously, I don't think any liberal would dispute that these voter removals rarely go against the Republicans. Perhaps you are the first one.

I'm not a liberal and neither is everyone who disagrees with you. If 70-75% of all registrants are D's wouldn't it make sense that the percent that are incorrect are also D's?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I agree with the others who have said that the author of the posted Op-Ed piece doesn't show why the Survey USA models are flawed, because comparing them to previous year's models doesn't count. Weighting should change over time as registration and party ID change. Correlating that with some kind of ACORN conspiracy is a reach.

Also, the Op-Ed doesn't address whether or not the dozens of other polls that show Obama in the lead are fundamentally flawed, aside from "being in the tank for Obama" because they are in blue country. He needs to attack more than just Survey USA in order to actually gain any traction with his argument.

So, let's take the Pennsylvania numbers, which have never had a Democratic turnout greater than 43% in the last 50 years. You don't find the weight of 52% Democrat in the latest poll to be borderline irresponsible. Perhaps you don't, but I thought I'd ask. IMO, a weight 9 points higher than any Democratic turnout in recent history is a majorly flawed poll.

Second, there was no direct relationship made between ACORN and the polls. The only note made was that the Democrat voting counts that are reported to these polls are inflated. A significant portion of these late registrations made by voter registration organizations could be impacted.

I noticed another verification of voter registrations will now occur in Ohio. A judge has ruled that all voter registrations will need to be verified before the election takes place. The Democratic Secretary of State had refused to do so up to this point.

Court orders Ohio to verify newly registered voters - CNN.com

[larrymcg421]

Heh. The ACORN thing. I love that everyone gets so worked up over the Mickey Mouse and Tony Romo registrations. What they don't tell you is that ACORN is required by law to submit such registration forms even if they catch them beforehand. This is something the Republicans in Nevada got in trouble for in 2004, when they threw out people who had registered as Democrat through their registration groups. All registration forms are required to be turned in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

You completely ignored what I just said. The link I posted is a rating of how accurate those pollsters have been. The method they use doesn't fucking matter.

I'm not a liberal and neither is everyone who disagrees with you. If 70-75% of all registrants are D's wouldn't it make sense that the percent that are incorrect are also D's?

We'll agree to disagree. When the polling weight used is not justifiable by any recent election data, that's a flawed poll.

ACORN targets heavily democratic areas. It should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that their registrations lean heavily Democratic.

[Fighter of Foo]

Why don't you go and find out how well they've done in the past for yourself? For the last time, the only thing that matters is how accurate their predictions turn out to be. For some reason, I doubt you're better at polling than they are.

Actually, let's find out. Why don't you give us your predictions for which for PA (or MO since that's where you're from) and we'll find out in three weeks how well you do. The question is which candidate will win and by how much? Pick whatever state(s) you like.

http://www.surveyusa.com/electiontrackrecord.html

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Why don't you go and find out how well they've done in the past for yourself? For the last time, the only thing that matters is how accurate their predictions turn out to be. For some reason, I doubt you're better at polling than they are.

Actually, let's find out. Why don't you give us your predictions for which for PA (or MO since that's where you're from) and we'll find out in three weeks how well you do. The question is which candidate will win and by how much? Pick whatever state(s) you like.

http://www.surveyusa.com/electiontrackrecord.html

While your avoidance of the topic at hand is admirable, it doesn't change the facts of the situation. My predictive powers are not the question at hand. These polls are heavily weighted towards Democrats at this point and there's little historical data that backs up these weights.

FWIW.....the most accurate poll last election per the end result was Zogby on an individual basis. They currently show a lead of 6% for Obama, which is far less than many of the other polls showing a double digit Obama lead. Any guess why they show the election as much closer than the other polls? I'll give you a hint: it involves electorate weights.

[Daimyo]

The blog post you pasted used 2004 and 2006 numbers... The Dems ran an extremely unexciting candidate in 2004 (and 2000) who didn't really motivate anyone to vote. 2006 wasn't a presidential election year. Obviously you can't just use either of those numbers to predict who will vote in 2008 when the Dems are running a candidate who greatly excites their base and is motivating voters and mobilizing volunteers like never before.

Did the 1996 turnout numbers for Republicans compare at all the to the 2000 numbers? I wonder what the Dem numbers looked like in 1996?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Is it any surprise that there are questionable voting practices going around? I thought that if you weren't trying to steal the election, you weren't trying. There is a long history of this in American Politics, often on the Democrat side - but the Republican machinery's work over the last two elections at least was just as effective.

Agreed. Did someone question whether that was a fact? Just because it's politics as usual doesn't change the discussion of those situations when they happen.

With that said, the Democrats could have helped themselves by distancing from ACORN. Many states are finding irregularities in the ACORN registrations, which is causing further investigations in key states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, and Missouri that likely wouldn't have occured to this degree otherwise. It's now to the point where all registrations are being checked rather than just the ACORN registrations, which likely will result in a net loss for Democrat voter numbers.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

While your avoidance of the topic at hand is admirable, it doesn't change the facts of the situation. My predictive powers are not the question at hand. These polls are heavily weighted towards Democrats at this point and there's little historical data that backs up these weights.

I see. So you want to complain about how the numbers aren't right but you're too scared to put out your own OR even link to anything to you're looking at.

Basically you're making this up.

Got it.