jim wrote:I'm always fascinated by these polls. How do they keep it statistically accurate? Example, I assume they call people randomly to do these polls? Right there you have pollution of the data set ... not everyone has a regular phone any longer. Can you randomly call cellphones? If you can, can you do it as easily? Are younger people more included to not have regular lines? Etc... My stereotype would be cell phone only people to go to Obama, and people with no phone at all McCain. But I don't know how to factor that in to the polls, or if it's even possible.
This was discussed earlier in the thread, but until recently most pollsters did not call cell phones since they cannot be legally dialed with automated equipment. Gallup (and maybe others) now include a cell phone only sample in their results, but for national polls, it does not make a significant difference (1-2%) as responses from demographically similar land line users can be substituted. On the other hand, questions to particular sub-groups can be noticeably affected by excluding cell phone only, but this is not really applicable to Presidential polling.
I think polls can be very revealing, but people are far too focused on the horse race numbers which can change substantially between now and election day. Many of these polls also ask questions about what issues are important to people and how they feel about them. The answers there paint a very different picture than what you might think only looking the headline numbers.
redbirdjazzz wrote:Hopefully Obama can carry St. Louis, Columbia, and KC by big enough margins to make up for more conservative areas.
hey redbirdjazzz - now why in the heck would you think Obama couldn't carry the rural and outer suburbs in MO
...stirring the pot.
I think he can carry them, but I don't think it's a given by any means, and I want him to win the state. Columbia, KC and St. Louis tend to be more liberal than much of the rest of the state, so I'm hoping for big margins there.
Maybe this is a rant, but it pertains to the election cycle, so I'm putting it here. When the news networks discuss an issue, why do they even bother interviewing the talking heads from either campaign? I have yet to hear one of them give an honest, direct answer to a question. They just launch off into their talking points, interupt each other, and generally provide a bad viewing experience where nothing substantive is discussed. Then someone like Carly Fiorena says something stupid (and I'm not picking on the McCain camp, this is just the latest example), and the MSM goes all atwitter at the gaffe.
I'd rather watch contrived shows like Jerry Springer than this garbage. At least there's some entertainment value there. It disturbs me that some people in this country are likely making their minds up based on this propaganda-based pseudo-journalism.
Radbird wrote:Maybe this is a rant, but it pertains to the election cycle, so I'm putting it here. When the news networks discuss an issue, why do they even bother interviewing the talking heads from either campaign? I have yet to hear one of them give an honest, direct answer to a question. They just launch off into their talking points, interupt each other, and generally provide a bad viewing experience where nothing substantive is discussed. Then someone like Carly Fiorena says something stupid (and I'm not picking on the McCain camp, this is just the latest example), and the MSM goes all atwitter at the gaffe.
I'd rather watch contrived shows like Jerry Springer than this garbage. At least there's some entertainment value there. It disturbs me that some people in this country are likely making their minds up based on this propaganda-based pseudo-journalism.
If you just watched Hardball on MSNBC, this was the perfect example of it.
Radbird wrote:Maybe this is a rant, but it pertains to the election cycle, so I'm putting it here. When the news networks discuss an issue, why do they even bother interviewing the talking heads from either campaign? I have yet to hear one of them give an honest, direct answer to a question. They just launch off into their talking points, interupt each other, and generally provide a bad viewing experience where nothing substantive is discussed. Then someone like Carly Fiorena says something stupid (and I'm not picking on the McCain camp, this is just the latest example), and the MSM goes all atwitter at the gaffe.
I'd rather watch contrived shows like Jerry Springer than this garbage. At least there's some entertainment value there. It disturbs me that some people in this country are likely making their minds up based on this propaganda-based pseudo-journalism.
Maybe it will all come out in the town hall meetings.
Radbird wrote:Maybe this is a rant, but it pertains to the election cycle, so I'm putting it here. When the news networks discuss an issue, why do they even bother interviewing the talking heads from either campaign?
My guess is that talking heads are an incredibly cost-effective way of filling up time between commercials.
clement wrote:Obama has edged ahead in 2 national polls (Zogby and Gallup) by 2 points (47-45 in both). Though obviously both are within the margin of error. Still it's good news for Obama as it's the first time he isn't behind in these polls since the conventions.
Also CNN has state polls that show that Obama and McCain are pretty much even in Florida, Ohio and NC. Obama has a slight lead in Wisconsin but McCain is ahead in Indiana.
I would be very surprised if Wisco goes to McCain. Not shocked, but pretty surprised.
I'm always fascinated by these polls. How do they keep it statistically accurate? Example, I assume they call people randomly to do these polls? Right there you have pollution of the data set ... not everyone has a regular phone any longer. Can you randomly call cellphones? If you can, can you do it as easily? Are younger people more included to not have regular lines? Etc... My stereotype would be cell phone only people to go to Obama, and people with no phone at all McCain. But I don't know how to factor that in to the polls, or if it's even possible.
BW23 wrote:Obama certainly doesn't stand a chance in this rural part of MO. But we're all racist rednecks.
we could have started this thread here and cut out the first 1000 pages.
....keep on stirring.
There would be some truth to my statement if not for the fact that there's probably over 35% of the population that's black. There are racists, for sure, but most of them aren't rednecks.
So thats where Obama gets his 35% in parts of rural MO.
UK wrote:If you just watched Hardball on MSNBC, this was the perfect example of it.
In fact, it was Hardball that launched my post.
I give Matthews credit for trying to push the representative from VA to accept responsibility for his party's actions, which he would not do, nor would he blame the President.
