• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Poll Vault

Status
Not open for further replies.
not_so_new said:
This is interesting.....

"Polls may underestimate Obama's support by 3 to 4 percent, researchers say.."
Click to expand...
I've actually wondered about this. You have all these places around the country where the worst insult you can throw at someone is to call him "liberal." Where the peer pressure is against so-called "white guilt", where it would be social suicide to admit that you want the black socialist Muslim terrorist to win. I won't be surprised if we find out that people are really underreporting their support for Obama.
 
chipmunk stew said:
I've actually wondered about this. You have all these places around the country where the worst insult you can throw at someone is to call him "liberal." Where the peer pressure is against so-called "white guilt", where it would be social suicide to admit that you want the black socialist Muslim terrorist to win. I won't be surprised if we find out that people are really underreporting their support for Obama.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the idea....

Here is a little more from the article that talks directly about your point.

A good analogy of a desirable response and social pressure, he said, would be if you lived in Detroit and you get a call asking if you will participate in an anonymous survey about automobiles.

"You agree and are asked if you prefer American or foreign cars. Even if you own a Japanese car, you might experience some pressure to give an answer that might be more appreciated by the caller -- that you prefer American cars," said Greenwald. "When it comes to politics, although voters are presumably anonymous when speaking to pollsters, the fact that the person calling them knows their phone number may not let them feel anonymous."
Click to expand...

And like an idiot I forgot to post the link to the article. It's very interesting, well worth the read if you are into polling data.

http://www.physorg.com/news142862643.html
 
Last edited:
Here are all the national tracking polls for today ...

October 10 - Research 2000: Obama by 12 (52%-40%) -- Obama lead +2 from Oct 9
October 10 - Gallup Tracking: Obama by 10 (51%-41%) -- Obama lead -1 from Oct 9
October 10 - Hotline/FD Tracking: Obama by 7 (48%-41%) -- Obama lead +1 from Oct 9
October 10 - GW/Battleground Tracking: Obama by 8 (51%-43%) -- Obama lead +5 from Oct 9
October 10 - Rasmussen Tracking: Obama by 5 (50%-45%) -- Unchanged from Oct 9
October 10 - Reuters/CSpan/Zogby Tracking: Obama by 5 (48%-43%) -- Obama lead +1 from Oct 9
 
Now... the Republicans HAVE to have some polling data saying this Ayers stuff is helping them. They've gone All Ayers, All The Time in their campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEBMB0YroS0

But I can't find a poll that shows an Ayers bounce in the week or so that the McCain campaign switched gears and sent Palin out to pound the Ayers drum.

Now regardless of whether you love or hate Republicans or think there's anything to the Ayers thing, the question has to be asked why they keep doing it. Is there a certain swing state where it does well? Does McCain think by upping turnout among the converts he can keep a few of those states from tipping blue?

There has to be a reason, these people are experts. But I can't figure it out.
 
David Wong said:
Now... the Republicans HAVE to have some polling data saying this Ayers stuff is helping them. They've gone All Ayers, All The Time in their campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEBMB0YroS0

But I can't find a poll that shows an Ayers bounce in the week or so that the McCain campaign switched gears and sent Palin out to pound the Ayers drum.

Now regardless of whether you love or hate Republicans or think there's anything to the Ayers thing, the question has to be asked why they keep doing it. Is there a certain swing state where it does well? Does McCain think by upping turnout among the converts he can keep a few of those states from tipping blue?

There has to be a reason, these people are experts. But I can't figure it out.
Click to expand...

Here is a compete WAG but I think McCain knows this is going to hurt him a little in the short run.

His unfavorable ratings are ticking up but I imagine they will stop with the really heavy attack soon to not completely tank in the unfavorable department but by then they will have laid the groundwork for the message to sink in and transfer from the base to the independents / swing voters.

Do I think it is a good plan? Not really. Do I think it will work? I sure hope not but as you said, these people are experts, they know more about this stuff than we do.
 
I don't recall ever seeing anything like what Fox News is doing.

The entire network has been turned into an arm of the McCain campaign. And without the slightest pretense of rational discussion. It has become a network completely devoted to the promulgation of rumors and wild speculation about Obama to advance the candidacy of McCain.

Of course it works as a campaign strategy. If the campaign itself was just shouting Bill Ayers, Bill Ayers, Bill Ayers it would have very little impact. But when the message is reinforced by dishonest news programs and McCain partisan pundits it has to be having an impact. My guess is that without it Obama would have an insurmountable lead right now.

I think this whole topic might be worth a dedicated thread.
 
I don't recall ever seeing anything like what Fox News is doing.
Click to expand...

Did'nt watch Fox during the 2000 and 2004 elections, did you?

Fox being an heavily biased network is hardly news.

Dave, I hate to act like I am picking on you,but you keep on being shocked by stuff that is old news to most of the people here.


Fox is showing us why the fairness doctrine needs to be put back in place
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. I am opposed to the Government getting into the business of deciding political content on any media.

and why we need to halt all further media conglomeration.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have no problems with limiting the amount of stations or networks one company can own.
 
dudalb said:
Did'nt watch Fox during the 2000 and 2004 elections, did you?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I have XM radio now and so hear it a little bit more often. It's a humorous break for me to tune in to Fox hear how many times they're going to say Bill Ayers.

I hadn't realized just how over the top they were previously. I wasn't sure if it was a change in how I perceived things or a real stepping up by Fox News to push the Republican Party. Whatever it is it is having a huge impact on this election.

Fox being an heavily biased network is hardly news.
Click to expand...
Of course not, but I see a difference between making arguments for your views and just serving as an advertising outlet for one side. It seems like they have given up almost any pretense of honest discussion and that struck me as a change. Interestingly, O'Reilly seems to be one of the few guys on the network that hasn't made the crossover completely. Of course he is still a strong McCain Partisan.

Dave, I hate to act like I am picking on you, but you keep on being shocked by stuff that is old news to most of the people here.
Click to expand...

No problem :)
I strongly disagree. I am opposed to the Government getting into the business of deciding political content on any media.
Click to expand...

Me too, the fairness doctrine strikes me as a really bad idea that can not be objectively implemented. There was a tiny bit of justification when the available spectrum greatly restricted the number of media outlets. That tiny justification no longer exists.
 
Me too, the fairness doctrine strikes me as a really bad idea that can not be objectively implemented. There was a tiny bit of justification when the available spectrum greatly restricted the number of media outlets. That tiny justification no longer exists.
Click to expand...

100% agree. There is no freaking way it could be fairly administered.
ANd I agree the advent of cable and satellite with a virtually unlimited wave length (don't know if that is the right techical word ) removes what justification it had.
And that so many advocates of the Fairness Doctrine make no secret their goal is to force the likes of Fox News and Rush off the air just confirms my opinion.
The bitter fact is for whatever reason..probably having to do with demographics, Liberal and Left wing radio and TV do not do as well in the ratings as the right does. Air America has not been a huge sucess. It will be interesting to see how MSNBC does since it is obvious it wants to be the Fox Network for the Democrats and the Left. In a year or so it will be as biased,slanted ,and unreliable as Fox News.
If you don't like biased programming,don't freaking watch it.
I have no problems limiting Company ownership of Media Outlets to a certain number,however.
 
I agree with all of this up to the point where you said "If you don't like biased programming, don't freaking watch it."

It's not a matter of "liking" or "disliking" biased media. It’s the fact that many of the people who pay attention to these media outlets don't know that it is biased, or at least they don't fully understand the extent.

I feel a "Fairness Doctrine" is a really bad idea, it leads to a really steep really slippery slope. But I really wish there was a way to inform viewers that some of the media they are watching is not to be trusted without fact checking (in fact ALL media should be treated this way). Sadly the way to do this is to have better education in our country but that is a completely different thread I guess.

The issue here is the control of media and political outcome by monetary vote. Rupert Murdock has more say in our nation's political process than any single person should. Is that fair? I don't think so. Is there something we can do about it with laws? I also don't think so…. But that does not make the pratice any more fair unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday's RCP Average had Obama up by 6.6% (49.4%-42.8%)

This is Obama's biggest lead since June. It's bigger than the lead he reached at the peak of his convention bounce, before McCain announced Palin.

 
Rasmussen has Obama up by 7 today (52%-45%) -- Obama lead +2 from Oct 10 ...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This is the first update based entirely on interviews conducted after the second Presidential debate and it shows virtually no change.
Click to expand...

In fact, the race has remained quite stable for more than two weeks. This is the sixteenth straight day that Obama’s support has ranged from 50% to 52% while McCain has been at 44% of 45% (see trends). Fifty-five percent (55%) believe Obama will win the election, 15% expect a McCain victory, and 27% say it is too close to call.
Click to expand...

Currently, Obama has the edge in every state won by John Kerry four years ago. However, of the states won by George Bush, McCain is trailing in four and five others are considered a toss-up. As a result, Electoral College projections now show Obama leading 248-163. When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 300-174. A total of 270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the White House.
Click to expand...
 
Today's RCP average has Obama up by 7.6%, a record split. He was up by 7.5% on June 24.

Obama's 49.9% is also an all-time high.

McCain's 42.3% is his lowest mark since August 18.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom