Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[jim]

These pollsters are a lot more smart and sophisticated than that. They all have models to make sure that the 750 or however many people they poll represent a reasonable cross-section of voters to sample from. That's why when you look at 50 polls from one state, they all more or less say the same thing. Different pollsters will use slightly different methodologies, which might explain why one poll might consistently show a particular candidate up by an average of 8 points and another poll might consistently show a particular candidate up by an average of 3 points. But aside from these kinds of discrepancies, if say, Wisconsin were to flip for McCain, the answer would not be because the polls were wrong.

Well, yes and no, but only because of the methodologies involved. It might very well be that the polls rightly measured the wrong information, but only because the voting demographics were different that projected.

Of course, we're talking about percentage points here as well. When a poll is "wrong" it's almost always "wrong" within or near their own stated margin of error. Which means it wasn't really wrong at all.

That's not right. Margin of errors are based on Confidence Intervals (I think .95). If a poll says X happens 50% of the time with a 3% margin of error, that means that 95% of the time you will get X happening between 47-53% of the time. If something happened 48% of the time because of normal random fluctation, the poll is not "wrong" at all.

I don't pretend to understand polling, but I do understand that they just don't go Eeny-meeny-miny-moe in a telephone book to get their data set. It's a science, and of course it's constantly being refined. More than the black/women thing I would guess cellphones have a bigger impact than anything, but looking at the data of the average cellphone owner you could incorporate that into your polls.

edit - and note, the poll might not be "wrong" at all if the end result falls outside of it's margin of error, and in fact for the poll to be "right" it HAS to fall outside of it's ME on occasion.

[Michael]

If I were Obama I'd focus on the swing states and any area where a house seat is vulnerable.

[Popeye_Card]

If it's stupid for McCain to spend there when it's hopelessly lost, isn't it even stupider for Obama to spend there when it's already won?

Well Obama has quite a bit more money to spend than McCain. And it's smart to run ads, etc. in states even where you have a comfortable lead to ensure that your support there doesn't get complacent. I'm sure McCain is still running ads in Texas, etc. too.

[Jocephus]

man, campaigning has got to be tough

[Richie Allen]

Page 666 of 666 [ 6660 posts ]

Not sure I should be posting after seeing that.

I think a lot of you are being, depending on the side of the fence you sit, either overly optimistic or overly paranoid. This race shows all the signs of being a landslide. I know it's difficult for those that have only witnessed 2000 and 2004 and thought that every election going forward was going to come down to one state deciding it and there are those that just can't get comfortable with the idea that the Republican Party doesn't have some way of "taking" this election...but I'm in the camp, while still waiting to see before I actually believe it, that Obama may win this thing by almost 200 electoral votes.

I wouldn't feel comfortable saying "polling is always wrong." In fact, it's almost always right. It's those few times that it misses the mark that we remember.

[robbotis]

man, campaigning has got to be tough

I couldn't do it. This last couple of weeks had to have been hellish
for all of them.

Yeah, but working w/ $150 million a month has to be tough.
Then when your president you have to pay back all those people.
And pocket millions in the process while lying to millions more.
Real tough gig.

[BenNX74205]

If it's stupid for McCain to spend there when it's hopelessly lost, isn't it even stupider for Obama to spend there when it's already won?

Well Obama has quite a bit more money to spend than McCain. And it's smart to run ads, etc. in states even where you have a comfortable lead to ensure that your support there doesn't get complacent. I'm sure McCain is still running ads in Texas, etc. too.

I'm not saying Obama should stop running ads in these states. I want to know why he is INCREASING spending in states he seemingly has all sewn up. Does he want to win Maine by 30 points instead of 20, or is it possible he doesn't really have a 20-point lead?

Polling has a lot of science behind it, and intricate formulas used to extrapolate out what the results they receive actually translates into. But a poll is only as good as the data it is receiving. I think McCain will flip PA and end up winning a close election, but I will not be surprised if Obama ends up winning either. I will be incredibly surprised if he wins with more than 50% of the vote. Democrats just don't have those kind of wins outside enormous external circumstances.

[BenNX74205]

Page 666 of 666 [ 6660 posts ]

Not sure I should be posting after seeing that.

I think a lot of you are being, depending on the side of the fence you sit, either overly optimistic or overly paranoid. This race shows all the signs of being a landslide. I know it's difficult for those that have only witnessed 2000 and 2004 and thought that every election going forward was going to come down to one state deciding it and there are those that just can't get comfortable with the idea that the Republican Party doesn't have some way of "taking" this election...but I'm in the camp, while still waiting to see before I actually believe it, that Obama may win this thing by almost 200 electoral votes.

I wouldn't feel comfortable saying "polling is always wrong." In fact, it's almost always right. It's those few times that it misses the mark that we remember.

While it's certainly possible that Obama sweeps into office with a 200 EV win, I wouldn't be expecting that to happen. By and large, Democrats don't win by that big a margin. Clinton beat Dole by around that margin, but Perot was still around to grab some votes, and Clinton was the incumbent. I think a lot of the polling projecting massive shifts in results from states like VA, NC, CO, etc...aren't all going to materialize. Maybe in 5-10 years those states will flip, but that's a lot of states to change really quickly from their 2004 results. I'm in VA, and I really don't see it happening. NOVA is big, but I don't think it'll do enough to flip the entire state over to blue this time around.

As I've said before, we'll find out tomorrow.

[BW23]

I still have a hard time getting my brain around the fact that this race is even this close.

McPalin's campaign seems to have done everything wrong, compared to Obama's being efficient, well-financed and cool-headed. McCain seems out of touch, and has severely compromised the values that I admired in him in the first place. McPalin's campaign is based on fear-mongering and capitalizing on ignorance. Obama's based on generalities -yes. But positive messages that appeal to peoples' better side and the logical conclusion that what we've had the last 8 years doesn't work and is not sustainable.

Yes it appears close. I have more than a suspicion as to why its close at all. There is a preconceived notion in this country that wealthy older white males are the only ones suitable for being the president. There is 230+ years of history to back this up. OK maybe a few were not wealthy, but other than that...

No, I'm not saying this is the only reason this election is this close, nor is it the only reason people are voting for McCain. But its the main reason.

Should McCain happen to win this election, the message sent will be clear. Oh I believe a woman or minority can still become president within a decade or so, but it will have to be someone with an ideology that panders to the extreme right - such as Palin or like an Alan Keyes.

I'm sorry but that's a complete and utter cop out..

If Obama loses the only message that will be sent is that people didn't buy what he was selling...sure there will be people that don't vote for Obama because he's black, and there will be people who don't vote for McCain because he's white, or old, or because he's got a woman running mate..

But neither one of those factors is going to significantly affect this race, and its attitudes like that that continue to set the country back..

Let's not start the excuse train before it's over, Obama is going to win, but if the hail mary is complete and McCain does win, like I said, it's NOT going to be because Obama is black...sorry....not true

Obama will likely get more votes because he's black than he'll lose because he's black.

He should lose because of how extremely left he is and how suspect, at best, his judgment is, but he talks a good game (without saying anything) that all of that is mostly glossed over.

Not to mention his having only 3 years of national-level experience. (and spending 2 of those years campaining)

But hey, Obama inexperience = good Palin inexperience = bad. Go figure.

[/youtube]

[Richie Allen]

[/youtube]

Yeah, Obama's the only candidate that you could do that with.

BTW, what's with that [expletive] music?