Barack Obama or John McCain

[Len Colby]

I don't know didley about the ins and outs of the US political system, but if Obama loses the elections I'll be in the group that is calling fraud.

Why?

I agree with Evan. The public opinion polls show an easy victory for Obama. If McCain wins the world will believe that the Republicans have stolen the election. People in Europe found it difficult to believe the American people elected Bush in 2000 and 2004 and many suspect that the Republicans got up to their dirty tricks in those states they control.

You are drinking the media koolaid John. How can you trust a poll that oversamples dems 6,10, even 15% percent higher that Reps. Here is simply NO rational basis for it, nor is there any empirical or historical data to back it.

You have failed to:

• document the supposed over sampling of Democrats (or Democrats and independents)
  
• point to anyone else claiming this is the case, exen FauxNews, the GOP, McCain and his supporters are saying he is behind.
  
• explain why a photographer better understands polling than people who have decades of polling experience
  

How ironic that you are going on about a lack of "empirical or historical data".

[Craig Lamson]

It is not just people in Europe John,

The Election is being followed very closely here in China and they (the people with whom I have personally spoken) are under the same impression - anything bar an Obama win would be viewed highly suspicious.

To quote a friend of mine "If Obama loses this election, how can the USA preach to other countries about democracy?"

Steve

Did it ever occur to you or your friend that the people of America just might not WANT Obama and his policies to be our president. It appears you too are drinking the media koolaid. A McCain win would be a PERFECT example of the power democracy. The MEDIA is telling you WHO THEY want for president. At the voting booth AMERCICAN VOTERS will tell the world who THEY prefer.

I'm amazed to see so called "critical thinkers" doing anything but....

"Did it ever occur to you or your friend that the people of America just might not WANT Obama and his policies to be our president."

Every poll taken in the last few weeks says they do. Is Evan a "koolaid drinker" as well for recognizing the obvious?

EVERY poll? ROFLMAO. You might want to rethink that statement mrgoogle, it's making you look quite foolish! But then again you can post EVERY poll taken in the last few weeks and prove your point.....

It appears Evan has not applied any critical thought nor any research into the subject. His ignorance can be forgiven. YOU on the other hand have been given all the data required to understand fully the situatin, yet you are either:

Totally ignorant of he subject matter STILL

or

Intellectually dishonest.

Take your pick.

[Craig Lamson]

I don't know didley about the ins and outs of the US political system, but if Obama loses the elections I'll be in the group that is calling fraud.

Why?

I agree with Evan. The public opinion polls show an easy victory for Obama. If McCain wins the world will believe that the Republicans have stolen the election. People in Europe found it difficult to believe the American people elected Bush in 2000 and 2004 and many suspect that the Republicans got up to their dirty tricks in those states they control.

You are drinking the media koolaid John. How can you trust a poll that oversamples dems 6,10, even 15% percent higher that Reps. Here is simply NO rational basis for it, nor is there any empirical or historical data to back it.

You have failed to:

• document the supposed over sampling of Democrats (or Democrats and independents)
  Uh sooory mrgoogle, I DID document this. Look again.
  
• point to anyone else claiming this is the case, exen FauxNews, the GOP, McCain and his supporters are saying he is behind.
  Irrelevlent, although there are MANY sources saying the same thing, including the McCain cam. Its a matter of public record. Use your fingers mrgoogle and actully LEARN something.
  
• explain why a photographer better understands polling than people who have decades of polling experience
  Why should I have to explain something I have never said and you created out of thin air as a very poor strawman? The answer. I don't. I smply pointed out factual data and historical facts. If this is beyond your limited ability to understand and comprehend, well....too bad. May you should actully use your fingers to seek truth rtather than continue your failed attempts to create strawmen? Why don't you get back to us mrgoogle, when you know your butt from a hole in the ground.
  

How ironic that you are going on about a lack of "empirical or historical data".

How ironic you can't see the historical and empirical data even when it is written the the very forum where you complain. Thats trancends irony. It's simply ignorance.

[Evan Burton]

I don't know didley about the ins and outs of the US political system, but if Obama loses the elections I'll be in the group that is calling fraud.

Why?

The polls indicate massive support for him, and every US citizen I have asked (about 15) have said they are going to vote for him.

If nothing happens to change the situation (e.g. no scandal about him, no political blunder, etc) then McCain doesn't have a chance.

[Craig Lamson]

I don't know didley about the ins and outs of the US political system, but if Obama loses the elections I'll be in the group that is calling fraud.

Why?

The polls indicate massive support for him, and every US citizen I have asked (about 15) have said they are going to vote for him.

If nothing happens to change the situation (e.g. no scandal about him, no political blunder, etc) then McCain doesn't have a chance.

Well, I guess you believe the polls then. Have you actually studied the polls or are you taking them at face value? Doing so without knowing the internals of the polls is not a good thing to do.

Polls have been wrong in a HUGE way for the most part in the US the last few elections. This one will be no exception.

[Evan Burton]

I don't know didley about the ins and outs of the US political system, but if Obama loses the elections I'll be in the group that is calling fraud.

Why?

The polls indicate massive support for him, and every US citizen I have asked (about 15) have said they are going to vote for him.

If nothing happens to change the situation (e.g. no scandal about him, no political blunder, etc) then McCain doesn't have a chance.

Well, I guess you believe the polls then. Have you actually studied the polls or are you taking them at face value? Doing so without knowing the internals of the polls is not a good thing to do.

Polls have been wrong in a HUGE way for the most part in the US the last few elections. This one will be no exception.

Oh, I know they can be.... I am reminded of Truman's win in 1948 against all odds. Still, I just don't see McCain winning.... and if he does, I'll be suspect of the result. Of course I'll need proof of rigging, and not just my own opinion.

[Craig Lamson]

Oh, I know they can be.... I am reminded of Truman's win in 1948 against all odds. Still, I just don't see McCain winning.... and if he does, I'll be suspect of the result. Of course I'll need proof of rigging, and not just my own opinion.

Well a 12 point poll favoring Obama that has a 9 percentage point oversample of dems to reps, (when the historical spread is ZERO percentage points in a presidental election) gives us a poll that is within the margin of error, when the oversample is corrected.

However as we can see from THREE posts here on this forum alone, questionable polls have created the narrative that anything but an Obama win will be because of fraud.

That in itself is quite an amazing situation, don't you think.

D2a. As of TODAY do you LEAN more toward the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

Total RVs

25 27 Republican

36 36 Democrat

34 34 Independent

2 1 No party/Not interested in politics (VOL.)

* * Other party (VOL.)

3 2 Don't know

100 100

37 40 Total Republican/Lean Republican

53 52 Total Democrat/Lean Democrat

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

1,092 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)

882 Likely voters (plus or minus 4)

299 Republicans (plus or minus 7)

380 Democrats (plus or minus 6)

381 Independents (plus or minus 6)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/165570

Edited October 25, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Did it ever occur to you or your friend that the people of America just might not WANT Obama and his policies to be our president. It appears you too are drinking the media koolaid. A McCain win would be a PERFECT example of the power democracy. The MEDIA is telling you WHO THEY want for president. At the voting booth AMERCICAN VOTERS will tell the world who THEY prefer.

I'm amazed to see so called "critical thinkers" doing anything but....

"Did it ever occur to you or your friend that the people of America just might not WANT Obama and his policies to be our president."

Every poll taken in the last few weeks says they do. Is Evan a "koolaid drinker" as well for recognizing the obvious?

EVERY poll? ROFLMAO. You might want to rethink that statement mrgoogle, it's making you look quite foolish! But then again you can post EVERY poll taken in the last few weeks and prove your point.....

If it makes you happy I’ll amend that to “Every MAJOR public poll…”, “Every poll I’ve seen…” or “Every poll on RCP…”. The last poll on RCP that showed McCain in front was taken 9/21-25, i.e. a month ago, they list about 50 since that one taken by about 18 different organizations including FauxNews, only 5 indicated Obama’s lead was less than 4%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...-225.html#polls

As for your earlier claim that Obama is the media anointed candidate that is not entirely true or relevant. Though most newspapers back Obama a good number endorsed McCain*. A similar number backed Kerry in 2004 but he lost*. Four of the big five TV news networks seem to tilt towards Obama but the most popular one Fox much more blatantly tilt towards McCain. As for talk radio, that of course is overwhelmingly tilted Republican. I don’t have info on newspaper endorsements but I assume the situation was much the same in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000.

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_end..._election,_2008

[Len Colby]

I don't know didley about the ins and outs of the US political system, but if Obama loses the elections I'll be in the group that is calling fraud.

Why?

I agree with Evan. The public opinion polls show an easy victory for Obama. If McCain wins the world will believe that the Republicans have stolen the election. People in Europe found it difficult to believe the American people elected Bush in 2000 and 2004 and many suspect that the Republicans got up to their dirty tricks in those states they control.

You are drinking the media koolaid John. How can you trust a poll that oversamples dems 6,10, even 15% percent higher that Reps. Here is simply NO rational basis for it, nor is there any empirical or historical data to back it.

You have failed to:

• document the supposed over sampling of Democrats (or Democrats and independents)
  Uh sooory mrgoogle, I DID document this. Look again.
  
  LEN:
  
  
  No, you claimed this without offering much evidence. As of my last post you had only given the supposed breakdown of the party affiliations of the respondents to ONE poll without documenting it nor showing that the number of Republicans was below what it should have been. Now you have added data from a Newsweek poll but made an error of interpretation which I will explain below. Since you can’t point to anyone else saying what you are I presume you made the same error with the Rasmussen poll.

  
  

• point to anyone else claiming this is the case, even FauxNews, the GOP, McCain and his supporters are saying he is behind.
  Irrelevlent, although there are MANY sources saying the same thing, including the McCain cam. Its a matter of public record. Use your fingers mrgoogle and actully LEARN something.
  
  LEN:
  
  
  It might have been irrelevant IF you had indeed offered evidence for the supposed under-representation of Republicans. It is evidence of the unreasonableness of your claim. Are you sure the McCain camp is saying that? A couple of weeks ago Faux News quoted him as acknowledging he was 5 – 6 points behind. Here’re some more recent reports:
  
  
  "The McCain campaign is roughly in the position where Vice President Gore was running against President Bush one week before the election of 2000," said Steve Schmidt,
  McCain's chief strategist
  . "We have ground to make up, but we believe we can make it up."
  
  
  Even the most hearty of the McCain supporters acknowledge that it won't be easy, and there are a considerable number of Republicans who say, off the record, that the 2008 cake is baked.
  
  
  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/24/america/mccain.php
  
  
  Matthew Dowd, a key strategist for George W. Bush in both his victories, admitted that Senator McCain now had to hope for either a huge blunder by his rival or an event that would change the face of the election.
  
  
  "At this point, the campaign is totally out of John McCain's hands," he said.
  
  
  Ronald Reagan's chief strategist, Ed Rollins, went so far as to predict a landslide for the Democrats, comparing this election to that of 1980, when fed-up Americans turfed out Jimmy Carter.
  
  
  […]
  
  
  "
  We're a couple of points down, OK, nationally,
  but we're right in this game,"
  Senator McCain said at a rally yesterday,
  "The economy has hurt us a little bit in the last week or two, but in the last few days, we've seen it come back up because they want experience, they want knowledge and they want vision. We'll give that to America."

  
  

  http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013948,00.html
  
  
  You claim McCain is saying this but I looked at his official website an saw no mention of it. There is no mention of polls on the press release page
  http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/
  
  
  Look at the FauxNews polls as reported by RCP. The ones taken over the last month had him 6, 7 and 9 points in front.
  
  
  
• explain why a photographer better understands polling than people who have decades of polling experience
  

Why should I have to explain something I have never said and you created out of thin air as a very poor strawman? The answer. I don't. I smply pointed out factual data and historical facts. If this is beyond your limited ability to understand and comprehend, well....too bad. May you should actully use your fingers to seek truth rtather than continue your failed attempts to create strawmen? Why don't you get back to us mrgoogle, when you know your butt from a hole in the ground.

LEN:

You never said it outright but if your claims were correct, there only two explanations either 1) the pollsters. Including the ones at Faux, are perpetrating an intentional fraud or 2) they don’t know how to do polls properly.

How ironic that you are going on about a lack of "empirical or historical data".

How ironic you can't see the historical and empirical data even when it is written the the very forum where you complain. Thats trancends irony. It's simply ignorance.

LEN:

It would have been a sign of ignorance if you had actually presented “the historical and empirical data” here instead of claiming it was out there

Polls have been wrong in a HUGE way for the most part in the US the last few elections. This one will be no exception.

Then I assume you can show this is true. I’m not talking about one or two polls being off by a few points but every major poll picking the wrong winner. Has that ever happened since 1948?

Well a 12 point poll favoring Obama that has a 9 percentage point oversample of dems to reps,

Which would still leave Obama 3 – 4 point in front even if you had and equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

(when the historical spread is ZERO percentage points in a presidental election)

I assume you are able to back this up? Acording to the mcCain website you're wrong.In any case past party affiliation is less relevant than current affiliation.

D2a. As of TODAY do you LEAN more toward the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

Total RVs

25 27 Republican

36 36 Democrat

34 34 Independent

Lets look at the complete question:

"D2. Regardless of how you might have voted in recent elections, in politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a

Republican, Democrat, or Independent?

D2a. As of TODAY do you LEAN more toward the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?"

Currently Bush has the lowest ever approval rating of any president around 25%, polls indicate every Democratic incumbent senator being re-elected but several Republican incumbent senators will fall or are vulnerable even GOP leaning states like Alaska and Georgia. They also indicate the GOP will loose a large number of seats in the House. And you think it is surprising that when registered voters are asked regardless of how they voted in the past which party they lean towards NOW there is a 9 edge for the Democrats. If they asked how they tended to vote in the past and/or how they were registered you have a point. Rather this just a further indication the electorate is leaning Democrat by a small but significant margin this election.

Actually in looking around the McCain site I did find one instance of them questioning the party affiliations of one poll but even they accept as reasonable the findings of other polls.

“… party identification [in an LA Times poll] is greatly out of line with what most other surveys are reporting. Most surveys have a party ID gap in the high single digits / low double digits.”

The cited polls showed the gap at 6 – 14%, with even Fox showing it to be 7% and the average to 9.3%, right where Newsweek, which was one of the 10 polls examined, had it.

Even they acknowledge that after "correcting" the LA Times poll McCain was down 7%.

They also included a chart of party identification in previous presidential elections since 1976. Except for 2004 when there was a tie there were more Dems. (3 – 5% more since 1988).

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/mccainrep...emo%2006-25.pdf

So hate to break it to you but even the McCain camp acknowledges he is behind and that a 9% Democratic lead in party identification is reasonable. So the question is who knows more about polling, every professional pollster, even GOP affiliated or leaning ones, many with decades of experience or a photographer?

EDIT: Formatted for clarity

Edited October 25, 2008 by Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

Did it ever occur to you or your friend that the people of America just might not WANT Obama and his policies to be our president. It appears you too are drinking the media koolaid. A McCain win would be a PERFECT example of the power democracy. The MEDIA is telling you WHO THEY want for president. At the voting booth AMERCICAN VOTERS will tell the world who THEY prefer.

I'm amazed to see so called "critical thinkers" doing anything but....

"Did it ever occur to you or your friend that the people of America just might not WANT Obama and his policies to be our president."

Every poll taken in the last few weeks says they do. Is Evan a "koolaid drinker" as well for recognizing the obvious?

EVERY poll? ROFLMAO. You might want to rethink that statement mrgoogle, it's making you look quite foolish! But then again you can post EVERY poll taken in the last few weeks and prove your point.....

If it makes you happy I’ll amend that to “Every MAJOR public poll…”, “Every poll I’ve seen…” or “Every poll on RCP…”. The last poll on RCP that showed McCain in front was taken 9/21-25, i.e. a month ago, they list about 50 since that one taken by about 18 different organizations including FauxNews, only 5 indicated Obama’s lead was less than 4%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...-225.html#polls

Again we are NOT looking for polls where McCainis in FRONT Len, but rather where he is at least within the margin of error. Of course your cursory google once again fails to investigate the samle weighting. Why am I not suprised.

As for your earlier claim that Obama is the media anointed candidate that is not entirely true or relevant. Though most newspapers back Obama a good number endorsed McCain*. A similar number backed Kerry in 2004 but he lost*. Four of the big five TV news networks seem to tilt towards Obama but the most popular one Fox much more blatantly tilt towards McCain. As for talk radio, that of course is overwhelmingly tilted Republican. I don’t have info on newspaper endorsements but I assume the situation was much the same in 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2000.

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_end..._election,_2008

Sheesh mrgoogle, even the Russian election observers can see what right in front of their eyes, but not mrgoogle.

Stung by international criticism of its presidential and congressional elections, Russia is striking back by sending a team of observers to monitor the U.S. presidential poll on Nov. 4.

Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman with Russia’s Foreign Ministry, says Moscow will have eight election observers attached to a monitoring mission conducted by the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

....

"A preliminary report prepared by the group, after studying U.S. media coverage on the NBC, CBS and ABC television networks since September, has concluded Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has a “hidden advantage.”

A preliminary report obtained by the Russian daily on-line newspaper Kommersant concludes the U.S. television networks devoted more time to Republican candidate John McCain, but “the material that makes up that time difference can be assessed as negative.”

The Russian study also said Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential pick, has been subjected to more criticism than her Democratic counterpart, Senator Joe Biden.

It adds that when the presidential candidates’ platforms are described, Mr. Obama’s is described last, to make it look better, and when platforms are compared, “Obama’s is presented preferable.”

Edited October 25, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

You are spinning like a top and squealing like a stuck pig now mrgoogle.

Thanks so much for proving what I have been saying ALL ALONG was exactly true. Rather than rebute your latest diatribe line for line, lets just note a few things.

I was correct that the polls are oversampling dims to reps and by the range I stated.

I was correct about the historical dim/rep percentages in the last presidental race.

I was correct that even the Mc Cain camp was complaining about the weighing.

I did give the historical and empirical data as I said it did. That you missed it is your problem.

I was also correct with the data I posted for the Newsweak poll. In case you missed it the second part SHOWED the sample weighing, and shows WHY the "as of today" numbers were skewed. Where I failed was to assume that mrgoogle would understand. BIG mistake.

I was correct to point out that the oversampling has no basis in reason. You were unable to offer any evidence to the contrary yet you now claim this oversampling is "reasonable". Simply amazing, but to unexpectied seeing the hole you have dug for yourself.

And finally I was correct when I stated your "question" about who knows more about polling is STILL irrelevent.

You just can't win this one mrgoogle, quit while you are ahead.

[David G. Healy]

You are spinning like a top and squealing like a stuck pig now mrgoogle.

Thanks so much for proving what I have been saying ALL ALONG was exactly true. Rather than rebute your latest diatribe line for line, lets just note a few things.

I was correct that the polls are oversampling dims to reps and by the range I stated.

I was correct about the historical dim/rep percentages in the last presidental race.

I was correct that even the Mc Cain camp was complaining about the weighing.

I did give the historical and empirical data as I said it did. That you missed it is your problem.

I was also correct with the data I posted for the Newsweak poll. In case you missed it the second part SHOWED the sample weighing, and shows WHY the "as of today" numbers were skewed. Where I failed was to assume that mrgoogle would understand. BIG mistake.

I was correct to point out that the oversampling has no basis in reason. You were unable to offer any evidence to the contrary yet you now claim this oversampling is "reasonable". Simply amazing, but to unexpectied seeing the hole you have dug for yourself.

And finally I was correct when I stated your "question" about who knows more about polling is STILL irrelevent.

You just can't win this one mrgoogle, quit while you are ahead.

and the above has WHAT to do with Obama becoming the next President of the United States? Time for the GOP to retrench, or dissolve.

So, up to the moment, how do you spell 'double digit lead' nearly everywhere?

For the record: no, you don't sound like a *squealing stuck pig* but, I'll tell you who does: Rush Limpd*ck, Sean *pull'em up by their jocks* Hannity, Michael *gird your loins* Savage and Mark *what's it all about Alfie* Levin. Ya can hear their whining-chorus without an AM radio....

Edited October 25, 2008 by David G. Healy

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Q: Are the differences among polls this year that unusual?

A: Not wildly, but that doesn't make them less noticeable. There's a big difference between a race that's tied in the AP poll, and Pew's 14-point Obama lead. But because of each poll's margin of error, those differences may be a bit less - or more - than meet the eye.

That's because each poll's margin of sampling error should really be applied to the support for each candidate, not the gap between them.

Take the AP poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Obama's 44 percent support is likely between 48 percent and 40 percent. McCain's 43 percent is probably between 47 percent and 39 percent.

When support for candidates is measured in ranges like that, some polls' findings could overlap - or grow worse.

Q: Are people always willing to tell pollsters who they're supporting for president?

A: No, and that's another possible source of discrepancies. Some polling organizations gently prod people who initially say they're undecided for a presidential preference, others do it more vigorously. The AP's poll, for example, found 9 percent of likely voters were undecided, while the ABC-Post survey had 2 percent.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081023/D940ERMG0.html

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Craig,

Despite the polls, the majority of the media and public opinion (especially outside of the USA and including Russia) that Obama is near a 'lock' bar a catastrophe - you are unwilling to accept that and mock others who are merely stating the obvious.

I don’t know about your interpretations on 'critical thinking', but in Ireland we call your thinking 'Asal Logic'. It appears there are enough people on this forum pointing this out to you, so I personally will refrain from doing so again.

But every cloud has a silver lining, so take comfort in the fact that not only do you impress some of us with your resolve, but if by chance McCain does win, you were among the minority of people in the world (those countries following or aware in some degree of the US election) who predicted it. Who knows, maybe in four years time CNN will ask your permission to broadcast the 'Craig Lamson Poll of Polls' - Just a thought.

Steve

Edited October 25, 2008 by Steve Mcdonagh

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Hi Craig,

I don’t know about your interpretations on 'critical thinking', but in Ireland we call your thinking 'Asal Logic'.

Steve

Here I must defend Craig. "Asal" translates as "donkey", if I am not mistaken, whereas in the U.S. the donkey is the symbol of the Democratic party, and Craig is not a Democrat.

Craig is a proponent of Elephant logic, like the logic of the circus elephants who follow the lead elephant round in circles, to the great amusement of everyone.